Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible for me to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who spoke on Thursday night, in his flights of fancy and the roundabout ways he traversed before actually arriving at the Bill under discussion. In a theatrical manner the hon. member tried to creat the impression that he was speaking from conviction, but in the final result he only uttered generalities and proved that he, like most of his colleagues, had not studied the Bill and the clauses at all. The hon. member said that Clause 22 contained the kernel of the Bill and launched his attack mainly against that clause, as other of his colleagues also did. The hon. member alleged that in terms of this clause the Coloured voters who have the franchise at the moment will be deprived of it, that they will be disfranchised. But the Coloureds who have the vote will not be affected by this. Clause 32 contains no indication of any kind that the Coloured vote will be taken away, and nowhere else do I find any such indication. But the hon. member. and also some of his colleagues, criticized the Bill on the basis that the more developed Coloureds who had perhaps already served on a town council or city council would really feel insulted at having to serve on a consultative committee, or in other words, that a developed Coloured community would be insulted to have to begin at the first stage, the consultative committee. In that regard he was also assisted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who even said that the developed Coloureds would not be satisfied with political gains. These remarks and this criticism of hon. members proves to me that they have not studied the clause concerned. A non-White town need not necessarily start with a consultative committee. Allow me to read Clause 22, which contains the new Section 25bis. I refer here to sub-section (3), which reads as follows—

I emphasize these words, for the information of the Opposition, that a local authority of a type specified by the Minister may be established. The hon. the Minister will surely use his discretion as judiciously as possible. If he finds that a community is already developed, it is perhaps necessary to start on the basis of a management committee. Hon. members must realize that the establishment of consultative committees wherever necessary, and of management committees wherever necessary, is the definite essential prerequisite for the establishment of a local authority or of an organized local authority. In their dislike and suspicion of the Bill, it seems to have escaped hon. members of the Opposition that they are really pleading only for a small section of developed Coloured people in the shadows of Table Mountain. Their pleas are only for the thin layer of the cream of the Coloured population in so far as development is concerned. This small percentage is not even properly representative of the Peninsula, and the further one goes into the interior of the Cape Province and the Free State with its Coloured population of 25,565, the further one penetrates into Natal with its Coloured population of 43,093, and the further one goes into the Transvaal with its Coloured population of 105,217, the more undeveloped the Coloured population is on the whole. An Act is surely not passed to cater for the interests of a small percentage of people; it must cover the whole group. Do hon. members no realize that there are still tens of thousands of Coloureds in other parts of the Cape Province, and tens of thousands of Coloureds in the other three provinces? Every town and city in the Republic has its Coloured population, and most of them are an urban population. The percentage of the Coloured population in the Cape Province who are urban is 60 per cent, in Transvaal it is 89 per cent, in Natal 85 per cent, and in the Free State 55 per cent. Near Durban three areas have been proclaimed for Coloureds, and 40,000 Coloureds live in the Johannesburg magisterial area. Pretoria, e.g., has a Coloured population, according to the 1960 census, of 7,805. Why did hon. members wax so lyrical about the injustice which will be done to the Coloureds, particularly in the Cape Peninsula, and why did they not also make a plea for the Coloureds in the other provinces? Why did Opposition speakers from Natal and the Transvaal deliberately avoid speaking about the municipal franchise for Coloureds and Indians in those provinces? Why did we have only a vague and negative argument from the official Opposition, instead of a tangible, practical or positive recommendation in regard to voting rights for Coloureds and also Indians in the three northern provinces? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who now represents a Transvaal constituency, this hon. member who is the leader of a “strong” party, with “strong” in inverted commas, did not plead at all for the non-Whites in the Transvaal. He did not tell us what he would do to extend the franchise in terms of this legislation. No, together with the official Opposition he complained about the injustice done to the really small group of Coloureds in the Western Cape. Sir, in a debate like this the large whole must surely be covered if one is to be reasonable. In so far as I have knowledge of the Coloured and Indian community in the Transvaal—and I refer particularly to Pretoria—in the past there has not even been an organized vigilance committee or an organized ratepayers’ association, or any organization which would serve as the mouthpiece of these communities. Self-appointed leaders sometimes try to cater for the interests of those communities, but with selfish motives. I am convinced that firstly, in a newly established town, particularly in the northern provinces, such bodies must first be established before the first statutory body, namely a consultative committee, can be established. In fact, that is the pattern of development of any White community before a health committee or a town council—I am referring to the Transvaal now—is established. That is also the step taken in the newly established Indian township Laudium near Pretoria, viz. the establishment of a ratepayers’ association which acted as the mouthpiece of the Indians when negotiations had to be conducted with the City Council of Pretoria.

I want to refer in pasisng to the amendment of the Opposition, the vagueness, negativeness and hollowness of which have already been exposed by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). I just want to add that the hon. member obviously just made a plea for the maintenance of the status quo here in the Cape Province, which actually is nothing more than a gesture of token representation. The Opposition is actually pleading that this unsatisfactory situation should continue. And they were unable to offer any alternative or make any practical and constructive recommendations.

I should like to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). We know the policy of her party, and we know that it is progressively liberal. During this debate she stated her standpoint in regard to this matter as follows—

We, on this side of the House, of course, differ drastically and diametrically from the standpoint of her party, seeing that we believe in parallel development, but we at least admit frankly that she has a standpoint. Despite the events in Africa and the present developments in Northern Rhodesia, that party still remains blind. Also in its attitude towards this legislation this party is on the broad road, as I see it, the broad road leading down hill, not only for the Whites, but also for the moderate Coloured groups, which include the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, the people who realize that the policy of this party will lead to the domination of a Black proletariat under the leadership of some dictator or other, of which we already have various examples in Africa. No, I think this party should rather change its name from “Progressive Party” to “Precipice Party”, because it wants to lead South Africa over the precipice.

I should like to refer also to another accusation made by hon. members opposite, and here I refer to what was said by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), an hon. member to whom I like to listen, because he always tries to adopt an objective standpoint. But in this case I cannot agree that his standpoint was objective. He said this—

He repeatedly said—

Various other speakers joined him in this attack and used this argument against the Bill and the Minister. The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about “government by regulation”. This slogan in regard to dictatorial powers which a Minister and his officials are alleged to take was observed by me when I came here as a comparative stranger last year in connection with proposed legislation. The hon. member for Ceres has already proved conclusively that the hon. members’ fear is unfounded, seeing that the Administrator of the Province concerned will be consulted in everything. It is unnecessary in this regard to repeat the sub-sections concerned. The new Section 25bis repeatedly refers to the function of the Administrator in regard to investigation which has to be instituted as to the desirability of establishing a certain type of local government. The power of a Minister to make regulations is an old and firmly established practice, and if hon. members study the legislation of this Government and that of the United Party they will find several examples of ministerial powers which were even more far-reaching than those being granted here. Despite the fact that the Opposition is so concerned about these wide ministerial powers, it is also a fact that the task and the powers entrusted to the Minister here are quite different. There are so many bodies which have to be consulted that in practice it is really impossible for the Minister as such to act really autocratically.

An important aspect which the Opposition has evidently missed is that the Minister only takes powers—and he does so in consultation with the Administrator—for the establishment of the preparatory stages, i.e. the consultative and management committees. In other words, the Minister’s task and his powers are merely of an administrative and executive nature. The Minister definitely assumes no powers to make regulations or by-laws for local authorities. In this regard the local authority falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the province concerned, as is the ordinary practice in the case of White communities. I should like to point out, and it is important to do so, that the Group Areas Board, which handles the planning, and the Development Board, which deals with the development, although they are now organs of the Department of Community Development, still remain independent boards. The statutory independence in the exercise of discretion by these boards in matters in which they have to advise the Minister is not affected. The composition of the Development Board will also be more balanced, and persons who are experts in particular spheres will be appointed to it. In this regard I should also like to suggest to the Minister appointing a person who has experience and knowledge of the practical working of local authorities, particularly with a view to the establishment of such local authorities.

In regard to the allegation by various members of the Opposition that various of these clauses are unjust and will lead to hardship for the persons affected, because their properties are or will be affected, I want to prove the opposite. Clause 29 (h) briefly amounts to this: that properties which are affected merely because of occupation after the coming into operation of the Act, will not be dealt with as affected property if the owner within the prescribed period requests the Board in writing that it should not be dealt with as such. Apart from the fact that this measure will eliminate unnecessary, cumbersome administration, it will also eliminate possible dissatisfaction and litigation. I allege that this clause is particularly conciliatory. I want to refer also to Clause 39 (b). This clause empowers the Board, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to make ex gratia payments—donations, repayments—and also under certain circumstances to grant certain rebates. That this clause is particularly conciliatory and that it is in the public interest requires no further demonstration.

I also regard Clauses 47 (a) and 47 (b) as clauses which are conciliatory. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), if I remember correctly, said that these clauses would harm the affected people. I just want to say generally that the principle of reasonableness definitely applies in these clauses and all the other clauses, and that those principles are not affected. In Clause 49 (d), which deals with fruitless expenditure incurred by an owner on his affected property, and also in Clause 50, which refers to compensation for expropriation, I notice definite conciliations and also elements of protection. Those hon. members do not want to recognize this conciliation. Nor do they want to acknowledge the fact that, right throughout this legislation, the principle of fairness applies. In fact, they do not want to recognize the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are also clauses which make concessions to local authorities. I refer in this regard to Clause 42. This clause provides that where a local authority is given delegated powers by the Development Board, or formerly by the Group Areas Development Board, for specific areas, such area or areas may by proclamation be regarded for purposes of the exercise of these delegated powers as an integral portion of the jurisdiction of such local authority. Such an area can then also be developed more rapidly, because money from the general fund may be used for its development. The City of Pretoria will be grateful for this amendment and for this concession made in the Bill. Also the area of Eersterus, where a Coloured township is being built in Pretoria, will become an integral portion of the jurisdiction of Pretoria. That is a difficulty which the City Council of Pretoria experienced in the past. The City Council of Pretoria has already taken over the delegated powers of the Group Areas Development Board, and I just want to say in passing that it is the only city to have done so. There are in fact also two towns in the Transvaal which have taken over these powers, viz. Rustenburg and Ventersdorp. As the result of the taking over of delegated power, the building of those houses for the Coloureds is proceeding very fast in Pretoria. The City Council handles that machinery and we have the co-operation of well-disposed Coloureds. I want to say that agitators originally tried to influence the Coloureds to their detriment in respect of gradual removal, but those people have already realized that their residential areas are too small and unhygienic, and they wish to leave those slum areas.

It was very significant in this debate that few speakers, if any, made any mention of the fact that this Bill will also apply to Indians. This Bill contains no suggestion that it refers only to the development of Coloureds and Coloured areas. At Lenasia near Johannesburg there is a large project in progress in regard to the removal of Indians and the provision of housing. The Department of Community Development is itself handling this development and bearing responsibility but it is making use of the machinery of a sister department, the Department of Housing. In Pretoria, where the City Council took over these delegated powers, the development made very rapid progress. Approximately half the Indian population of 7,227, according to the 1960 census, have already been settled at Laudium. The greater majority of the Indian population are in needy circumstances. That is what we found in Pretoria, and I think that is the pattern right throughout the Republic; they are in need and they are tenants and they are being exploited by the well-to-do Indians who lease hovels to them at a high price. In Pretoria the position was that the rich Indians practically owned the poor Indians body and soul. Some of these capitalists and exploiters were agitators who with the assistance of White agitators and inciters bitterly opposed the removal of the Indians to more spacious and more hygienic residential areas. Just as the Opposition wants to maintain the status quo, so the rich Indian and the agitator also want to maintain the status quo for the sake of the economic and political gain they hope to derive from it. Is it not for these very people, or these groups, that the Opposition is actually pleading by opposing this legislation? The Indians in Pretoria. with the assistance of a few well-disposed leaders and a sympathetic City Council, have escaped from the stranglehold of the prosperous exploiters, and as fast as houses have become available in that new area they have occupied them. They are now living happily where they have been resettled, and they are no longer dependent on the slum bosses. They have already established a ratepayers’ association which acts as their spokesman. I want to mention that they themselves requested that every Indian should be given only one building site and one house, so that rich Indians would not again be able to harm them through speculation and exploitation. I also want to say that the agitator type of Indian has lost his hold on the Indian community of Pretoria, and I also take it that the Indian National Congress, which is definitely leftist, will no longer receive much support from the resettled Indians. As I have said, the Indian community in Laudium is very happy, and any person who doubts that can go and investigate for himself. I take it that is also the case in Lenasia.

In Durban there is also a housing scheme in progress comprising 20,000 houses. Durban has an Indian population of 231,385, according to the 1960 Census. I want to predict— and with that I wish to conclude—that to the extent that separate townships for Indians are established there and elsewhere, to the same extent will the influence of agitators and inciters and of the Indian National Congress diminish, and the Indian will appreciate the well-meant attempts of the Government and will also recognize in this Bill a means of obtaining a well-organized local government which will be able to serve those communities in a positive way, and will not be the instrument of exploiters and agitators.

This legislation which we are considering is the counterpart to the old Senate Act of unlamented and unpleasant memories. Whereas the old Senate Act was brought into being and designed to remove the parliamentary voters from the Common Roll, this Bill is designed to separate the municipal voters and to create separate rolls for Europeans and Coloureds. This is therefore a counterpart to the old Senate Act.

Sir, I hope you will permit me to deal with the allegations which were made against the City Council of Cape Town and also to prove that the underlying reason for the introduction of this Bill is nothing but fear of control of White municipalities by the Coloureds. That is the basic reason for the introduction of this legislation, and I say therefore that it is nothing but political hypocrisy for the Government to tell the people that the Government now offers them some Utopia, some municipal magna charta of municipal government.

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

I withdraw it. May I say “political deceitfulness”?

Order!

Very well, I will bow to your ruling, Sir. But I say that it is unfair to let the Coloured people believe that they are receiving something from this Government as a gesture of goodwill and that it is the intention to uplift them.

But that is so.

You are only sowing suspicion.

I say it is unfair to give them the impression that it is the Government’s intention to uplift them in municipal administration. The only reason for this legislation is fear of domination.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) who now says “nonsense” was the speaker who actually blew the Government’s case sky-high in this House. He should be complimented upon at least being honest and telling this House the reason for this legislation.

He let the cat out of the bag.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) in his unwise manner first started to let a small cat out of the bag but the hon. member for Moorreesburg let the whole tiger out of the bag; he gave us the whole history, and if there is any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the hon. members, particularly those from the north, what the basic reason is for this legislation, let me quote to them what a very good Nationalist and a very good Administrator, the late Dr. du Plessis, said about this question. Let me quote what a very good Nationalist, and I believe a good Administrator, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, said about this question. I quote from an article which appeared in the Cape Times on 12 May 1959, and I would like hon. members to listen very carefully, because this is confirmation of what I am saying—

He was addressing the annual congress of the Cape Provincial Municipal Association at Port Elizabeth, and this is what the late Dr. du Plessis said—

Please note “unless separate municipalities are established”. That is the reason for this legistion. Dr. du Plessis said—

There is another point I will deal with later, namely where Dr. du Plessis perpetuates an untruth about the City Council of Cape Town—

Completely untrue of course.

But you were there yourself and you know that it is true.

I will prove that it is completely untrue, and I hope the hon. the Minister will then accept that it is an untruth. But Dr. du Plessis continued—

I don’t believe that to be so at all. We know of no case of that kind—

Tell us the story about Rondebosch and Athlone?

Dr. du Plessis continued—

If there is still any doubt about the reason for this legislation let us listen to what he said further—

In other words, here is confirmation that we cannot allow (according to the Nationalist Party) the Coloured people to remain on the same roll with the Whites in the municipalities as it is to-day, because they will gain control of these councils. Therefore we must separate them. I say that is the basic reason.

I would like to deal with this question, because it has been stated by the hon. members for Malmesbury, Moorreesburg and Parow and others, and it has been said throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and it has infiltrated into every Nationalist constituency throughout South Africa to the detriment of the Municipality of Cape Town that the City Council of Cape Town changed the tenancy of their tenants from a monthly to a weekly basis, in order to disqualify them.

Is that not true?

They did so right from the start.

It is completely untrue and, Sir, I want you to give me the opportunity of once and for all, in fairness to the City of Cape Town, to nail this untruth. Mr. Speaker, about 40 years ago, the first housing scheme was started in Cape Town. Many have been completed since, and many of the tenants paid rent by the week. They always had the franchise. Those who paid rent by the week always had the municipal franchise, and I want to ask these clever young gentlemen and the hon. the Minister to tell us the reason why they lost their vote. I challenge anybody here to give me the reason why they lost their vote. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, when these people who paid by the week lost their vote. and under what circumstances? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows. These people lost their franchise as a result of a judgment of the Supreme Court.

So what?

The allegation was that we disfranchised these people by changing the rental from a monthly basis to a weekly basis and that in that way we as the City Council of Cape Town deprived them of their franchise. But that is not correct. They had the franchise while they paid by the week.

You people first changed the ordinance.

I am reading now from a memorandum in the case of Kramer v. The Revision Court of Port Elizabeth (1945 C.T.D.). The memorandum says here—

The City Council of Cape Town at no time disfranchised its voters. They had nothing to do with it. It was a court judgment. But this untruth is spread that we deliberately disgranchised the Coloured people by changing the basis of their tenancy. Far from the City Council of Cape Town wanting these people to lose their vote, they immediately took steps to try and have them restored to the roll.

Tell us who changed the ordinance?

A sub-committee was then appointed of the Housing Committee of the City Council of Cape Town …

How many members of the City Council of Cape Town were provincial councillors in 1951?

I will deal with the hon. member very effectively just now. A sub-committee of the Housing Committee had been appointed to report upon the proposal. Hon. members who really want to know the true position and who have been misled up to now by these untruths, must listen to this—

In 1946, immediately after that judgment I have referred to, the City Council of Cape Town’s Housing Committee took steps to try and get them back on the roll and to get their votes restored by trying to comply with the ordinance and making them monthly tenants. Then they referred the matter to the Finance Committee who at least had the decency to refer the whole question to the Cape Municipal Congress, and this was the resolution adopted by the City Council of Cape Town—

In other words, we as the City Council of Cape Town took immediate steps to try and have the status quo restored, the status quo which existed prior to that decision in the Supreme Court. They referred it to the Congress of the Cape Provincial Municipal Association and there the motion was rejected. The Cape Municipal Congress rejected the motion. And, if I remember correctly, in 1946 the majority of delegates to that congress were already Nationalists. All attempts by the City Council of Cape Town to rectify the position created, as a result of that judgment, were frustrated by the Cape Municipal Congress. The City Council of Cape Town left no stone unturned. They went to the Administrator, and the Administrator then gave them certain advice.

A Sap.

That does not matter, the facts speak for themselves. They went year after year, as far as I know, but in 1947 the matter was again brought up at the congress. They did not leave the question alone for one moment. They wanted to have these people restored to the roll, and in 1947, two years after the judgment, they again went to the congress, and this is the memorandum—

The majority of the delegates, being Nationalists, rejected the motion.

What right have you to say that the majority were Nationalists? You are making wild statements.

Listen to this—

That was what was decided.

Just tell me, who had the majority in the Provincial Council at that time?

As far as I know, the United Party.

And you were there?

Yes, the United Party had the right to alter it, and the City Council wept through the recognized channel, the Cape Congress.

What power have they got?

You could have changed it in the Provincial Council?

Sir, the City Council of Cape Town left no stone unturned to try and have the status quo restored. And I say now that hon. members who henceforth say that the City Council of Cape Town deliberately changed the tenancy from monthly to weekly in order to disfranchise these people, are telling the greatest lie ever told.

It is quite true that the question can be asked why the United Party, who were in power in the Provincial Council, did not change the ordinance. But why did not the Nationalists since 1954 change the ordinance, because since 1954 they have been in power in the Provincial Council? In 1954, instead of trying to change the ordinance, the Nationalists did not change the ordinance as they should have. No, what they did was this: They started by every political trick, every political chicanery they could think of, to get rid of the Coloured voters from the Common Roll. They did not want to restore the vote, although they had the power. What they did was, they deliberately tried to disfranchise every Coloured person, every Coloured man and every Coloured woman, and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), whom I tell publicly that he is regarded by the Coloured people as their arch enemy in the Cape Province, came forward with a motion to disfranchise the majority of the Coloured people by moving—

The effect of this would be that instead of restoring the status quo, as the City Council of Cape Town desired to do, to further disfranchise all the Coloured women on the roll and 80 per cent …

May I ask the hon. member a question? He tells us what the members of the Nationalist Party did in the Provincial Council when they were in the majority. Will the hon. member please tell us what the United Party did in 1946 when they were in the majority and when the hon. member himself was a member of the Provincial Council? What did they do to put the Coloured man back on the roll?

The United Party, correctly in my view, were guided to a great extent by the decision of the congress of the Municipal Association. (Laughter.) I will prove to the hon. the Minister, who now laughs, that every Nationalist Administrator since 1954 when the Nationalist Party came into power in the Provincial Council, was guided by the decisions of the Cape Municipal Congress in all matters of importance. Hon. members need not laugh, that was the procedure. But this hon. member who now talks about the Coloured people brought in this motion which had the effect of disfranchising every Coloured woman who was on the municipal roll, and 80 per cent of the Coloured males. The then Administrator, the late Mr. Olivier, actually brought in an ordinance to give effect to this and the ordinance was put forward in 1956, two years later, but the hon. the Administrator found it impossible to make that ordinance workable and so he withdrew it, and that is what is going to happen to this Bill because it is completely unworkable, it is not wanted. I want to ask hon. members who are impartial in regard to this question to say whether they now accept the position as I have indicated it.

You have so spoiled your own case that nobody can accept it.

The hon. the Minister is so tied up with his own importance in regard to this Bill, he is so completely devoid of any other way of thinking than that he must get this Bill through, that as a matter of fact I heard a rumour that the hon. Minister will get the first decoration since the establishment of the Republic for piloting this Bill.

You certainly will get the first decoration for talking nonsense!

The hon. member will get a V.C. Of course nothing so English as the Victoria Cross. He will get the Verwoerd Citation for piloting this Bill through. No one has earned for himself the complete lack of confidence than this hon. Minister as far as the Coloured people are concerned. They never believed that this Minister, a Cape Minister, would be a party to disfranchising the Coloured people and depriving them of the municipal franchise by this type of legislation. I do not want to talk about the Group Areas Act.

No, that is not under discussion.

No, Sir, we are dealing with the amendment of the Act. I want to say as a representative of the Coloured people, that we reject for the reasons which I have given, and because we know the basis upon which this legislation has been framed and introduced, namely, not to give the Coloured people any further rights in their own areas, not to give them municipalities where they can rule over themselves, but to give them lesser rights in the municipalities in which they live. Mr. Speaker, this whole legislation which deals with franchise is unworkable. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in mind that Coloured people will in future not be able to vote for divisional councils, because the divisional councils in the Cape are elected on the municipal rolls? Will he allow Coloured people to vote for divisional councils? And what about the school boards? Today’s school boards are elected on the basis of municipal rolls. I want the hon. the Minister not to funk this question: Is he going to lay down that no Coloured man shall serve on a school board?

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

Sir, with respect, that forms part of this Bill. It envisages special Coloured municipalities, and if the municipal rolls in those Coloured areas will not be available to vote for school boards, the hon. the Minister must say so. To-day, we have very excellent Coloured men serving on the Cape School Board and they are elected by the free vote in all the municipal areas. Is the hon. the Minister going to tell the Coloured people that they cannot serve on school boards and they will not be able to vote for school boards?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I finally want to deal with this Section 25bis, under Clause 22. In that section the hon. the Minister is creating a dictatorship. The hon. the Minister is sweeping aside all known rules in regard to municipal administration. For the first time in the history of South Africa, the Administrator will be subject to the dictates of the Minister, and from what we see now, rather a little perky and cheeky Minister.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

I withdraw that Mr. Speaker. This clause says—

Then he, one man, can decide. We are asked to pass a law giving one man the right to say that there shall be a local authority or there shall not be a local authority, and further that it shall be of the type that he says it must be. It does not matter what anybody else says. He will specify the type, and (listen to this)—

How can any government expect any House of Parliament to pass a law giving one man the complete authority to establish a local authority or municipality on his own initiative and upon his own terms and in the way he wants it done? It cuts across all known concepts of municipal administration.

Then there is the question of the money which the City Council of Cape Town has spent in those areas. Is the hon. the Minister going to refund to the City of Cape Town all the money it has spent in the area of Athlone, for instance? Is he going to tell the City of Cape Town: “I am cutting Athlone off from your municipality. I shall create my own municipality”? In that case is the Minister going to refund to the Cape Town Municipality all the money it has spend on roads, water, electricity and other facilities? Is the City Council of Cape Town to lose all that money? We have no evidence that there will be any financial relations between the area cut off and the mother municipality. The Minister should tell us; the City Council would like to know whether they are going to get a refund of the money they have spent. It may be millions of rand. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance realizes the financial implications which can flow from this Bill. I think, Sir, that we need far more information. I think the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) will deal with the other matters and I will merely say to the Minister in conclusion that he must not be surprised, nor must any member of this House be surprised, to hear that we reject this Bill. We reject it because it is a diminution of rights. It is a severence of the Common Roll. We say there is no justification for it. We say that it won’t work. There has been excellent co-operation on the City Council of Cape Town between the Coloureds and the Whites, so much so that for 12 long years the Chairman of the Pensions Fund of the City Council has been a Coloured man. Coloured Councillors have served as chairmen of the Market Committee and of the Health Committee with distinction. There are fine people who have learned municipal administration in the City Council of Cape Town. I want to pay tribute to the manner in which the Cape Coloured people have co-operated and worked with the Europeans in the City Council of Cape Town for the benefit of the City of Cape Town and for the advancement of the City of Cape Town. I reject this Bill.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) was for so long a member of the City Council of Cape Town, from what I can infer from his speech, and he has regaled this House at such length with the merits or demerits of the City Council of Cape Town that I will now by-pass it and deal with it later.

Now, if one thing has become clear to me in this debate it is the conflicting standpoints adopted by the parties on both sides of the House. From it has crystallized the actual trend of thought of hon. members opposite, and also the significance of the Bill before the House. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having succeeded in bringing a Bill before this House which has such a wide scope and which in practice will point to a new direction.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having succeeded in disposing of such a great task in such a small time. I also want to congratulate him on having laid down in this Bill, within the framework of our Government policy, the principle which offers the Coloureds the opportunity for developing towards local government and the opportunity of gaining experience of organization, so that he can develop in the sphere of administration, which will be the initial stage of the later development for which he will later be responsible within the limits of our policy, a policy which has already been set in operation by the hon. the Prime Minister in the form of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs and with its proposed development into a Coloured Cabinet. In the same way the White man started in 1836 with municipal councils and eventually ended as members of a Cabinet, namely those who were fortunate enough to reach that stage because they had the talents —and I say that in the same way this Bill is now providing that the Coloured can follow the same road as the Whites did. It is not a case of being afraid of the Coloureds. This Bill falls within the pattern of the policy of this Government. This Bill brings the opportunity and the encouragement to Coloureds who aspire to become leaders. Now one knows that amongst the broad masses it is not everyone who is interested in the government of the country, or in the organizational side of the community. That applies to the Whites and to any race in the world. There are only a few who have such interests, and this Bill not only offers the opportunity but also serves as a stimulus to the talents of leadership which are lying dormant in our Coloured community. It is a Bill which opens the way to the Coloured masses, and I am of course speaking relatively. In the past this opportunity was offered only to the chosen few. The hon. member for Boland had much to say about the City Council of Cape Town, and there we have an example. For how long have the Coloured voters been qualified and been in the position to be put on the voters’ roll, and what was the position this year still? What is the percentage of Coloureds who got so far, not even to mention the percentage of Coloureds who are on the municipal voters’ roll—it is only a small number compared with the mass of the Coloureds.

This Bill deals with various aspects of the stages of development of the Coloured, just as there were stages in the development of the White man. It will be put into operation to assist the Coloured and to bring him into touch with local government, and give him the opportunity to attain his ambitions on his own level under the guidance of the White people —I repeat, with the guidance of the White people, by consultation with the Whites and with people in his own community. I shall come back to this in a moment in regard to Clause 3. We have a practical example in Clause 3 where the activities of the Department of Community Development are described. Under the previous law these same functions were fulfilled by the development boards—the Coloured Group Areas Board. This task is now being taken over by regional officers of the Department of Community Development. And in this long process of selection, of determining the borders of areas which must be zoned in group areas, there is quite a lot of administrative work, and in this long process of sifting the Coloured receives the opportunity to prove that he has talents, and to come to the fore. That is so. it was so in the past and it will be so under this Bill. We cannot get away from that. All this administrative work is now being given to the Coloureds so that they can develop gradually and the man who has qualities of leadership will come to the fore in this way. Who are the people who will come to the fore? They will be the people coming from the Coloured schools and the Coloured churches, who have had enough education to he able to show what they are capable of in the organizational field, as well as in the management of their own affairs. It was so in the past, that when we pushed the Coloured to one side he achieved most. We had it in our education system, which to-day is in the hands of the Coloureds. At first only a few of them were principals of schools but to-day we find that in almost all the big schools Coloureds are at the head. In their spiritual life we had the same thing. We still do not have enough Coloured clergymen because they could not be trained. Where we segregated the Coloured, he showed what he was capable of. Compare that with instances where he had to work together with the White man as, e.g., in the municipal councils. What is the position there? Now we are doing the same under this Bill; we are pushing the Coloured to one side and giving him an opportunity for training by commencing with the local authorities. We give him the opportunity to develop and to be trained on this long road and eventually to have the prospect of becoming a member of the Cabinet.

In the course of the arguments here it has often been said that the Coloureds are frustrated. The hon. member for Boland also spoke about frustration. When one now comes with a Bill like this to give it to people and you offer a person an opportunity to participate in the organization of his own area, as will be the case here, and he is given the opportunity to show what he is capable of, then one is surely granting an opportunity to such a person to express himself so that he need no longer feel frustrated. In this long process we are creating an opportunity for the Coloured to be able to work. Hon. members opposite had much to say about opportunities for work for the Coloureds last year. The hon. member who mentioned it particularly is not here now and I leave it there. But in this development of the separate communities posts must be created; there must be post offices and police stations and if there are people who qualify for it they will be appointed in their own areas to work amongst their own people. That surely provides employment. This is a Bill which appeals to the self-activity of the human being. That is one of the basic principles of the education system. Here the Coloured receives the opportunity to serve, to get rid of his inferiority complex. We as Whites know that a small child, if he has achieved something by himself, feels very proud and it stimulates him to do greater things. It creates self-confidence. That is precisely what this Bill does in the case of the Coloured. It gives him an opportunity to develop his creative powers for his own benefit, for the benefit of the community he serves and of the country in general. Surely it is not the task of the White man in South Africa to carry these people with us for ever? Surely they must learn to help to carry the burden, or else what was our function towards these people in the past? If we have to drag them with us for ever, and if they cannot develop and grow, and if they cannot become independent enough to bear the burdens the White man has always borne for them, then we have not trained them properly.

Great emphasis was laid here on the dictatorial powers the Minister is alleged to be given, but I just want to show that the powers the Minister has are not so dictgatorial. Section 25 and Section 25bis indicate the continued close co-operation between the Provincial Administrations and the Central Government, between the Minister and the Administrator, each with his own respective staff. There will be consultations on every detail and it will be very unfortunate if ill-feeling should arise between the Department with the Minister at its head and the Provincial Administration under the Administrator. Then the position will become untenable, because success depends on cooperation between the two. And that is provided for in Clauses 25 and 25bis.

But now I want to come to the so-called dictatorial powers the Minister is alleged to be given. What are those powers really? It is the appointment of certain people to certain posts. But is it not the case that in the present school boards people are nominated by the Administrator? Is it not a fact that in the Divisional Councils there is still someone who is nominated? Is it not the case that in connection with hospital boards the same principle applies? Does not the secretary have various powers in our State Departments? It appears in our legislation almost ad nauseam. [Interjections.] Hon. members do not think of that, that one may even be prohibited from drinking water, but they surely have never needed water. But this principle is embodied in various Acts of the White people; it runs throughout the local authorities for more than a century. I want to appeal to the Minister to retain that example in the case of the Coloureds. Even though they attain independence, there must always be representatives nominated by the Minister or the Government. It is the same principle which is embodied in the local governments of the Whites. These are supposed to be the tremendously dictatorial powers given to the Minister!

But, Sir, I want to deal with a few of the remarks made in the course of the debate. It is unfortunate that I have to refer to it because I do not like doing so. But in such an important body as this one cannot allow such things to pass unnoticed. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said here, “They will lose their self-respect”. That is a very serious accusation. What is the norm by which the hon. member measures self-respect? Is it the same state of affairs that we had in the City Council of Cape Town? Was that clothed with so much respect that people who for decades had had the franchise constituted such a low percentage of the voters on the voters’ roll, and that an ordinance was violated to such an extent that one did not want to have anything to do with it? Is that the norm by which the hon. member measures self-respect? This is a Bill which does nothing else but give the Coloured the opportunity to grow and to develop along with the White man, and how can the hon. member describe it as so inferior that the Coloured will lose his self-respect if he takes part in it? It is suggesting to the Coloured that he should be afraid of participating in the application of this Bill. The hon. member also spoke about frustration. I have already dealt with that.

Then the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) complained terribly and carried on and, as we say, he called on rag-tag and bobtail to witness that the Minister did not mean what he said, that he was deceiving the people. He said the Coloureds do not want this Bill and will not accept it. I almost asked where the hon. member got the right to say that, because that same member on 18 January 1961, in Col. 7759 of Hansard, said: “Every time somebody approaches a matter practically he is called an agitator in this House.” Where can one find a Bill which is more practical than this one, and one better designed to serve the object with which it was introduced? I would have expected the hon. member—I am sorry he is not here now—to have welcomed this Bill and to have defended it, but he complains. But it is not difficult to follow the hon. member in his contortions. I have here a report dated 1953, when he still belonged to the United Party, which shows that at a meeting in Parow, together with Mr. Mushet, he behaved very peculiarly. He was asked about these very voting qualifications—this matter in regard to which he complains so much to-day and which is so much abused in the municipal system. When the people questioned him he said—

That is now a thing of the past and he need no longer object to it. The United Party then published a pamphlet in its propaganda campaign, on which appeared the words—

What was the hon. member’s remark to the Coloureds about that? He said: “Guarantee a White South Africa”, how foolish, mean and unfortunate. The position is that the hon. member is opposed to any guarantee of a White South Africa. That is the underlying reason. I want to read what a White person said in this regard, and then I want to ask hon. members opposite what their alternative is. They got up one after another without giving an alternative. Must we close all the Coloured schools; must we close all the Coloured churches? Why do the English-speaking people not allow Coloureds in their schools? The private schools have the opportunity, but why do they not do it? But every measure introduced by this Government to train these people is regarded as subversive and oppressive. I want to suggest the alternative to those hon. members. When in all the years during which they were in power they had the opportunity to lay down the principles of this Bill, they did not do so. It was left to this Government to give the Coloureds all the facilities. Those hon. members complain because a thing is not there, and as soon as the Government provides for it, they attack it. They create a problem and then they attack it.

But last year a significant request came from the hon. members opposite. It is recorded in Hansard, Col. 6715, that it emanated from an hon. member of the Progressive Party. He said—

And then later—

This is precisely what this Bill does. It complies with their request, but nevertheless they are not satisfied. Hon. members must therefore understand that one does not always know where one is with the arguments emanating from that side of the House. With the pattern being followed in Central Africa, with the note being heard there, not from Afrikaans-speaking people but as experienced by English-speaking people, I want to quote here from an article in the Cape Argus—

Now I ask those hon. members: What is your share in this picture painted by an English-speaking person from Rhodesia? What do they want as compared with what is happening in Central Africa to-day? Surely the road is no longer obscure; surely the choice is easy. We can see how matters are developing. I am very serious, Sir, when I say that the road must be just as clear to hon. members opposite as it is to me. Now we ask: Has it not become time for the hon. members opposite to stop talking at cross purposes; must they not stop it when the writing is already on the wall? They are surely South Africans just as much as I am. They should also share in the constructive thinking and building which we are doing on this side of the House. We expect hon. members opposite not to shirk their share. Whether they talk, or whether they criticize, the course has been chosen, and we shall continue, as the poet says—

I want to appeal to hon. members that in these times in which we live they will not say bend and burst in connection with legislation, but say bend and modify. We are modifying, and when we get to the Committee Stage they can help modifying and make a positive contribution for the sake of our happy co-existence in this country. As the poet expresses it—

It has become obvious from this debate that the hon. the Minister is using his junior team. He introduced the Bill himself and he was immediately followed by three party, or ex-party, organizers. Since then we have not had one of the old guard of the Government party coming into this debate. I have turned over in my mind why this should have happened. I think there are two very definite reasons for it, Sir. I think the first reason is that this Bill was thrown upon his own people in the same manner in which it was thrown upon us. with little or no time to consider a measure of such importance. I believe that his own people have been in the same difficulty that we have been in, in considering it. It is a very complicated measure, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has already said. It is not easy, Sir, to come along and study a Bill of this nature in less than seven days when the Minister himself has had some seven months in which to consider it. I think that legislation of this nature should be before us for a longer period of time before it comes up for discussion in this House. But I think there is another reason why some of the old guard have not come into the debate. I think the reason is that the very nature of this Bill is an affront to the democratic principles to which they and we are accustomed. They have definitely refrained from coming in, Sir. [Laughter.] The Government side might well laugh at this, but the fact remains that we have not had one of the older members of that party take part in this debate. I am very pleased to see that because …

You are not the last one to speak.

I do not think that enters into it; this debate has already been going on for a long time. Surely to goodness some of the more senior members of that party would have come into this debate had they been interested. It is very gratifying to see that they still have ingrained in them some of the feelings for democracy which their forefathers taught them. I take that as a very good sign for the future, but I think it is shocking that this particular debate should be conducted entirely by what I call the Minister’s junior team.

I am not going to comment on those speakers who have spoken before me one by one, excepting for one. I want to come to him in particular, and I am very sorry that the hon. member is not here at the moment. I refer to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). Because, apart from party organizers, he was the only member outside that particular sphere who came into this debate as one of the first five speakers from the Government side. It was rather interesting to notice that he had to resort to quite a fantastic misquotation to try to make a point. His point was this, that in 1950 the hon. member for South Coast, amongst others, actually supported the Group Areas Act. He quoted from Hansard to prove his case. But of course he misquoted very badly and when he was challenged by the hon. member for South Coast, to read the following line, he made all sorts of excuses and wriggled out of doing so. I am going to read that line and then I am going to give you the set-up. I think the House owes this to the hon. member for South Coast, just to clear up the position. The debate from which he quoted was a debate which took place in 1950 on the Group Areas Bill when the present Minister of Finance was Minister of the Interior. The member for South Coast was referring to a Commission of which he was the chairman which was appointed to go into this very subject in so far as Natal was concerned. Let me quote his words—

The words in the last sentence are the words which the hon. member for Ceres particularly left out, and I am very surprised that a member of his standing and his training as a lawyer should have resorted to this kind of trick to try to make a point. I think it is a very poor show that in a debate of this nature such methods have to be resorted to to try to make a point in favour of the introduction of this Bill.

I have tried to make a study of the Bill, to try to see exactly what it will do and what it is all about. I do not intend to touch on the question of franchise in regard to the Coloureds, because I think that has been reasonably dealt with and it will be dealt with again in the Committee Stage. I have tried to follow in my thoughts what will come as the result of the Minister having these powers granted to him and imposing them on existing local authorities, because I think basically that is the mechanical problem with which we are faced at the moment. In thinking this over, I have tried to take it point by point and I would like to put some of those points to you, Sir, as they occur to me.

The first thing is that by the introduction of this Bill it becomes obvious that the door has been closed to discussions of any alternative methods of bringing about what the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve now; in other words, he, in consultation with the Government, has decided this will be the method by which the Indians and the Coloureds will be handled in our community, and for good or for evil that is the method to be applied. In the first place I think that is a very bad point at which to start. Then I would like to come to how this whole thing started. I cannot get it quite clear in my mind, because in 1960 the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement to the Coloured people in which he said that the Coloured urban areas must be developed as soon as possible “by a positive housing programme” and must be converted into self-sufficient committees under their own local government, controlled exclusively and elected by Coloured persons. I think that is the basis on which this whole thing started, with that statement by the Prime Minister. This particular statement, made in December 1960, does not envisage, as I see it, any transitional period. In other words, the statement is one of haste in which the Prime Minister obviously envisaged, at the time, setting up local authorities, and having done with the whole matter. But here we have this Bill that is before us now, and the Minister’s approach seems to be quite different. He seems to want to tackle this problem in stages. For example, he envisages a period of development and transition and the creation of advisory boards as an instrument by which autonomy will be reached in the initial stages, and eventually management committees, and later on local authorities. In other words, what the Prime Minister originally held out to the Coloured people is not being implemented in this Bill. I think the reason for that is this, that the Prime Minister spoke of his ideological views without first considering whether the method was practical or not. I think that is borne out by the statement he made a year later, in December 1961, after the Departmental Committee had sat on this matter and had, I suppose, to some extent consulted with certain local authorities, if you can call it consultation. In this statement the Prime Minister was quite blunt in what he said. He said—

In other words, a year after his original statement the Prime Minister more or less accepted that fate had decreed that you cannot bring these things to bear in five minutes, but he was still impatient and could not see why they should not be established within a year. So I think in their efforts to get something done, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement, the Departmental Committee and the Minister have had to look for a method to implement it. I think that is where they went wrong to start with, because it appears to me, on studying this Bill, that they have tried to adapt largely the precedent of the urban Bantu Councils set up, to be adapted for the Coloureds and the Indians. I think. Sir, that if you follow this through you will see that is largely the case. I want to go into it to see what snags we will run into, and what the possibilities are of setting these bodies up in the proper manner.

First of all, the mere creation of advisory boards as a means of progress towards autonomy, as far as this is attainable—I do not know how far it will be—and the idea to delegate increasing powers to these advisory boards in time, and entrusting to them the functions of being the elected representative of the people and to delegate to them plenary powers as time goes by, and as they become more able to discharge these duties. Eventually the Minister considers, obviously, that this will lead these people to a stage where they can become an independent local authority. Let us have a look first at some of the dangers of advisory boards. First of all, advisory boards have proved, as we have seen them in this country, to provide first of all, platforms for agitators and discontented people. I think the Minister will accept that. I believe he will accept that this is inevitable when bodies with official status but little authority and responsibility are set up. Then you get the snag that they refuse to support unpopular measures that are brought before them, such as increasing taxation. Why should they support these unpopular measures when they themselves do not have to raise the taxation? Then there is no curb on their criticism of the higher body in which the real authority is vested, the local authority. There is no way of limiting their criticism because they have none of the responsibilities. I think, fourthly, the progress towards autonomy will never be fast enough, at whatever pace the Minister likes to set. I have already indicated that I think these bodies are based on the precedent of the Urban Bantu Council and I would suggest at this stage that there is doubt whether this is a good precedent, or whether the urban Bantu councils themselves establish a valid precedent for establishing similar bodies for either the Coloureds or the Indians. I would like to put to the Minister a few points I have thought out in regard to this matter.

The first is that an elected body entrusted with the conduct of public affairs and the spending of public money should first of all be made responsible for raising that money. I think that is one of the first essentials the Minister will have to face. If this is not done, as happens with an advisory board which does not raise the money, it is too easy to make extravagant proposals to woo popular favour. You run no attendant risks. I think that is another aspect the Minister will have to face. This is an inherent risk in the gradual approach to autonomy and the increasing delegation of plenary powers, especially when the cost is borne by the parent local authority, and I think the Minister will have to keep this in mind, too. I believe that this risk is inherently greater if the people do not approve of the system you are applying, as I think is the case here.

I would also like to remind the Minister that in the case of the urban Bantu councils the funds—and I say this particularly because I believe they have used the urban Bantu councils as the basis for this set-up—are derived from the Native Revenue Account and not from a common rate fund. I think if we begin at that point we can show the Minister that he is in for a lot of headaches and he will traverse a very rough and thorny path in establishing these advisory boards, etc. It is impossible to create a similar position for either the Coloureds or the Indians. In other words, all the funds necessary for the development of their urban areas will have to come from the rate fund which they provide, unless the Minister has some other source from which he hopes to provide it, and I do not know what it can be, because they are the people who will have to provide their own rate fund. There are always economic difficulties in the way of creating self-sufficient, autonomous urban authorities. The Indian and Coloured groups will not have highly rated properties. They will not have a large proportion of commercial and industrial undertakings situated in their areas, and it has been proved time and time again that the larger part of the rate income of a local authority comes from exactly this type of property and building. Without those, these people will have quite a job in raising rates on a sufficient scale to finance the undertakings which they will have to finance. This suggestion I have made is confirmed by the Prime Minister’s proposal that these areas are to be developed by a “housing programme”. I think it is very important in considering these matters, to realize that these areas for the Coloureds and the Indians will not be created necessarily by the excision of a large part of an existing industrial area or commercial area. They will be developed anew, according to the Prime Minister, by a “housing programme”. That rather confirms what I have said, that the properties to be rated will be of comparatively low value. I think it will also be accepted that the Coloureds and Indians for a long time, anyway, cannot hope to achieve the economic development of which the White people are capable. In other words, these people are going to find it very difficult to finance their own development in separate areas, and that will be one of the most difficult problems the Minister will have to face in carrying out this scheme. Let me give just one or two figures to illustrate what I am trying to get at. I take Durban as an example, and the latest figures I have been able to get. I cannot tell the Minister what year they are for, but I can assure him they are the latest figures. I am referring to the per capita income of the various groups. The average per capita income for Whites in Durban is R562. That is seven times that of the average per capita income for the Indian group, which is R80 per annum, and it is 4½ times that of the Coloured, which is R128. I believe that these figures will be reflected in the value of their properties and also in the rate income from those properties. After all, it is obvious that they can only afford to pay for a house which is within the means of this income, and they can only pay rates in proportion to this income. For instance, if an Indian with an average income of R80 has to pay R20 a year in rates on a property, that means he has R60 a year left on which to live and keep his family. I leave it to the Minister to work that one out for himself. The same applies to the Coloured group. On the basis that the Indian and Coloured areas are to be developed by means of a positive housing programme, as was indicated, and assuming that this will be an economic basis and not sub-economic—because I do not believe the Minister can embark upon a huge sub-economic housing scheme for these people —valuations and rate yield will be much lower than the average norm existing in local authorities as they are to-day. In other words, your over-all average income from rates must be very much lower than it is in a city like Cape Town or Durban where the population groups are mixed. I think the Minister must accept this, because it seems obvious to me. And if they are going to be self-sufficient in their own areas, it follows, too, that their rates will have to be substantially higher than in White communities. The fact that they will have to meet the capital burden of developing the areas means that they will have to meet it from the lower average valuation of the properties, and this in turn leads to higher rates. I think also that the Minister must realize that these areas will be developed by the local authority, not on the basis of their end point, but on the basis of what these people can afford to pay by way of rates, taken according to the existing rates in the parent local authority. That of course will have an effect at the end, which will increase considerably the amount that these people will have to pay. If the Minister is not careful, he will end up with a number of townships or local authorities for Indian and Coloured people which will have been developed by an existing local authority, and irrespective of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who throws his hands in the air and tells us that this place has a rateable value of R1,500,000 and that has a rateable value of R2,250,000, and another one R10,000,000 that does not mean a thing incapable of existing economically. You have to get down to the basis of the working of a local authority. Unless you get down to the basis of the rates that are necessary to develop an area and the ability of the people to pay, I can assure the Minister now that he is in trouble with this scheme before he starts, because these people cannot afford to pay, at to-day’s costs, for the development of the services required. They cannot afford to meet the rates on their existing incomes. I have given the incomes in Durban, and obviously the position in the rest of the country will be fairly near that. With those incomes these people cannot afford to pay the rates not only to develop the new areas—I know in some cases parts of the area already exist, but they have to be developed and enlarged to accommodate all the people the Minister is going to put there. These people will have to pay not only the capital cost of developing the area and the services required, but they will also have to pay the rates to maintain it. In addition, there are interest charges which are considerable on the capital required to develop these areas. Let the Minister add all that up and see what kind of picture he finds. He will get more and more astounded as he goes into it. I have only just scratched the surface. I do not pretend to have gone into it thoroughly. If I had, I could give him a much more gruesome picture than I am giving now. But from what I see on the surface, having been connected with the administration of local authority, it is bad enough, and as the Minister goes into it more and more I think he will find more and more snags. It is for the very reasons I am advancing here, I think, that the Prime Minister has had to adapt his statement to meet the case presented by the Departmental Committee, because I am sure that the Departmental Committee of officials, who have to deal with the practical aspects of these things, must have found a lot of the snags that I have told the Minister about now. They must have found quite a number, to make the Prime Minister modify his original statement of 1960.

But of course that is not all. How is the Minister going to cope with this? He has only one way of doing it, as I see it. I may be wrong, but I believe that he will seek his answer through lower standards. And then I think he will be in more trouble still, because first of all in these schemes the Housing Board, over which he is also the Minister, lays down the standards for the accommodation for these people and if the Minister is going to try to trim those standards to meet the economic level under the self-sufficiency that is demanded of these people, he will be in trouble. If he does that, of course the difference at the end point between White local authorities and the Coloured and Indian areas will be so marked and there will be such a difference in the quality and type of the facilities and everything else, that the Minister will create another problem, namely, that the inhabitants of those areas will complain of discrimination, and he will create two groups of discontended people, the Indians and the Coloureds, who are already discontended but when they get housing of the type he can afford to give them, they will really be disappointed. I would like to remind him, too, that when considering whether he should lower his standards there are some standards which cannot be lowered, which cannot be whittled down to meet the shrunken purse that he has to build them with. I have in mind public health. You cannot have a lower type of public health in these new areas than you have in the White areas, so that you can save money. On the contrary, I should say that you will need a very much higher standard of public health in these new areas, with the under-nourishment and the health problems you will face there, than you would in the White area. So the Minister must not lean too much on being able to solve his problems by lowering standards for these people. The economics of self-sufficiency are going to pose a very considerable problem for the Minister in the development of these areas. Just in case the Minister uses the achievements of their urban Bantu council, the things which have been achieved in Natal, for example—we know that Kwa Mashu has been built and Umlazi is in the process of being built. The Minister might have the idea that he can throw these things at us as examples of achievements under the urban councils, the idea which is followed in this Bill, but let us consider some of the differences. First of all, in Kwa Mashu the Minister must remember that a third of the total cost of developing this township—and that applies to other Native townships throughout South Africa—was met by grants from the Native Services Levy Fund. In the case of the Indians and Coloureds there is no such fund to draw on, and so you will have to find some of the money from elsewhere, and that is going to be quite an undertaking. Secondly, coming from that fund, there was no payment of interest and the capital did not have to be repaid. So that made the establishment of these places much easier, and it considerably lightened the burden on the local authority and on the Government. The second point is that the cost of the houses in those areas was considerably reduced because it was insisted that they should be built by Native labour, at wages which could not possibly pertain in any other area of South Africa. In other words, I do not believe that it is going to be possible to apply the wage rates that were paid to the Natives in building their own townships to the Coloureds and the Indians in the development of theirs, so your wage cost structure is going to be very much higher indeed in the Coloured and Indian townships than it was in the Bantu townships, and in addition to that you will probably want a very much better type of house to house these people than you put in the Bantu townships, so those are two extra factors. We estimated in Durban that on just these three factors— a third of the total cost coming out of the Native Services Levy, not taking into account the payment of interest on capital, and the reduced wages for the Natives building them, —we reduced the cost of establishing these houses by 25 per cent, and in a big housing scheme that is an awful lot of money.

There is another factor that I think the hon. the Minister must take into account and that is in the urban Bantu areas, the whole of their transport is subsidized too from the Native Services Levy Fund. This is going to be a very important and a very big problem that this hon. Minister will have to face in the development of these Coloured areas. We dealt this morning with an item of R2,000,000 more for the provision of railways from Kwa Mashu to Durban, a comparatively short distance. If the hon. the Minister is going to be faced with these transport troubles in all these separate areas that he is going to establish, remembering that they are no longer the baby of the local authority to whom they at present belong, he cannot just offload the transport problems on to these local authorities, he has to see that these people get proper and efficient transport services to meet their needs. As I have pointed out, they are already overburdened with the cost of their houses and the rates they have to pay; in addition they will have to find money to transport themselves to their work. So I suggest to the hon. the Minister that transport is going to be another big snag in the efficient working out of this problem.

I would like to bring one other point into this, just while we are on the subject, and that is that the urban Bantu areas have another source of revenue which is peculiar to them, as the hon. the Minister will know, and that is the income from kaffirbeer sales, and now probably from hard liquor as well which will be sold to them, and which is a very considerable source of income indeed. Where does that go, Sir? A third of that goes to their welfare. recreation, etc. Two-thirds of the income from that goes to provide sub-economic houses; in other words two-thirds of the income from kaffirbeer goes to subsidize housing. I have not got the exact amount involved; I could have guessed but I would rather not because the hon. the Minister can find out the figures for himself. But this is a very big factor indeed and one which I think has made the difference between perhaps the success or failure of Native housing, and I would like to remind the Minister that he has not got this income to bolster up the establishment of Coloured and Indian areas under this particular Bill. [Time limit.]

If one has to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), then South Africa will not develop, because the picture he paints is a very dark one. But people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. In the first place the hon. member said that no senior member on the Government side took part in this debate. However, only one front-bencher of the United Party entered the debate, namely the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

Just for ten minutes.

I shall deal with his speech later. Where were the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)? Why did they not participate in this debate? But I go further. There were only three Natal members on the side of the United Party who participated in the debate, namely the hon. members for Umlazi, South Coast and Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell).

The debate is not over yet.

The hon. member says the debate is not over yet. I know that the next figure to get up on their side, the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) will be the last speaker on that side. It was therefore only those three United Party members who took part in the debate, and it was only the hon. member for Umlazi who said something in regard to the Indians. None of the other members from Natal had a word to say about the Indians. Why not? Because they are afraid. They know that the voters of Natal want this legislation. This Bill has come as the result of a promise made by the Prime Minister in 1961, and that promise is now embodied in this Bill. The Prime Minister said that this was merely the first step and that it must lead to further development, and he said that Coloured councils should be established. I say this is a promise which was made by the Prime Minister and that promise is now being implemented.

But I want to come to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because that was the only really worth-while speech which came from the side of the Opposition. The hon. member voiced criticism which was not always justifiable, but in any case she made a speech of high-standing calibre. She referred to the Cape Town Municipality and said that she was going to quote three experts, namely the Town Clerk, the City Engineeer and the Medical Officer of Health in order to indicate that it was impossible to have group areas development and governmental bodies. She called them three experts, but I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister has experts in his Department equally as good as the three experts mentioned by the hon. member. For example, the designing of the houses was done by Government experts; the sanitary amenities in those areas were planned by Government experts; the pleasant residential areas which were laid out were planned by Government experts. The hon. member now calls these three persons experts, and one of those experts, the City Engineer of Cape Town, says that care should be taken that typhus and enteric fever and all kinds of other diseases do not break out. That is all he could say in regard to these areas, and then he mentioned Croydon and Chicago and Minneapolis, and I do not know how many other places, where in the past there were epidemics. Is that now the argument of an expert? It is the very layout of these areas which will ensure that these epidemics do not occur there. Is that not the case in our Native residential areas also? Did we not there try to make conditions as hygienic as possible? But the City Engineer of Cape Town goes further and says—

Mr. Speaker, that may be true of other portions of the world where one has a homogeneous population, but here in our country we have a policy of separate residential areas, and the only way to obtain that is the way in which the Government is tackling it. Then he says that Athlone can never become a separate residential area and that it will never be able to get separate local government. But let us compare that with the attitude adopted by the Municipality of Bellville. This expert of the Cape Town City Council says that Athlone cannot be developed, but the experts of Bellville say that Bellville South can be developed. That is what the report says, and why cannot it be said? And what is the attitude of Parow? Parow certainly has just as sound experts as the Cape Town City Council. Parow submitted a report to the Rossouw Commission and on page 64 of the report of the Rossouw Commission the memorandum submitted by Parow is set out—

But listen to the sympathetic attitude adopted by Parow—

That is the sympathetic attitude adopted by Parow, and even Goodwood mentions the advantages connected to territorial segregation, and they mention four of five reasons in this regard.

So much for the experts mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. But the hon. member also says that in places where the Common Voters’ Roll has been removed the tension has increased. That is true; she says that the tension increased where the Common Voters’ Roll was abolished, but let us see whether that happened in South Africa where the Coloureds are now on a separate voters’ roll. Is there more tension amongst the Coloureds now than before? Let us look at Rhodesia and Nyasaland. There the Bantu is on the Common Voters’ Roll. Is the tension there less than in South Africa? And then the hon. member says—

Of course many more Indians and Coloureds had to move than Whites because they were living in hovels, and now they have been provided with decent housing.

But I want to go further and make this allegation against the United Party, that they are not opposed to the group areas but they are against total separate development of areas, and they do not want separate residential areas. Whether those residential areas are established in terms of compulsive measures, as under the Group Areas Act, or whether they are established voluntarily, the United Party does not want separate residential areas. They talk about the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who is alleged to have let the cat out of the bag, but let us see what the hon. member for South Coast said. The hon. member for South Coast said that where two such groups live together, “the one will spill over to the other”, and he said that would cause friction and that one group would swamp the other. Surely that is also the case where separate residential areas came into being on a voluntary basis; then the one will also swamp the other group and friction will also arise. The difference under the Group Areas Act is simply that this Act ensures that swamping cannot take place, and therefore I think I am entitled to say that hon. members opposite do not want separate areas but that they still want to have this intermingling in South Africa. That follows from the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. But the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) also referred in this amendment to fragmentation. But if separate residential areas are established on a voluntary basis, surely that is also fragmentation? What is therefore the actual difference?

I now come to Section 25 of the Act, and I just want to deal with the last sub-section of that section. The sub-section provides—

But this section must be read in conjunction with a following section, viz. Section 28, which provides for the franchise. It is quite clear to me why the Minister did this. There are certain areas which will already be fairly highly developed, and other areas which are less developed. Possibly in the course of time there will have to be a change in regard to the franchise qualifications. But now the Minister must first wait until Parliament meets. It is also provided here that “different regulations may be made in terms of this sub-section in respect of different areas”. Now the Minister will have to come to Parliament every time in regard to such an area. Why cannot he do it immediately by way of regulation?

Hon. members of the Opposition stated that there was no consultation. The hon. the Minister stated that he had informed the municipalities and the Municipal Association. I just want to say here that the Rossouw Commission issued a questionnaire to the various municipalities, and there was very little reaction to it from the Municipal Association of the Cape Province. On the contrary—and this is what the Rossouw Commission says—the Municipal Association of the Cape and the Association of Divisional Councils and several of the larger local authorities which have an appreciable Coloured population were also invited to submit memoranda to the Committee on the subject, but unfortunately no evidence and no memoranda have hitherto been received from these municipal associations and divisional councils, although a fruitful discussion took place with a deputation from the Association of Divisional Councils. That is what the Rossouw Committee says. The Minister states that in fact he did notify the divisional councils, and I wonder what their reaction was. This legislation is nothing new. Years ago it was already said that the Government would come forward with a form of local government for these areas, and now that it has done so, hon. members opposite condemn it without having studied the legislation properly. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) stated that the time available was too short to study the Bill properly. But they had a whole week in which to study the Bill, and in any case it is not as complicated as those hon. members aver. They discussed one thing only, and that is the possibility that Coloureds will no longer be able to vote in the White municipalities. The whole debate was concerned with that only.

The Bill was placed in their hands exactly a fortnight ago.

Yes, they have already had a fortnight to study the Bill, but now they say they did not have enough time, but, as I have said, they concentrated only on this one point the whole time.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) tried to defend the Cape Town City Council here to-day and he advanced all kinds of arguments, but when this ordinance was amended in 1951 he himself was a member of the City Council of Cape Town and at the same time he was also a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province. He was one of the members who helped to get that ordinance passed, and after the Rossouw report was submitted in 1959 saying that the municipalities were making themselves guilty of manipulation, not one of these city councils reacted to it. Here a serious accusation was made against them, but not a single one of them appeared to defend themselves, nor did the hon. member for Boland defend them. Hon. members of the Opposition now intimate that this Bill is being introduced only as the result of fear. If that is so, why has Cape Town never had a Coloured Mayor? Would they be willing to accept a Coloured Mayor in Cape Town? Would Port Elizabeth be prepared to have a Coloured Mayor? Of course not. They will go to any lengths, but a Coloured will never become mayor in any city in South Africa. He may possibly become chairman of a subordinate committee of the city council, but he will never fill the highest position in the city council. He will, for example, never become chairman of the Municipal Association of the Cape Province, or of South Africa either. The Rossouw Commission deals with this very point and says—

This is the reply to that. The whole attitude of the United Party is of course negative, as they always are in connection with any Bill which is introduced. During this debate we have had absolutely no positive criticism from hon. members opposite. We only hope that when we reach the Committee Stage hon. members will abandon that negative attitude of theirs and adopt a more positive attitude.

During the past week I have listened attentively to both sides of the House. I listened attentively to the Minister when he explained the Bill and after that I listened to various of his supporters who tried to give further explanations of the Bill and I got the impression that these people were really sincerely trying to improve the position of the Coloureds. But I was disappointed when hon. members got up at a later stage and said that one of the reasons why this Bill was being introduced was that the White voters were frightened of the Coloureds. I immediately asked myself what the Coloured voter must think about that.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais)—and he cannot get away from that.

No, the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said it.

What must the Coloured person think about that? The Minister who is responsible for this legislation says that the Bill is being introduced in the interests of the Coloureds and then his supporters come forward and they say that the real reason is that they are scared that the Coloureds will get the majority on the town councils. The one thing which I found pleasing and striking was the fact that so many hon. members opposite tried to boost the Minister sky-high. I could see that the hon. the Minister enjoyed it—had I been in his place I would have enjoyed it too—and then we had the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) who, in a wonderful speech, told us what a good and wonderful person the Minister was; but then he added that this Minister knew all the answers and I noted the Minister shrivelling up because he realized that the hon. member was now going too far because he did not know all the answers. Mr. Speaker, the person who knows all the answers as far as this matter is concerned has yet to be born.

But to return to the Bill itself, I personally led a deputation of Coloureds in October 1958 to the then Administrator, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, to inquire what could be held out in prospect to them as far as their own Coloured areas and local bodies were concerned.

Hear, hear.

Yes, I did that because I am not one of the people who say that it is wrong merely because this Minister is in charge of this Bill, because a great deal can be said for this Bill. There are many good reasons why we should give our Coloured people their own local bodies. Had any member of this House represented the Karoo constituency, he would have known of all the reserves which we have there, and we have our local managements in those reserves which are more or less along the same lines as the bodies provided for in this Bill.

Are you going to vote for the Bill?

There are people who feel that there should not be any nominated members on those bodies. We have elected members on those local managements which have served their purpose well, and they are in the majority and there are nominated members as well, and they work quite well. I am not saying that they function perfectly because there is no local authority which functions perfectly, there are always difficulties.

Take Pretoria for example.

There is a reason, however, why I shall not vote for this Bill and I want hon. members to understand that very clearly. I want to view this Bill in the light in which the Coloured person views it. The Coloured person is the one, in the long run, who will be most affected by this legislation. The Indians of Natal are indeed affected by it and a small number of Indians in the Cape Province, but the first objection of the Coloureds and the Indians will be that these new bodies which it is proposed to establish for them will fall under the Group Areas Act. Whether we want to admit it or not the Coloured is against the Group Areas Act.

It will come under the Department of Community Development.

Whether it falls under the Department of Community Development or not, the fact remains that these amendments are being brought about under the Group Areas Act. That type of excuse that the bodies will be established under Community Development, will not be accepted by the Coloureds. I am sorry that this step is being taken under the Group Areas Act.

Why are they so anxious then to move into the group areas which we have developed for them?

Strangely enough it is easy to answer that question. Had we not dawdled for years with the proclamation of group areas, those people would long since have been in their own areas. Small and big municipalities who wanted to construct housing for their Coloureds and other less privileged sections have had to wait for group areas to be proclaimed. Those things could long since have been disposed of.

Do you merely want the law to be applied with greater expedition?

I am sorry, therefore, that this development is linked with the Group Areas Act. It would have been much better if separate legislation had been introduced to provide for these bodies. It would have given greater satisfaction to the people who are concerned in it.

But the principle remains the same.

Fortunately this Bill does not make provision for every person who gets up to speak for 40 minutes. I want to deal with a few specific points as I see the position and as the people whom I represent see it. If the same ideas which are embodied in this Bill, were put into effect more in the light of the Rossouw Committee’s recommendations, it would have given much greater satisfaction. What pleases me is the fact that in the introductory part of their report the Rossouw Committee says that the following persons, inter alia, came together in 1959. The then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Naude, the then Deputy Minister of the Interior, who was charged with Coloured Affairs, and our present Minister. They started with the work. Amongst others the present Administrator of the Cape Province was also present. Those people decided that they were going to appoint a committee and I think that Committee submitted a very, very fine report. That report, has been quoted at length, but the one thing that we are not told is the reason why the recommendations in that report have not been carried out, if the report is good and we are satisfied, the Coloured would definitely have been more satisfied had it been done naturally by the Administrator who has the power to-day to establish separate municipalities or urban areas or local boards.

I also want to raise a point in respect of which the Coloureds will not be satisfied, and that is the question of those rights that are being taken away from them. That is partly denied and I may be too stupid; I may be misreading Clause 28 (b) or misinterpreting it, but I take it that the object of that clause is that when a local board has been nominated or appointed or elected for a certain area, (that too is not clear at all, and if the Minister would give us more clarity as to how these bodies are to be appointed it would assist us greatly in getting the confidence of these people), as I read the clause, the position will be that when such an area has been declared and such a body has been established, a voter who is qualified to be a registered voter, but who lives in that area, will be deleted from the municipal roll of that municipality and his name will then appear on the Voters’ Roll of that local body. I think my interpretation is correct. You will have the case, Sir, of a person living in Athlone, for example. It may be that whole area will get one urban authority. The person in Athlone will be able to vote for the management board there, but as a taxpayer living in Cape Town, and as someone who is still exercising control over the money and the way it is spent, he will have no further say in the Municipality of Cape Town. That is not what worries me most, however. What worries me most is the fact that according to this Bill a place like Schotsche Kloof will be incorporated with Athlone—that is the natural conclusion to which you must come, Sir—the same as Walmer Estate. That means that the people who live in those areas will be able to vote for an advisory body which has no power in Athlone; they do not live there but they must continue to pay their taxes to the City Council of Cape Town. I think I am interpreting it correctly. I am also afraid that these bodies with which they are starting, these advisory bodies or management committees, bodies with certain powers and bodies which can make certain recommendations will merely be advisory, and the parent municipality may listen to them or it may not listen to them. What will the result be? You see, Sir, the tendency of this Bill and its object is that this body must produce the people who will at a later stage guide the full-fledged municipality. What happens now? Within a few years those people will be discouraged. They feel that they are worthless, that they cannot achieve anything, and then we shall have greater resistence to these bodies from those people, and I am afraid that because of that we shall not attain our purpose. As I have already said one can talk at length on this, but something which I find hard to reconcile myself with, and something which, in my opinion, is difficult to reconcile with the idea of democratic rights, is the position to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. F. A. F. Nel) has referred, namely the powers which the State President will have. You see, Sir, you are placing the Coloured voter, the potential voter, before this difficulty that he does not know where he stands. There is a person the State President, who has certain powers and who will be able to say what his qualifications should be. He will be able to tell the one person that his qualifications are not high enough, different qualifications will be required in different places. I am afraid that although I do not think that is the intention, that will be the position in effect. I think the object of this Bill is really to try to help these people. But unfortunately there is a hitch when it comes to applying it. The Coloured man is a peculiar person. Had the hon. the Minister waited a little longer and had he been somewhat old-fashioned, the Coloureds would have approached him and said to him: “Mr. Minister give us these local authorities” and he would immediately have had a different spirit. They would have accepted them. But now the Minister comes along and hands it to them from above. I am sure that will cause resistance and that is not what I should like to see.

I do not wish to reply to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, because he agrees with this measure to such an extent that I want to be merciful towards him. If I reply to his leader and his colleague who spoke just before him, I shall, of course, also be dealing with him. You would have expected hon. members opposite who are opposing this measure, to have tried to refute the facts that we on this side of the House have produced and you would have expected them to have told this House what losses the Coloured had suffered or what losses they would suffer if this Bill were passed in comparison with the position in which they were when those gentlemen opposite were in power. We thought they would compare the position in which they were with the position in which they are to-day and the position in which they will be if this Bill is passed and in full operation. You would have thought that hon. gentlemen opposite would have discharged that onus, but all we had from them were generalities which are well known to us already, generalities which shy away from the truth. The last speaker once again proved that everything would have been fine, everything would have been all right, it only came from the wrong quarter. The Minister should not have done it, the Coloureds should have done it and then it would have been all right. Everything will be all right if it comes from the right quarter. That has been the trend of the speeches from that side. I would have liked to have taken them to task on every point raised, but I think it is right that I first point out where this Bill comes from, why it is before us today, and what its purpose is.

We have already felt the winds of change. It is not only the Prime Minister of England who has felt it. But unfortunately we are not Black. Had we been Black we would have welcomed the winds of change because that was something which was very welcome to the Black man. But unfortunately we belong to one of the three minority groups in this country and the winds of change have created a problem which we as the governing party must solve, a problem which, if solved, will guarantee and maintain the safety of all minority groups and that is why we cannot only take into account that democratic right to which hon. members so often refer and to which I shall return in a minute. We should also take into account the human rights of every group and of every race. Because we had to take that into account, because we were responsible for the safety of those people, it was necessary to evolve a scheme according to which we would be able to do so and according to which we would be setting an example to the world to prove that we were indeed capable of governing a country which was as multi-racial as ours without friction. We had to evolve a scheme and the scheme which we have and which we had when the British Prime Minister made his speech here, could not be used as a basis to continue to build upon, because had we continued to build on that scheme, the three groups, the three minority groups, would have been hopelessly endangered; they would have been hopelessly endangered had we applied the democratic system which all of us would like to see applied. That was why the Government put it this way: We are going to give these groups the right to develop themselves. Not an invective, as is hurled at us so often, but the right of every group to be itself and to development itself, a right to exist. We admit that and we agree with that. We thought that if we did not grant this right we would have to grant the other thing, namely the democratic right according to which the majority vote would have prevailed without considering the minority groups.

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

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to give me a chance so that I can explain the points which have led up to this Bill. You see, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put it this way that the Government has evolved a scheme which fits into this Bill. Had that scheme not been evolved, this Bill would not have been before us to-day. What I want to do is to show how it fits into this Bill.

The hon. member must be quick in doing that.

It is difficult to be quick when you think of the speeches which we have had from the other side. But I shall abide by what you have said, Sir. Then we started to prove that we wanted to maintain those human rights. We started by placing Coloured affairs under the Department of Coloured Affairs. We established a Department of Coloured Affairs and that was the forerunner to this Bill. We established the Department of Coloured Affairs and it was strenuously opposed by hon. members opposite. We went from Coloured Affairs to a Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs. We felt that the affairs of this separate group should be in the hands of a Department, a Department which could do their thinking for them and a Department which would not be obliged to think of other things. After the appointment of a Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs, the Government went further and appointed a full-fledged Minister of Community Development, all forming part of the process of developing that scheme, the scheme of doing justice to every inhabitant of South Africa. Hence this Bill. Because it had become very clear that we could not apply democratic rights alone, without giving every group the right of self-development. The Minister has now introduced a Bill which gives the Coloureds the right of self-development. But hon. members opposite have not said a single word about that right of self-development. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis)—and I am referring to him at this stage because I shall not be doing so at a later stage—must be somebody who is very scared to go to bed, because many people had died in it before him, and the danger which he has outlined to us, the danger which awaits us, is the same kind of danger which you expect when you are scared to go to bed because many people had died in it before you. Surely we should not paint this blackest of black pictures when dealing with this problem, this problem of the three minority groups, namely the Whites, the Asiatics and the Coloureds. The Government has tried to evolve the scheme in such a way that justice will be done to each group, as far as their human rights are concerned, and according to this Bill the human rights of the Coloureds are recognized. But what have we had from the other side of the House? We had the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I hold him in high esteem. I have been with him on tours; he is a great Englishman and a good Englishman, but when the hon. member had to defend his case and when he had to reply to the figures given by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. F. S. Kotzé), he looked in this direction with a pair of eyes that were intended to devour the hon. member for Parow, and he said that the figures of the hon. member for Parow were wrong. The hon. member for Simonstown then gave the correct figures. The hon. member for Parow had spoken about 1958 and he added that those were not the latest figures. The hon. member for Simonstown then looked daggers in this direction and said they were not true, the figures were wrong. What counted were not the figures but the facts. The facts were that only 7 per cent of the Coloureds were entitled to vote according to the figures. He drew attention to the low percentage. When we listened to the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) the following day it appeared that according to the hon. member for Simonstown himself the figure was 6 per cent and not 7 per cent. Is that an argument to be advanced by a grownup person, a front bencher and leader in order to state his case? I regard it as to insignificant that I would not have mentioned it. But immediately after having said that, the hon. member announced that they had unanimously appointed a Coloured person to the Town Council of Simonstown. I understand that. But that does not change the 6 per cent and the fact remains that they only sent one person. However, that remark was not intended for this House; the fact that a United Party constituency had sent a Coloured unopposed to the City Council was intended as news overseas. Is that the humanity which the United Party pleads for so fervently? Is that the humanity which prompts them to return to the Commonwealth? Is that humanity only 7 per cent or even 6 per cent? If you grant human rights to 6 per cent only, I hope I will not be a human being in that world where those people live, because I shall not even be taken into account. In that case, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said the 94 per cent will constitute the caste. And then the United Party boasts about human rights! In every speech that we get from the other side we are told about the misery which we will be causing the Coloured, the “hardships”. We have had numerous speeches since the hon. member for Simonstown has spoken, speeches to which it is not really necessary to reply. However, I should like to deal for a moment with the speech of the leader of the Coloured group, the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He has, as it were, sung the swan song of the Coloureds, those people whom he represents in this House, those people who are treated so unjustly. What we are doing in this Bill is to step into the breach for those very people and the hon. member is going to be hard hit by it. Because at the moment it is only 6 per cent, and he is only fighting for 6 per cent. We are fighting for the whole community, this side is fighting for the entire Coloured community. By way of this Bill this side of the House wants to give every member of the Coloured community, a say in his own affairs and to recognize his right as a human being to exist, and to vote for his own people. But the hon. member and his town council give that right to 6 per cent only. There is no law, as the hon. member for Boland has said, but he has to be a taxpayer in order to vote. If there is no law, surely you make a law. And if you do not make that law you should not talk so much about human rights. You should not shield behind the 6 per cent and preach on human rights in this House. If you do that you are floundering in muddy waters. That is not fair, that is not honest. If those hon. members of the city council, members opposite, had risen to their feet once and said: “Look, the Coloureds of the Cape Province, or those in the vicinity of Cape Town, live in an urban area and fall under the by-laws of the city council, and we are now demanding human rights for those Coloureds, full human rights” I would have understood them. Had they demanded the vote for every person, I would have respected their speeches. But what do you think of the speeches which we have had from those hon. gentlemen, Sir? They reminded me of a beautiful white cloth hiding a black heart. A beautiful white cloth that is held up so that you cannot see behind it. 94 per cent of the Coloureds are being hidden behind that white cloth, and only 6 per cent are in front of that cloth. That is the attitude which hon. members opposite adopt. Then they come here and plead for the interests of the Coloureds! May I refer to hypocrisy? Or let me put it more euphemistically, we cannot be as unjust as all that. I do not want to be insulting, Sir, but surely we cannot be so unfair, merely because we are fighting the National Party Government, as to say one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow, merely to save our own skins. To-morrow 94 per cent of the Coloureds will be forgotten, those so-called sadly neglected people. Because they will be voting for a city council, will they not? I challenge those hon. gentleman to get up in a city council meeting or anywhere else and to demand human rights for the Coloureds in the urban area of the Peninsula, the United Party area. Let them get up and plead that should be granted to every Coloured person. I challenge those hon. gentlemen to do that. Not that I agree with that. I say it cannot be done. That is why we come with an alternative; that is why the Government says that if it cannot be done the Coloureds must be given rights in their own areas. Hon. members, however, want to blow hot and cold at the same time. They say that they want to give the right to elect a town council to 6 per cent only, because if they give it to more, they may be outvoted. I agree. That is why we say they should be kept separate in their own group, and each group should be given its own rights, and its rights and its freedom should not destroy the freedom of others. Everyone of us wants to be a free individual, and we are free. Hon. gentlemen opposite also say that we are only giving them a subordinate position. But every one of us is in a subordinate position. We are free in our homes, that is true, but because we are free in our homes we are not entitled to deprive anybody else of his freedom. We may be free to drive down the street, but another person is also free to cross that street. That is why we have to stop when the light turns red. We cannot do what we want. We have to bow to the authority that has been placed over us in the interests of the community in which we live. If we give the Coloureds their own area with their own boards, with their own vote, it will do away with that feeling of frustration, that feeling of humiliation and that feeling of being a caste which 94 per cent of them harbour. I take it that in the United Party city councils the vote will not be given to every Coloured person.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am there already. My challenge stands. When we talk about just treatment of the Coloureds in connection with this Bill, the right of the Coloured to be himself, I want to know from hon. members opposite, seeing that they are opposing our attempts to give those rights to the Coloureds as vehemently, with their whole being, whether if they do not agree with us, they will be honest and give full rights to the Coloureds in those spheres where they are in control. Is it wrong of me to say that?

The hon. member has already said it and he must return to the Bill.

I want to return to the hon. member for Houghton. It was not my intention to fight with her, nor is she present here to-night. But I really enjoyed it the other afternoon when she spoke and lashed her whip over the United Party. It was really so enjoyable that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was eventually lying flat on his back—he could no longer take the hiding she was giving him.

Order! The hon. member is again deviating from the Bill.

I am returning to it Mr. Speaker. But surely you cannot take everything away from me, Sir. I want to bow and bow deeply, but I want to agree with what the hon. member for Houghton said, although I also want to take her to task for the injustice which she is perpetrating. She talks against the Bill and she votes against the Bill. But have we ever noticed one grain of sympathy in the hon. member for the Coloureds in that she wants to give them the vote 100 per cent? If the hon. member is against us, if she talks against us and works against us, if she herself enjoys the human rights which she pleads for so fervently, and she would like to see other people enjoy those rights as well, she would be a true progressive. But anybody who opposes this Bill in this House to-day, but who is willing to allow the Coloureds to continue to live in the hovels which we see along the road to Bellville, she must forgive me if we do not attach much value to her speech. The hon. member for Peninsula said that they were not asking for much, they merely wanted to be left alone; and they merely wanted a higher wage. During the referendum campaign we were told that the people who supported the monarchy were the rich people the manufacturers, and the people who voted for the Republic were the poor people and the farmers. I do not admit that the rich people were on that side.

Order! The hon. member has again strayed away from the Bill.

I am returning to the wages to which the hon. member has referred.

Yes, but the hon. member is making a very wide turn.

I find it very difficult to travel in this House with only two horses, Sir. I have a big herd in front of me and I have to make a wide turn. I want to ask the hon. member, in brief, to ask those rich people those factory owners, whom he represents, to increase the wages of the Coloureds and that he should not blame the Government for it. He himself must make a start and increase the wages of his own Coloured employees. He says: Give a few more human rights; increase the wages and leave the Coloureds alone. Does the hon. member realize that means that they will have to continue to live in the hovels which we see around us? He, however, says that because he wants to oppose the Minister’s Bill. Perhaps the hon. member and the group to which he belongs can bring about an improvement in the wages of the Coloureds. If they cannot do that they should support this Bill. I challenge them to give full human rights to the Coloureds. This Bill as introduced by the Minister gives more human rights to the Coloureds, as I have explained. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have covered a somewhat wide field but I am grateful to you for having given me the opportunity.

I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings; the House will resume at … [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand your slipping into a momentary error. Having enjoyed the anecdotes of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) and having followed him on the road with his cattle I can quite understand that you momentarily got mixed up with the time.

At the beginning of the hon. member’s speech he said that he thought in this debate one should weigh the pros and cons that were being placed before the House and should decide on those pros and cons. I suggest, Sir, that has been done and that the onus in this matter is most definitely upon the Minister and the Government side, and that they have not discharged it. I would say that applies not only to the words that have been spoken in this House. They are important just as evidence is important, but what is often much more important than verbal evidence is the circumstantial evidence which surrounds a problem. And I suggest that the circumstantial evidence affecting this problem leads to a decision very much against this Bill. I shall touch upon one or two elements of this circumstantial evidence during the course of my speech.

I think it is true to say that there are some very involved clauses in this Bill. And notwithstanding what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) has said, nobody that I know of, has in fact attempted to unravel them to the satisfaction of us on these benches. I will touch upon that later.

I think the hon. the Minister’s handling of this measure throughout, shows his great nervousness in regard to its reception, not only here in South Africa but generally. I think it showed him nervous of its affects upon the interests of South Africa as a whole. I am thinking here of the fact that it seemed to me that he felt he must screw up his courage and get this measure brought before us rapidly and go through with it. In that connection I think the fact that the White Paper was not of very great assistance, the fact that we had relatively very little time to go into the complicated nature of many of the proposals, and indeed the Minister’s speech, reveal his nervousness. Because in the Minister’s speech, while he did throw some light on many aspects, as far as the most important ones were concerned, he rather seemed to leave it to us to feel out the thorny spots. I will come back to that slightly in due course. I think he realized that in this Bill the Government was treading very hard on the corns, not only of the Coloured people, but of the provincial authorities, of the municipal authorities and of others. I think he was endeavouring in his handling to tread as lightly as possible. I cannot say the same of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais). Whether intentionally or not, he did not hesitate to tread most heavily on the corns of many people. It has been said that he let the cat out of the bag. I think that is so, although that may have been the intention. But I think the cat certainly had to come out of the bag, because the whole purpose of this measure is to deal with the cat. In fact, I think the existence of a cat was foreshadowed quite some time ago in the Rossouw Committee report, because in that report, in paragraph 36, they say this—

That is the Act as it is to-day before its amendment, apart from the 1961 amendments—

And Paragraph 37—

That, Mr. Speaker, was undoubtedly the cat, and that was the cat which had to be dealt with here in this Bill. And I think that is essentially a Cape cat. That is why we have had from the other side of the House speakers almost exclusively from the Cape addressing themselves to it, and I think that is why from this side of the House we have had the whole concentration directed upon the position of the Cape Coloured man.

In this matter I would like to remind hon. members opposite of a metaphor that they are very well acquainted with, the metaphor in the poem relating to the ox wagon and the thorn bush. Because I think in this matter we are seeing the remorseless march of the ox wagon towards a state within a state. Hon. members opposite will know that the poem goes something like this: “En eendag kom daarlangs ’n ossewa verby wat met sy sware wiele dwarsoor die boompie ry”. I am well aware how much that has meant to hon. members opposite; how they have felt it; how they have said it. I want to say that I think, though they may not appreciate it, there is quite something of that situation here in regard not to “een boompie” but in regard to quite a few. I think it applies not only to the position of the Coloured man in regard to his municipal franchise, but it applies also to the position of provincial government, provincial powers and municipal powers. Each of those objects can be likened to a small tree and this wagon is undoubtedly damaging them in a considerable degree. Though I do not doubt it, it is not the intention of the driver to do so. A careful examination of this measure shows that each one of those trees is in fact being damaged appreciably by the passage of the ox wagon in this case.

What about the orange tree?

The little orange tree will doubtless like the thorn tree grow great again and bring forth increased fruit. To deal with these trees, Sir First of all, we have had the tree of co-operative government here in the Cape in many municipalities in the sense that we have had the municipal councils under the leadership of the Whites, with the Coloured people having an important say in affairs. That has brought about a most happy situation and I do not think anybody denies that it has worked well. That activity of co-operation is to be injured by this.

Particuarly—and I come immediately to it —there is the thorn tree, which can be said to be the Coloureds, that will be injured in this. I think that the Minister and hon. members opposite have a fear that may be so. I think particularly Clause 28, by introducing Section 43bis (1) (d) will definitely disenfranchise future Coloured voters for municipalities. It is true that will not happen immediately but that it will happen once the management committees are set up and once that has occurred many voters will have their municipal franchise relegated to some vote in a management committee.

Now Mr. Speaker, I come to one of the points of circumstantial evidence which I suggest weighs strongly against this measure. I want to mention that nobody from the other side of the House has produced any evidence to show that the Coloured people want this measure or are even neutral about this measure. The hon. the Minister in his speech did not mention one word—I read his speech again—as to the attitude of the Coloured people towards this measure. As far as I know no attempt prior to that was made to consult them. We have not had a single word on the attitude of the Council for Coloured Affairs. That body, I would have thought, would have given us the benefit of its views and would have shown us what its attitude was. I can only conclude, in the absence of any reference to their attitude, since it is so material, that the probability is that they were against this measure. I regard that as a serious condemnation of it. Not only have we not had from that body, which has the blessing of the Government, but not all Coloured people, but we have not had any letters to the Press or in any other way, any indication that they support this measure. Indeed, I think it is clear that this measure has been introduced against the wishes of the Coloured people. That is a most serious condemnation of a measure which has been said by many hon. members opposite, including the last hon. member who spoke the hon. member for Rustenburg, to have been introduced in their interests. He said “ons veg vir die kleurling” —I think those were his words. The fact that this measure quite clearly at this stage is introduced against their interests, is a very serious criticism of it.

We know moreover, that very single member of the Coloured group representatives here is against this measure. Of course members opposite sought to neutralize that important fact by various arguments, but they are in fact unanimously against it. It cannot possibly be said by any stretch of imagination that they have any self-interest in being against it. You will remember, Sir, that earlier during this Session those same members earned the plaudits of the opposite side when they supported the Government in the establishment of a Coloured Development Corporation. At that time their opinions were magnified and praised; it was said—I think I am right in saying this—how sound they were in taking up this attitude. Now those same gentlemen are ranged quite unanimously against this measure and that, I suggest, is a serious condemnation of it. Then again we have had it said that the Coloured councillors of various municipalities feel their position and will in fact bless the Government if they were saved, as it were, from that situation. But there is no evidence that is so. Not a single Coloured councillor has come forward to say that and indeed the evidence is all to the contrary, namely that they are against it. Because when the City Council of Cape Town considered similar legislation they were unanimous against such a measure and undoubtedly all the Coloured members on that Council voted against it.

The justification that has been advanced by hon. members opposite, in so far as I have not covered it, can, I think, be said to have been limited to the following. Firstly, it was said that new opportunities would be created for the Coloured man. Doubtless that is the intention, but the impression which members opposite sought to create was that opportunities would be created which these people did not have to-day. It was said, I think by the hon. member for Gordonia, that there would be post offices and how they could become postmasters in charge of those post offices. Other members pointed out how there would be various municipal employees that could be Coloureds, and doctors and perhaps traffic cops and so forth. But I want to stress that position is very much the case to-day. There is nothing to prevent the Government from deciding to appoint a Coloured postmaster in Athlone if they wish to. I do not think there is anything to prevent a Coloured doctor being appointed to the Coloured hospital to be established in Athlone for Coloureds in due course, whether this Bill goes through or not. It is well known that there are opportunities in Cape Town now for Coloured traffic policemen, and they have done their work extremely well. So it is quite incorrect, I suggest, to say that this legislation will in fact create opportunities which do not exist to-day. Then it has been said that this legislation will create opportunities for experience in local government which, it is implied, is not there at the present time. Again I suggest that is wrong. Instead of opportunities for local government and experience in local government side by side with the much more experienced European, remaining open to the Coloured people, their experience is to be only among their own people and I suggest that it will therefore be far less valuable to them.

How many of them can get on to the Cape Town City Council?

Well, it is not to say that will not increase; that in the course of time there may not perhaps be a Coloured member on some Council or other. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) mentioned that they have a Coloured councillor at Simonstown. I know it is not very great, but it nonetheless means that there is a person there who is known to the Coloured community and who can act as a channel between the municipality and the Coloured community. It has worked and that is very significant.

It has been suggested that this is very largely being done to avoid friction. Well, of course, one does not want friction; one wants to avoid it. But I do not think, when one considers the history of local Government in the Cape and the peacefulness of affairs in those communities where the Coloured people are represented on councils and are ratepayers, that past history has been so unfortunate. I will later make a reference to that. It was said by members opposite that we over here are able in some way to prevent contact. I don’t quite know what that has to do with the question of this measure, but let me assure hon. members opposite that is not the case. During the first 18 years of my life I lived with Coloureds on two sides of me. I found that everything worked perfectly well. I got on with my business and they got on with theirs. I think in that connection it is well to bear in mind the adage of “live and let live”. I think my own experience is multiplied many times on this side of the House. There are probably far more mixed areas in the Cape Peninsula than in the farming areas from which many hon. members opposite come. Well, certainly there are no farms that I am aware of, or very few, which are farmed by Coloureds so that they will represent neighbours of hon. gentlemen opposite. But in a place like the Cape Peninsula we have Coloureds in many places, as is known. I am not making a plea for the continuation of that. I am merely saying that in fact it does not lead to anything like the friction which has been suggested, and in fact much more patience can be shown in these matters.

It is also suggested that the friction may be of the kind caused either by the presence of these Coloured people as members on the council or by all people (Coloureds and Whites) voting together for the same council. There again I say that the attitude of the largest city council in this sort of situation, the Cape Town City Council, is a very important answer to the suggestion of friction. They have in fact had Coloured people serving on their council much more than hon. members opposite have in relation to their local councils. The experience of the Cape Town City Council has been that it has worked well. They have had difficulties, but they have coped with those difficulties. In fact they wish to retain the present system in the interests of harmony and good government in their area. While I do not doubt that hon. members opposite believe that there will be friction, they cannot in fact speak and give examples of where friction has occurred. Because as I have said, it is more a fear that there will be friction.

Hon. members opposite made a lot of the fact that the numbers of the Coloured voters registered in municipalities where they had the right to be registered, were few. I would suggest that those figures in no way prove their point. Before I get on to that let me say this. Those figures are low throughout the country; they are not confined by any means to the areas where the United Party hold the Parliamentary seats. Those figures are common right through the Cape Province. I suggest that the proper deduction to make from that is that the Coloured people have been prepared to accept the leadership of the White man in civic affairs. That is a most important fact. It is one that we should be proud of, grateful for, and which we should preserve. I have no doubt that anything that does injury to that will be most unfortunate.

While I am dealing with the various points of justification that have been raised, I would like just to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Rustenburg in his speech a moment ago. He said they were fighting for the “selfbeskikkingsreg”—I think—the right of self determination for the Coloureds.

“Ontwikkelingsreg”.

Well, if it was not he, various other members have spoken about “selfbeskikking”. I think the motive behind it is the right of self determination. That is very fine. But I ask them, if they are bearing that so very much in mind, to remember that the Coloured men and their womenfolk are 1,500,000. When they are pleading so strongly for him to have every right in that direction in civic affairs, are they also considering giving him a proportionate say in the affairs, at national level—that his population of 1,500,000 warrants, as against a total White population of 3,000,000? Because if they are not thinking of that at all, it seems to me that there is a certain hollowness in their pleas, however eloquent, for this right of self-determination.

I have mentioned two thorn trees which I believe are being damaged by this measure and I would like to touch upon a third, that is the powers of the provinces. It is generally accepted in South Africa that local Government is the sphere in which the provinces are supreme. The Rossouw Committee, upon which I have no doubt the hon. the Minister has relied to quite an extent in framing this legislation, have this to say in so far as the position of local Government is concerned—

38. The whole problem …

And I should have said in advance that what is being dealt with in this chapter of the report is the franchise—“the present participation of the Coloured community in local Government”. And in the last paragraph of that section this appears—

The Minister’s approach and that of the Government is entirely the opposite. Its approach is that the matter is the affair of the Minister and I suggest that thereby it is doing injury to that tree.

I think it was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) who referred to the fact that the Cape Municipal Association had not forwarded a memorandum of its views to the Minister when he called for it. Let me tell the hon. member what in fact is the attitude of that Association towards this measure. I read from a memorandum dated 24 November 1961. On page 7 it says this—

So that their view is very, very clearly stated in this regard.

I think it is not incorrect to say that the effect of this measure in relation to these particular aspects with which the Administrator is asked to deal, is to reduce the Administrator to the role of a departmental official. And I think that is a very unfortunate fact. I think it is damaging to the provincial system. Then there is the fact, which we gleaned from the one sharp outburst of the Minister, that Natal is apparently to be coerced into accepting this pattern of local Government. I think that too is most unfortunate and I sincerely hope that greater reliance will be placed on leadership than on force in the handling of our various peoples.

Then there is a fourth thorn tree which I suggest is affected adversely by this measure: and that is the powers and rights of municipal councils themselves. We have seen how in 1913 the various municipalities near Cape Town were co-ordinated and consolidated into one larger unit. This was not done lightly. You can imagine that in any undertaking of that kind it is only after great consideration and in order to increase efficiency that they do anything like that. The whole trend today, I think, is towards larger units. Above all there is an economic advantage in having these larger units. I think this is an aspect which the hon. the Minister and that side of the House must give very careful attention to. The whole question of the economic harm to the country which is being engendered by this measure must be borne in mind by them. Not only will administration be less efficient and many problems, above all financial problems, be raised, but there is a great uncertainty introduced into affairs by it. It is well known that where there is uncertainty in regard to the future development of a particular area, you get an end to all property transactions and that is bad for the economy; you get stagnation. This you will find introduced in this measure, Sir, not only by the very uncertainty that will prevail in regard to these areas, but in regard to the position which is created by the Act, namely a further new and additional change in the method of awarding compensation to the affected people. I think that can be seen particularly in Clauses 47 and 49. We seem to get a new addition every year to the method of assessing compensation which must tend to lead people to become suspicious of the operation of the Act. I particularly want to say to the Government that in this country of ours, with its rapidly increasing population, they have a very special duty to ensure full employment for all the people and that this measure, among others, is showing real signs of slowing that down and creating a serious position.

I said that the Coloureds had accepted the policy of White leadership, and I think it has been seen that this policy has been in operation for many years and it has led to good relations that have existed all this time and it has led to the Coloured community standing by us in war and in peace. One hon. member suggested that this side of the House was not in favour of residential segregation. Well, that is so elementary that one need hardly answer it. We have always made our position quite clear in this regard, that we do stand for it. We point to the achievements in securing residential separation before the war when areas like Athlone and other racial areas were created, which had the amenities which drew to them the various non-White peoples. So that in fact and slowly we did create residential segregation and we were moving in that direction and intended to do much more. We are against the establishment of these separate Coloured municipalities, but we would not object in special cases where there are viable units existing quite separately from other municipalities. But we say that this is a matter for the Provincial Council concerned and it is essentially one concerning the municipal franchise and so falling under local government. This, although she is not there, serves to answer the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) where she suggested that it would be our intention to create a separate local authority for an area such as Athlone. It certainly was not our intention to do so. I am sorry she is not here, and perhaps therefore I should just say that it would have been very diverting to have heard her attempting to reconcile the various contradictory statements made by her own people in the recent election in regard to the question of residential areas. We have often heard from them that their policy is one of no discrimination.

Order! The hon. member is drifting away from the Bill.

I am only drifting in the direction of Houghton for a short moment.

Order! The hon. member should not drift after the hon. member for Houghton.

Then I will move away. Sir, there were a couple of things which were not clear which I said I would mention to the Minister and I shall do so in the time left to me. I should like to ask the Minister what happens under this measure after the local authority for Coloureds has actually been established, because as I read Clause 28 introducing as it does this new Section 43bis (1) (d), it seems that the position is very uncertain. It says there that the Coloured person who qualifies as a voter for the management committee will in effect lose his existing voting rights, but what happens after that management committee has been converted into a local authority? The other thing I should like him to tell me is what happens in regard to Section 25bis (5) as it is introduced. I find it difficult to understand that provision and I shall be glad if he would elucidate it, because in his introductory speech he linked that clause with the franchise and I do not see the link at all.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I am satisfied, regrettably so, that this measure on balance will do the interests of South Africa in general, and of the Cape Coloureds in particular, considerable harm. I think the Coloured people had reason to expect better from the Government, particularly in view of the attitude of the Government as expressed by the Minister of the Interior on 12 April 1960, in Vol. 104 of Hansard, Col. 5371, where a very fine tribute was paid to the Coloured people which I might read—

I do not believe that this was the type of appreciation that the Government had in mind at that time when those words were used. We face a very difficult situation in the world and I believe that this measure will unfortunately damage our name abroad. We need friends abroad, but above all, we need friends in South Africa. We need goodwill and solidarity here, and I think this Bill inflicts a further serious hurt upon the Coloureds. I want to remind hon. members opposite that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I will not say when such reaction will take place. I do not believe that Government members intend to hurt the Coloureds and the other institutions of government I have mentioned, but I have no doubt that the Coloured people will so regard it, as will those other institutions of government. I think it was Adam Small, a Coloured man, who, writing of the position of the Coloureds, said quite recently that they should show their love of their fellow-being by accepting the various humiliations they were enduring. I only hope that spirit will continue to permeate the Coloured people. They have shown it for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I shall probably reply to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) in the course of my remarks in this debate. He has not raised many new points in any event. I do not know why he was chosen as the last speaker. He is apparently very concerned at the prospect that this measure will harm us in the outside world. I too am concerned at the prospect that the misrepresentations which have come from some members on the other side will have that effect, as they certainly will, because every positive measure that has been accepted in this country has always been grossly misrepresented by them abroad. If ever speeches were made which were devoid of all truth, they were made in the course of this debate by certain members on the other side, and I propose to prove it, and then I hope that the hon. member, with the high moral standards which he propounded here this afternoon, will call his own colleagues to order. Failing that, his speech will simply be another of those mealiemouthed speeches to which we have become so accustomed from that side.

The hon. member, unknowingly perhaps, has made himself guilty, of course, of the sort of misinterpretation that we get, by quoting an Afrikaans poem here, which he quoted wrongly in any event, about the thorn bush whereby he sought to suggest that what we were really doing here to the Coloureds was to bring about the same thing to which reference is made in that poem.

I only said that it had something in common.

Yes, there is something in common. In other words, what the hon. member wanted to suggest was that we were attempting to trample upon the Coloured in the same way that the ox-wagon trampled the little thorn bush. But the hon. member started off on a completely false note. I would remind him of his renowned forefather and advise him to follow the example of his renowned forefather rather than to follow the wrong course that he is following to-day.

Mr. Speaker, in my introductory speech I mentioned four practical results which this Bill will make it possible to achieve much sooner. In the first place I said that it would more rapidly bring about the establishment and the maintenance of occupation and property rights for the various racial groups. Secondly, I said that it would more rapidly bring about individual and community development, and thirdly I said that the sooner this measure and the principle of group areas could be implemented, the sooner it would be possible to provide new avenues of employment for these groups which have hitherto not had those opportunities of employment. I advanced these three propositions at the outset of my speech, and in the whole of this debate hon. members on that side of the House have given those three propositions a wide berth. Not one of them could adduce proof, or even try to adduce proof, to refute those three propositions, and this evening, after a debate lasting a few days, those three propositions still remain unchallenged, namely, that this Bill is going to help to expedite the creation of circumstances under which occupation and property rights can be assured for every race. That is the basis on which the Group Areas Act rests; the second is individual community development and thirdly the creation of new avenues of employment. Those three propositions stand unchallenged after this debate.

But there is a second thing which has emerged from this debate. The question has occurred to every person who has carefully followed this debate, “What does the official Opposition really stand for?”

It is no longer standing; it is lying down.

In spite of the fact that I said in the course of my speech that I was not going to discuss the principle of group areas, and in spite of the fact that it was not permissible either, hon. members on the other side all made an indirect attempt to attack the principle of the group areas legislation. Read their amendment. But in spite of the amendment, in which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) began by referring to the hardships resulting from the group areas legislation, he did not produce a shred of evidence to support that. They did not dare to attack that principle openly because the official Opposition always have to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. They have to make on section of the public believe that they stand for the principal of this Act, and at the same time they have to satisfy the followers of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that they rather sympathize with her cause too, as the hon. member for Pinelands did a moment ago; he could not help himself.

Clauses 3 and 1, 2, 7, 29, 36, 37, 43 and 47 of this Bill deal with the establishment of the department. These clauses introduce an entirely new set-up to cope with this special problem which faces us in South Africa, whether we want to admit it or not. With the experience that we have gained, experience which we could not gain earlier because we had no example elsewhere in the world of this sort of problem with which we are struggling, we have now introduced new measures, and not a single hon. member on the other side saw his way clear to attack the departmental organization which this Bill proposes or to attack in principle the steps which are set out in Clause 3. They avoided any reference to it because they were unable to make out a case against it. They are not interested in it either. Of course not. They are not interested in the smooth working of this Act. They are interested in one thing only and that is to what extent they can slander us abroad. Because that party cannot get into power again in a constitutional way. They will have to make use of foreign powers to get this Government out of power. [Interjections.] I am replying to a debate. The hon. member for South Coast need not be concerned. I shall come to him later on and he will have to answer quite a few questions. I only hope that he will not tell me again to “go and be damned”. He can go and prepare himself during the dinner adjournment to reply to a few questions this evening.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of every population group in this Republic, whether White or non-White—I am talking now about the groups with whom we are concerned in this legislation—would prefer to be able to occupy their own residential areas as soon as possible.

Why do they not say so?

That is why there is an explanation for the attitude of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), because the attitude of the hon. member for Karoo is determined by his constituents, and in his constituency the implementation of this Government’s policy has made considerable progress already, and the hon. member dare not adopt another attitude, otherwise his constituents will deal with him. He does not adopt this attitude willingly. He follows this course because he is afraid of his constituents, to whom the Department of Coloured Affairs has already extended a helping hand. That is the reason.

Before I deal point for point with the matters which have been raised here, I want to make this one general observation, and that is that we in South Africa are witnessing a very strange thing in respect of this legislation. Attempts are continually made to create The impression is continually created, as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) also tried to do—and I shall also come to him later on—that there is no proper planning under the Group Areas Act; that no measures exist whereby we can achieve our object on a fair basis. I want to advance these three propositions here this evening. The first is that even those people who are opposed to the Government politically and even certain people who are well-known liberals, desire in their heart of hearts that this legislation should be implemented. I propose to prove that statement here this evening. I held out this prospect earlier this Session and I propose to do so this evening. The second is that people who are prepared to curse this Government publicly and who are prepared to represent the Nationalist as a scoundrel because he stands for this legislation, stand for the very same thing as soon as it affects them personally. I have in my possession a document which was submitted to the Committee by a firm of attorneys and which deals with separate facilities which are established in terms of this legislation, that is to say, that where separate residential areas are established, and particularly in the coastal towns, separate beach facilities must also be established; and the more quickly this legislation can be applied, the more quickly those opportunities will also have to be created for the non-Whites. In the Cape Province we had a committee which investigated this matter. At Knysna there is a coastal resort which is owned by well-known United Party supporters. I have no quarrel with the attitude of these people, because I know that they feel about these matters as I do. That is why the candidate of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) fared so badly that area that he lost his deposit. The point is that in their heart of hearts members of the United Party feel just as we do. At that particular coastal resort, Noetsi, there is a property which is owned by a very well-known person in Southern Africa who has used very hard words in the past about South Africa’s parallel development, namely, Mr. Garfield Todd, a well-known liberal. When this committee came to Knysna and investigated what was to become of Noetsi, whether provision should be made for separate beach facilities for Whites and Coloureds, or whether the beach should be set aside for the Coloureds only or whether nothing should be done there, the owners of Noetsi—I do not propose to mention the other names because they are good United Party supporters in my constituency and I know what their attitude is; they want apartheid—a firm of attorneys in Knysna received instructions to appear before that committee. And what were their instructions? The instructions were that this firm should object most strongly on behalf of the owners at Noetsi firstly to the fact that it was to become a Coloured beach; and the reasons that they advanced were that this would cause property values to drop and that it would prejudicially affect tourism there. Garfield Todd did not do it himself. Mrs. J. C. I. Todd did it for him, but he spends his holiday there every December. They asked this question: “What then is the solution? It is obvious that the Coloured people resident in this area are entitled by natural rights to have access to the sea at a suitable beach or beaches.” Then they go on to say—

They say that the custom always was that the Coloureds swam on one side and the Whites on the other—

In other words, separate beach facilities, and then they go on to suggest how to bring this about. They suggest that the other side of the river be reserved for the Coloureds and this side of the river for Whites. That is the sort of thing that is done by great friends of hon. members over there. I just want to make the point here that in my Department I have the names of people within South Africa who do this sort of thing, and here I want to issue a warning. I am not going to disclose the names of these people unnecessarily here this evening. I have simply used this as a precious example to show how much political hypocrisy there is in South Africa on the part of so-called liberals. There are people in this country who curse this Government and describe it as un-Christian and who address organizations and lead organizations against this Government’s legislation, but who behind the scenes bring pressure to bear on my Department to clear up the areas in which they live. And I want to issue this warning this evening that if these people continue with this abuse and continually represent this Government as scoundrels and grasp every opportunity to blacken South Africa’s name abroad, I will mention the names of each and every one of them in this House and I shall also mention their methods—how they make use of second and third parties to bring pressure to bear on me to remove the Coloured slums surrounding their big houses. And I want the hon. member for Pinelands to listen now.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was pointing out the very peculiar approach that we get from certain people in this country to any measure dealing with group areas. It amazes one that people who co-operate behind the scenes, who bring pressure to bear on us behind the scenes, adopt this attitude in public. I want to leave this point now, but I just want to add this: I had an opportunity during the weekend to conduct negotiations with city councils, city councils on which there are representatives of the party on the other side, and who, in spite of the hullabaloo they raise, have offered me their enthusiastic co-operation in tackling this matter. I want to go further. There are members of the Progressive Party in this, country who occupy official positions and who have offered their assistance to the Department to make possible the implementation of what is embodied in legislation.

In the second place I want to say that it is peculiar that in this whole approach to this Bill hon. members opposite have carefully avoided any reference to the good features which are undeniably contained in this Bill. Not a single word has been said in the whole of this debate about the proposal contained in this Bill to facilitate the administration in so far as affected properties are concerned. We hear a great deal from hon. members about the hardships resulting from the Group Areas Act. We often hear about “hard cases”. But when we come forward with a practical proposal such as that contained in Clause 29 (h) of the Bill, which is designed to facilitate administration and to reduce the points of friction, we do not hear a single word of welcome from hon. members on the other side. They condemn this whole measure. I made the promise here last year that I would inquire into the possibility to bring certain properties in Section 16bis areas under the clauses dealing with affected properties, and I have carried out my promise. That is contained in this measure. But we have not heard a word about it from the other side. That is a further point. This is the fourth point that I have mentioned this evening in regard to which hon. members of the Opposition have not been able to raise a single word of criticism. But listening to the hullabaloo that they raise outside, one would think that we are again placing a new cruel measure on the Statute Book of this country. Whose interests are they serving? Are they serving South Africa’s interests in this way? In the third place this Bill provides that, under given circumstances, ex gratia payments can be made. Not a word from the other side to welcome this provision.

We did not condemn it.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) must exercise a little patience. He will still discover that one needs a great deal of patience in this House. We did not hear a single word from the other side welcoming that provision, because they have to hide it from the public. They have to conceal from the public the fact that a reorganization has taken place which will cause the machinery to function more efficiently. They have to conceal from the public the provision of Clause 3, which really make it impossible for the Group Areas Board to be accused of being prejudiced. They have to hide from the public the fact that this Bill facilitates administration in respect of affected properties. These last two points that I have mentioned must also be concealed from the public under a smokescreen of protests.

Look at their amendment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has moved an amendment in which he starts off with a proposition like this—

The hon. member for Pinelands then followed the bad example of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) by saying that hitherto this legislation has been absolutely unnecessary because everything that we want to achieve secretly can be achieved by means of housing; that we can hide our policy of apartheid under housing measures. Let us test that in the light of the facts. He held up the City Council of Cape Town, for whom he apparently has a great prediliection, just as the hon. members for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and Peninsula have, as a model city council which has allegedly brought about these things without this cruel legislation. I have here the figures in respect of housing schemes for Coloureds as from 1920 to 1948—before the Group Areas legislation. These are the wonderful schemes which hon. members have praised so highly; this is the fair way in which these things can be accomplished. I find that during this period of 28 years 2,845 subeconomic housing units were erected in the Cape Peninsula under these sub-economic schemes. In 28 years, Mr. Speaker, 2,845 subeconomic housing units were erected! And 524 were erected under selling schemes. That is what was done by the Cape Town Municipality. I want to compare these figures now with these “hardships, deprivations and losses” which are being suffered under this Government. I have already mentioned these figures, but I am going to mention them again. This is what I said in my introductory speech—

Already in the case of only one scheme, Bonteheuwel, under this Government’s regime, under this Government’s cruel provisions, the Cape Town Municipality has accomplished more than they did previously over a period of 28 years. [Interjections.] After all, these are the atrocities to which their amendment refers; that is how cruel we are. We are taking these people out of the bushes at Windermere, and we are taking them out of the bushes at Akkers. These are the atrocities. I also said—

Around the University College of Bellville a garden township is being laid out on the initiative of my Department. Sir, they do not want to listen now….

Order! Hon. members cannot hold their caucus here.

Now they have to hold a caucus. I went on to say—

These are schemes which are already coming into being.

[Inaudible.]

It has everything to do with it. It has this to do with it that this Government which is being slandered and accused of being so cruel to the Coloureds, is producing ten times better results than these so-called fair people on the other side.

What about the franchise?

I am going to come to the franchise. I want to refute the statement here this evening that is constantly being made that we are dealing here with an inflexible law which only causes trouble. I think that the time has come when we should refute that statement throughout the country. The Group Areas legislation deals with a complex problem which arose over the years during which slums came into being, years during which the poor sections of the non-White population who were crowded together in those slums were subjected to the greatest exploitation—and I shall come to another point later on in that connection. This Bill makes provision for proper consultation, and hon. members cannot deny it. Before these so-called atrocities are committed there is an opportunity for consultation not only with local authorities but there is an opportunity for consultation with the public if they want to give evidence. This is one law which has its beginnings in public. In the second place, it makes provision for proper representations at public hearings where people are affected. In the third place, it provides for permit control whereby an exception can be made to every rule that is laid down in the Act when dealing with hard cases. And which law in this world does not bring hard cases with it? Under the permit system it is possible to reduce those cases to a minimum. In the fourth place, the Minister is not in a position to take these important decisions except on the advice of these two Boards. I think the time has come when we should say these things and put an end to the lies which are being spread over South Africa about the so-called atrocities of this measure.

There are four hon. members on the other side who have made themselves guilty of using extravagant language. I have been wondering what one should really do with these four members. I have decided that in the case of two of them it is not necessary to reply to them. I refer to the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I do not think it is necessary to react to their remarks. I think we should leave them alone, because I do not think this House or any undertaking or any association of people outside this House would take very much notice of their attitude—except that I want to say this about the hon. member for Outeniqua: The hon. member for Outeniqua always makes a great fuss in this House but he is one of those hon. members who wants to take up most of my time, for hours, with a long face and with pious talk about his desire to cooperate. I am tired of his troublesomeness.

I want to deal with two specific hon. members. The first hon. member with whom I want to deal specifically is the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). The hon. member for Benoni talked about “the absolute power of the Minister who is shifting thousands of people on the East Rand”. He had a great deal to say about this Minister coming forward with a measure which proves that he is obsessed with Hitlerism. The newspapers gave banner headlines to this abusive language of his. What are the facts, Sir, in connection with the hon. member’s allegations about the East Rand? The fact of the matter is that a deputation from the Town Council of Benoni, together with well-meaning residents of Benoni, shortly after I had become Minister, asked to come and see me. Their M.P.C. (Mr. Taurog) was a member of that deputation. Our discussions lasted some considerable time in Pretoria and the upshot was that the Town Council invited me to pay a visit. I went to Benoni, where the cruel officials of the Department of Community Development, according to hon. members on the other side, and I were received in the most courteous and friendly way by the Town Council and their Mayor and their M.P.C. and other residents. Not only did they have discussions with me but they took me on a trip through Benoni and pointed out all their problems to me. After I had seen their problems they took me back to the Town Hall and again gave me a reception. But the hon. member over there was not present on one of those two occasions. Apparently his municipality thinks just as much of him as I think of him.

Why do you not come and stand against me then if that is what you think of me?

What are the further facts? I told Benoni, and they agreed with me, that although there was a large measure of agreement between them and myself and my Department as to what should be done in Benoni, I could not give them a definite undertaking at that stage because I was awaiting the recommendation of the Group Areas Board.

And now you have taken away their powers.

The hon. member was talking nonsense when he said that. I shall come to him in a moment. I cannot take a final decision with regard to Benoni because I am awaiting the recommendations of the Group Areas Board. But I did take a decision with regard to one portion of the East Rand and that is Boksburg, because in that case the recommendation of the Group Areas Board was at my disposal. What has happened at Boksburg? Boksburg is making provision on a large scale for the more developed and the more privileged Coloureds on the East Rand by way of a huge scheme under which approximately 1,500 Coloureds will be housed.

[Inaudible.]

You hear the hon. member for Benoni muttering, Mr. Speaker. He does not know what the facts are but he wants to continue with his gossip. I say that the Town Council of Boksburg is making provision for 1,500 of the more privileged and developed Coloureds. In that case I have the interest and the co-operation of the Member of Parliament for Boksburg. There is an enthusiastic Town Council there. Moreover, Sir, at Sturtonville and the neighbouring area provision is being made for approximately 3,000 Coloured families to be settled there. The Germiston City Council—and the hon. member for Germiston can testify to this—is anxious that we should make faster progress than we are doing with a view to making this provision, because they too want to settle their Coloureds there. They are enthusiastic about it. I have the co-operation of those town councils. But the hon. member for Benoni prefers not to be present on one of these occasions when negotiations take place with town councils. He then attends to his other interests and thereafter he comes into this Parliament of South Africa and calumniates this Government and slanders officials who perform their work enthusiastically. What is the position further, Sir? The position is that we have the co-operation of the Johannesburg City Council as far as Boksburg is concerned. The Union Festival Committee made available an amount of R 10,000 for the development of the lake at Boksburg as a recreational resort for these Coloureds. The Johannesburg City Council contributed twice as much as the Union Festival Committee to develop that lake as a recreational resort. We have the co-operation of the city councils; we have the friendship of the Town Council of Benoni; we are taking these people out of these slums and resettling them in an efficient and positive way. But all the hon. member for Benoni does here is to engage in gossip and slander. I say that in the light of these facts we know what to think of any opinion expressed in this House by the member for Benoni.

Then there is the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I have asked for a Hansard report of the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to make this statement at the outset: the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) is a pack of untruths. What is more, I cannot believe that the hon. member did this in ignorance. Let me deal for a moment with a few of his statements. Let us hear what he says—

The Minister is now to exercise the powers and the Board is going to be abolished.

In effect.

No, not “in effect”. Here I have the hon. member’s exact words. The hon. member must not run away now. I have become accustomed to it that people who cannot stand by what they said run away and sometimes hide behind the skirts of women— people like Mr. Garfield Todd. He says—

What are the facts? The discretionary powers of the Group Areas Board are laid down in Section 5 of the principal Act. This Bill does not change that position. But he says that I am abolishing the Board. What we are now doing in this Bill is to prevent the Board from advertising proposals in the future, because the complaint hitherto has been that the Board has to sit in judgment on its own proposals. We are now using a different body to advertise and to prepare those proposals. The Board then comes along as an impartial body and it retains its discretionary powers. But the hon. member says that we are abolishing it. Let me take his second statement—

Where does he get hold of that? He has sucked it out of his thumb because there is nothing of that kind anywhere in this Bill. The procedure that is followed when property is affected is laid down in Section 17 of the Development Act, and there it is stated that the moment an affected property is placed on the list, the person concerned must be given notice without delay by the Board. The regulations go on to prescribe how soon the Board has to do so and how it should do so. But the hon. member says that they will no longer be given notice. That is untruth number two. His third statement was this—

Where does he get hold of that? The facts are that the principal Act prescribes the procedure to be followed before a group area can be declared; the proposals have to be advertised; counter-proposals have to be invited and a hearing has to take place. And those provisions are not being changed in this Bill. That is untruth number three.

Read on.

If I were the hon. member I would hide my head under my bench unless I was completely shameless. But apparently the hon. member is shameless. He goes on to say—

What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The fact of the matter is that this Bill does not change these provisions at all. The Board is an interested party when it comes to the determination of values, and it is not the Board therefore which determines the value of property. An Act that was passed by this Parliament provides that the Minister shall appoint valuators, and whom does he appoint? He appoints valuators from the list of sworn valuators given to him and if an objection is lodged to the valuation of a sworn valuator and the person concerned hands in his objection, a revision court is constituted and the Act provides that a magistrate or a retired magistrate shall be the chairman of that revision court. But in the past we have always appointed magistrates with two assessors. The Minister has no say about the determination of values. That is untruth number five. Then he goes on to say—

That is the only point that is contained in this Bill, but what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that you get a position such as we had recently where a place is zoned by a City Council as a residential area and where there are business premises in that area. And because that area has been zoned as a residential area, they can no longer use those premises for the purpose for which they were erected. As a result of the experience we have gained, we are now introducing a concession in this measure. We are meeting those people by saying that although there has been a valuation, we will cause a revaluation to be made if they are badly hit by the re-zoning—not by our zoning but by the zoning of outside bodies. But the hon. member says that is an example of cruelty. Mr. Speaker, you will see what invalid arguments the Opposition have used and how they have misused this Bill to slander and to blacken South Africa’s name. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not moan now; their sins are finding them out. That is why they find themselves in this tragic position as a party. I have not yet finished with the hon. member for Durban (North). Sir, do you know what the Indians of Northern Cross tell us; do you know what the Indians of Lenasia tell us; do you know what the Indians of Rustenburg tell us—the poor Indians throughout this country? They are flocking to our offices asking us to save them because they are in the hands of unscrupulous landlords who not only require them to pay impossible rents but before they can get the key to a room, they first have to pay “key money”. This “key money” is sometimes as high as £45, just to get a key to be able to unlock that room.

When I was listening to the hon. member for Durban (North), it became clear to me that he was championing the cause of those who make “key money” out of these poor people. Let him work out for himself why he champions the cause of those people: I do not know. Sir, that is why we are successful in declaring these group areas; that is why we have success in those areas where our housing schemes are beginning to take shape; that is why we are justified in saying that at Pretoria Lake 50 per cent of the Indian population have already been settled happily in their own area. Another objection of hon. members on file other side—this is really their main objection—is to Clauses 22 and 28. The hon. members for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in particular dealt with these two clauses. Two hon. members in this House unequivocally rejected the principles contained in Clauses 22 and 28. I refer to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). There is one point in respect of which I agree with the hon. member for Houghton, and that is her statement that this Bill exposes the incomplete, the imperfect, the unsatisfactory and confused situation in respect of local government rights as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. There I agree with her. This Bill does reveal those things. The fact of the matter is that it is in the Cape Province only that there can be a growing number of non-Whites exercising the vote in local government—not in the other provinces. But the Transvaal is not hypocritical about it and the Free State is not hypocritical about it. And when I dealt with this matter in my introductory speech, the hon. member for South Coast attacked me with great gusto and said, Do you not know that there are non-Whites on the municipal voters’ rolls in Natal?” Of course I knew it, but it is not a growing vote; it is a static vote, and the hon. member knows that perfectly well because he was co-responsible for it.

That is not what you said.

Hon. members opposite are co-responsible for the position which exists in Natal. I said that briefly the position was that in Natal you could get the municipal franchise in two ways; in the first place you could get it if you were a parliamentary voter. If hon. members were so enthusiastic about giving some form of common franchise, either on property qualifications or on any other basis to the Indians and Coloureds who can no longer get the franchise through the parliamentary voters’ roll because of the action taken by this Government in providing for separate representation, why did they do nothing about it in all these years?

How childish you can be!

There the hon. member is beginning to run away again. He is supposed to be so anxious to confer human rights upon the people there, but the fact of the matter is that the 1942 ordinance has never been amended since 1942 under United Party rule in Natal. A further point is that under that ordinance there is a second group of persons who could be given the vote in Natal but it was frozen, namely those who had the municipal franchise on 1 July 1924; they were to retain it, irrespective of race or colour. The result is that in consequence of this parliamentary corridor to the municipal roll, there are about 509 people in Natal who have the franchise. In Pietermaritzburg where there are 18,000 voters, 50 Indians have the vote under that hero of South Coast! Let me put a few questions to him now. Why has Natal not brought about a change since 1942? Why did they not bring about this change after the introduction of this thing behind which they are shielding to-day, namely separate representation? If this was their desire, why did they not do so? Then I also want to put this to the hon. member: If he is not in favour of the system that we now suggest, will he tell this House this evening—after all, he is a man—that he as leader of the United Party in Natal wants the introduction of a common municipal voters’ roll for Natal, that is to say, for Coloureds, Indians and Whites? If the hon. member does not answer, then he lacks the courage to reply. Because, Sir, there is another small matter that I want to take up with him this evening; and he knows about it because he is informed by his Executive Committee members in Natal. Last year the leader of the National Party in the Provincial Council of Natal introduced a motion dealing with this matter of Coloured and Indian franchise in that province, and he attacked them about their attitude there and he was then called by the members of the Executive Committee who said to him, “Do not proceed with your motion; you are making things difficult for the Central Government because the Minister is giving his attention to these things and we must wait

Clause 65 of this Bill?

No, what I am doing is to expose the pomposity of the hon. member for South Coast. His whole attitude, as he sits there, testifies to a guilty conscience. He is receiving a beating to-night and he knows that his attitude is on a par with that of the Garfield Todds.

And I suppose you are Roy Welensky?

Now I want to put a further question to the hon. member. I want to make an offer to him. I am prepared to appoint a joint committee, together with his province, to inquire into and report upon the question of municipal franchise under the Natal Ordinance. Will he accept that? Now he remains silent. He wants to have the opportunity to criticize whenever he likes, but he himself wants to do nothing to help his province out of its critical position. Do you know, Sir, what will happen to him in connection with this matter? The same thing that happened in connection with another matter. He will eventually want to stand on his head and kick his legs together in the air.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not be so personal.

The last accusation was that the Minister was acting in a cavalier fashion, in a self-righteous way, and that he wanted to sweep away the laws of the provinces. It was the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in particular who came with this accusation. He was only following in the footsteps of the hon. member for South Coast. What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that in the past year—last year—there have been discussions on two occasions between myself and the four Administrators. The first one led to the drafting of a memorandum for their consideration, and after they had considered the memorandum—and I am convinced that the hon. member for South Coast saw the memorandum, because he was informed—there was a second discussion between the Administrators and myself, and on that occasion all four Administrators agreed to co-operate with me on an inter-departmental committee to investigate this matter and to come forward with proposals. How was that inter-departmental committee composed? On the Government side I appointed two officials, two from Community Development, and one from the Department of Coloured Affairs; the Transvaal Administrator appointed the director of local government in the Transvaal, one of the greatest authorities in the field of local government in the Republic (I do not want to mention his name; I mention his position only); the Administrator of the Free State appointed the head of the local government division of the Orange Free State; the Cape Province appointed the undersecretary for local government in the Cape, and Natal appointed the first administrative officer (local government). And the Executive Committees knew about this. In other words, on this inter-departmental committee the four Administrators had a majority. It is important to remember that. We had three representatives there. Sir, this committee consulted with various bodies and I should like to refer to a few of them. They consulted with and took evidence separately from the representatives of the offices of the four provincial administrations. That is where they started. Furthermore, they consulted with and took evidence from the local Health Commission of Natal, the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils. Cape Province; the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, Transvaal; the deputy-secretary and other senior officers of the Department of Coloured Affairs; the Executive Committee of the Union Coloured Advisory Council; the Executive Committees, separately, of the four provincial municipal associations in the Republic; the general business committee of the Durban City Council; the Tonga Township Board; the town clerk of Johannesburg and his staff board; the secretary and the oldest member of the Management Board of Mamre; and the head of the Indian Affairs Division. They conducted negotiations and exchanged ideas with them, and this committee, on which the Administrators had the majority, came to the Government with a unanimous report, and as portion of the report the committee suggested the proposed new Section 25 and Section 43bis. The new Section 25bis was not part of their report—that I admit. But the new Sections 25 and 43bis formed part of their report. Section 25bis was inserted by the Government on its own responsibility.

What happened when this committee instituted investigations? Amongst other things, they had this evidence, from which I shall read out a few extracts just briefly. The president of the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils of the Cape said—

In spite of this wonderful system which existed all these years! —

But not in the sphere of local government.

Then I quote the chairman of the Divisional Council of the Cape—

The vice-president of the United Municipal Executive of the Republic said—

A Johannesburg city councillor—

The deputy-secretary of the Local Government Division, Cape Province said—

So it goes on. What follows from this?

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister lay the report on the Table before we come to the Committee Stage so that we can study it?

My reply is “No”. This is an inter-departmental report.

Why are you quoting from it then?

It has always been the practice not to table an inter-departmental report. But what I am prepared to do is to allow the hon. member to peruse the report. He can come to my office and peruse the report there. Say “Thank you”.

What a business!

I shall allow the hon. member to Deruse the report. Is he prepared to accept that offer?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Lay it on the Table!

You see, Sir, he refuses to accept this offer. This is a dodge on his part. He does not want to know what is stated in the report. He knows that no inter-departmental report is laid on the Table of this House. The hon. member does not want to peruse the report. He wants something to shield behind, a fig-leaf to cover his nakedness in Natal.

Then I come to the next point in connection with this Committee’s report, and that is that in order to ripen the Coloureds for local government, it is necessary to make a start at a stage prior to the stage for which the Ordinance in the Cape Province makes provision. In other words, we must follow the system which has already been followed fruitfully in the urban areas for Coloureds, where they are at first represented by consultative committees, and once the consultative committees have taught them a sense of responsibility, a management committee is established; this management committee is then given certain powers, and after having established the area for the management committee, which falls under the jurisdiction of a particular local authority, and having found that it works well, the process can be carried further. It is for that reason that the Government has inserted Section 25bis. What does that section say? It says that before a full-fledged municipal authority is established, whether it be a town council or a municipality, in other words, before we make use of the process of the existing Ordinance in the Cape Province, the Minister will appoint an ad hoc committee of five people on which the Administrator of the province concerned will have at least one representative, and that ad hoc committee will inquire into and report upon that particular management area for which the local authority is contemplated.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) are the only two members on the other side who came forward with tangible points, and I want to thank them for it. I want to thank them for the dignified way in which they took part in this debate. Both of them have a knowledge of these matters, and they did deal with the merits of this matter at any rate. My reply to them is this: We must not, when dealing with a poorer section of the population, shrink back from the duty of placing them on the road towards development. This ad hoc committee will in fact be able, in consultation with the Provincial Administration of the province concerned, in consultation with the local authority which exercises supervision over the management area that is established, to examine the relationships between the existing local authority and the new Coloured authority which is to be established; the ad hoc committee will report on all these points and will be able to go into the possibilities and determine to what extent and within what period these things should take place. That is why we find that a municipality such as Bellville is already openly declaring its enthusiasm to take this step and that it gladly offers its co-operation in respect of Bellville South. That is my reply to these hon. members. We are aware of the fact that there are problems, but they will be tackled in the closest co-operation with the Provincial Administration concerned as well as the local authority concerned.

And if they do not agree?

Then we shall have to convince them, just as we are convincing one city council after another that they have to co-operate with Community Development to establish separate residential areas. Any sensible person who has to deal with these problems would co-operate. It is only the Opposition who refuse to co-operate.

I want to conclude by saying that I have from the outset taken into account the fact that there must be the closest co-operation between myself and the provinces, the Administrators and the provincial administrations; that we must establish these bodies on a pattern which conforms as closely as possible to the existing order and to the provisions of the existing ordinances, and that we must try to obtain the blessing of the provincial administrations. I want to quote a few letters now that I have received from the Administrators, because this legislation and this report were submitted to them. The hon. member for South Coast should have received this report through his Natal Executive Committee members. These are the comments that we received: The Transvaal Provincial Administration informed us that in principle they had no objection to this proposal. The Administration of the Orange Free State supports the recommendations of the commission of inquiry and this amended legislation, but they ask that the difinition of “Administrator” in the old Act be retained. And in fact it is being retained. “Administrator” means the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. The Cape Province informed us that in principle they supported this. They did raise the question of one minor provision. We met them in that regard and they informed us that they were satisfied. After they had first informed us that they were studying this Bill, we received the following letter from Natal—

They then recommend, amongst other things, that if we want to proceed with this Bill. “Administrator” should be the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. That is the same thing for which the other provinces asked. These are the replies from the provincial administrators. Sir, does the account which I have given here this evening not give the lie to the accusations from the other side that we acted in a cavalier fashion? Furthermore, does it not give the lie to the accusation that we want to establish inferior local authorities? If we had stopped at the establishment of management committees, then it certainly would have been passible to raise the objection that we want to establish inferior bodies. But in Section 25bis we go further and say that we want to have consultations—in the Cape Province too where there is an ordinance —but we want to enable the other three provinces to adapt their ordinances along these lines, and it will now be possible to do so. If the hon. member for South Coast is really interested in this matter, I want to ask him to influence his province to come forward with an ordinance which fits into this system. Let us gradually establish these full-fledge municipal units, and let us guide the Coloured to realize his aspirations in his own residential areas, in his own towns and cities, and let us give him the opportunity to increase his self-respect in that way, and at the same time let us put the self-respect and protection of our own people first on the list.

I move—

I have pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill. The amendments are not far-reaching, although they are nevertheless very important, for they concern a very important matter, and the intention is really to facilitate the activities of the South African Pedigree Livestock Association. The quality of our livestock is important to every farmer, and I think it is also important to every patriot, for cattle farming in South Africa plays a great and important part in our agricultural economy. That is why it is necessary for the building up of this branch of farming on an economic basis that we should constantly improve the quality of our livestock. I do not want to make a long speech. I may perhaps just mention that the South African Pedigree Livestock Association was established as far back as 1905 and that the Registration of Pedigree Livestock Act, Act No. 22, was passed by this House in 1920, which made possible the incorporation of a South African Pedigree Livestock Association and the registration and publication of the records of the pedigree of stud animals by the association and its affiliated societies. Mr. Speaker, this Act was amended in 1951, inter alia, for the purpose of placing greater emphasis on inspection services, so that the registration service could be based not only on office records but also on actual inspections. A further amendment was designed to make the establishment possible of autonomous societies under specified conditions. This Act was consolidated in 1957. No further amendments have been made since that date. The standards of our pedigree livestock compares favourably with those of other countries, so much so that consideration has already been given to the export of thoroughbred pedigree livestock to other countries. We have available to-day herds of outstanding quality, which can be regarded as a national asset. Fortunately for South Africa there is no breed worth mentioning as far as we know that cannot adapt itself in this country and of which no animals have been imported and which is not strongly represented here.

I now want to mention a few of the more important amendments. The first is the definition of “pure-bred livestock” which is being inserted here because it is not contained in the principal Act. As I have said, the South African Pedigree Livestock Association has always maintained a very high standard and the new definition which lays down that pure-bred livestock shall be farm livestock which belongs to and possesses the phenotypical characteristics of a particular breed, will strengthen the Association’s hands in cases of doubt. The Pedigree Livestock Advisory Board, whose function I have already explained, supports this amendment. For the information of the House I just want to mention that on one occasion the Pedigree Livestock Association was almost placed in an embarrassing position by the fact that a farmer imported crossbred pigs into South Africa and then applied for the registration of those pigs. The application was refused, but it is likely that the Pedigree Livestock Association would have found itself greatly embarrassed, in view of the vagueness of the Act as it now reads, if that case had been tested in court. A further object in defining “pure-bred” livestock is to provide a basis for the upgrading of livestock, for example animals registered in sub-pedigree books and newly-bred breeds. By means of a process of upgrading by making use of pure-bred sires over the years we can make that breed so pure that I think it would be unwise to exclude them from sub-pedigree books and registration. The proposed amendment also makes it possible for our newly-bred breeds, with the approval of the Minister, to be recognized by the Pedigree Livestock Association, when these breeds have been continuously bred as a closed group for at least six generations. So much with regard to the proposed amendments in Clause 1.

I now come to the next amendment. In terms of the principal Act it is illegal for a society to take options on livestock on behalf of distant buyers or foreign buyers. This amendment is now being introduced to give the Pedigree Livestock Association or a registered society the right to act as agents for such buyers, on payment of commission, except in the capacity of auctioneers. They cannot therefore at the same time also be auctioneers of the livestock in question. Transactions will be facilitated by this concession. The principal Act already provides that officials of the association may not in their personal capacities undertake services of this nature. This provision stays. In order to ensure that only pure-bred livestock may be registered and not all farm livestock, Section 8 of the Act is also being amended. Formerly the appellation was in fact incorrect, for the reference was not to “rasegte vee” but to “rasvee”. I do not think there are any linguists to-day who can tell what was meant by this term A second amendment to be introduced in Section 8 concerns the reference in the principal Act to our neighbouring states as Southern and Northern Rhodesia. In fact those countries are no longer called Southern and Northern Rhodesia, they are known as the Federation of the Rhodesias. We now propose that they be described as territories adjoining the Republic or South West Africa.

These are all the amendments contained in this Bill. All of them were initially asked for by the South African Pedigree Livestock Association as well as by the South African Pedigree Livestock Advisory Board. The purpose of the amendments is merely to facilitate the activities of the association. My Department concerns itself only indirectly with the activities of the association. The association has made its name in South Africa and is known for conducting its affairs in a most orderly and praiseworthy manner in the interests of the livestock industry of South Africa.

I think we are taking a step forward with this Bill as far as the breeding of stud-book cattle is concerned. The stud-book was started in 1906. In those years very few sheep and cattle were registered. An auxiliary stud-book was added to the stud-book but was subsequently closed because doubt existed as to whether the animals’ ancestry could be traced back for six generations. To-day we have three divisions. We have what we call the “advanced registry” cattle, that is to say cattle who qualify in the various respects such as blood-strain, butter-fat, milk etc. The standard of our imports into South Africa is the highest in the world and I want to congratulate our stock breeders on having set such a high standard. The stud cattle of this country compare favourably with cattle anywhere in the world. Cattle from South Africa have already competed in the highest circles as far as milk, butter-fat and pedigree is concerned. We have the Friesland division, the Ayreshire division, the Jersey division, the Afrikaner division etc. as sub-divisions of the SA. Stud-Book Association. Every one of these divisions is served by its own board. Afrikaner cattle, which are exclusively bred in South Africa to-day, are to-day successfully exported to other parts of the world. We should congratulate the breeders on the fact that they have produced a thoroughbred an animal which is such an improvement on the old one that we are even exporting them to Mexico and other parts of the world to-day. We have already exported stud-stock to India and parts of North Africa as well. I think the stud-breeders of South Africa have reason to be proud of their achievements, not only in this country but in other countries as well, when it comes to the milk yield and butter-fat yield test. We should also congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill which he has done in co-operation with the Stud-Book Association, a Bill which enables us to adapt ourselves to the times in which we are living.

We on this side of the House will support the Bill and vote for it. We know that the amendments in this Bill have been asked for by the Stud-Book Association in order to assist them to streamline the administrative side of the running of a stud-book. There has not been any opposition from any of the breed societies to the proposed amendments, but they unamimously support them. In the circumstances, we will support the Bill.

There is so much unanimity as to the acceptability of the provisions of this Bill that not much remains to be said, The provision in regard to pedigree animals is very important. The first amendment remedies a few inaccuracies in the principal Act which worried one. Hitherto we have referred to “racehorses” and it is now being substituted by the term “thoroughbreds”. This is a significant amendment because the term “racehorse” could never be an indication of pedigree or good breeding. If people ordinarily spoke about a thoroughbred, they thought of the English thoroughbred and not of a “thoroughbred horse”, the term wrongly used in the English translation of the Act, but a specific type of thoroughbred. There are also other pedigree horses which are thoroughbreds, like Flemish horses, Arabs and Hackneys, etc. If this amendment is not made it will never have the right meaning to the stud breeder. The same applies to the amendment of “farm livestock” and “pure-bred livestock”. That was of little significance to the stud breeder because these two terms could apply to hundreds of thousands of a specific breed without indicating that it is pure-bred pedigree animals, animals which possess the phenotypical racial characteristics to such a marked degree that they are able to carry it over to their progeny. That is why it is so important, in my opinion, that these amendments should be made, so that there can never be any doubt as to what is meant by purebred livestock as compared with farm livestock. Where animals have to be graded up, it is now required that a closed group must be bred for at least six years. That is a horse of a different colour as compared with the use merely of a pedigree sire with ordinary grade or farm stock.

The point I really want to come to lies in this provision of what is pedigree. To my mind, there is still a large field lying fallow in regard to the grading up in a closed group of new strains and new pedigree types of stock. We know that there is a great diversity of pure-bred livestock amongst the foreign dairy breeds and meat breeds, with years of pure breeding behind them. When, however, we come to the indigenous breeds of cattle which are adaptable to our particular climatic conditions, it seems to me that our farmers are still concentrating too little on breeding up new strains. In this regard I think of the Afrikaner breed which is the only indigenous breed to be included in the stud-book in 1912 —barely 50 years ago. I have noticed that the society concerned is going to celebrate this occasion in a proper manner this year. I believe that the Afrikaner breed can be used as mother stock to serve as a basis for the breeding of new strains. Last year the Minister introduced a Bill to deal with mother seed, its cultivation and what could be done to provide new varieties which will suit our climatic and soil conditions. What applies there also applies to the Afrikaner as a mother breed. It has been proved over and over that the Afrikaner cattle form the best basis for crossing with other foreign types. The best results are achieved in that way. The Afrikaner is an outstanding animal. It has a good carcase covered with meat of the finest texture and it is adapted to our conditions in so far as hardiness and conformation are concerned; it has a beautiful, velvety loose skin, a strong mouth and legs and a beautiful head. I could describe it even further, but perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will call me to order.

Order! The hon. member can conclude by saying that the Afrikander constitutes a good basis for crossbreeding.

Then I shall not continue. I merely thought that if I wanted to recommend it as a basis I should do so convincingly. I think for example, of one strain which can be taken from the Afrikander breed, namely the “poenskop” or hornless Afrikander, and animal which was known to our forefathers and which was not obtained by crossbreeding with another hornless breed, but which was bred naturally and taken out of the herd because it was difficult to inspan the ox and because the young cow was bad-tempered and difficult to tie to the cow-pen. I maintain that the breeder in South Africa who is the first to succeed in building up a pure-bred hornless Afrikander herd, can call himself Rich John, because if such a breed can be bred we shall have a slaughter ox with characteristics that cannot be outclassed. Then you have the various groups according to colour. We know that the association only recognizes light red and dark red. Older people will remember, however, that there were black Afrikanders which were known in Natal as the “tintern blacks”. They are still there to-day. I have seen them at Cedara agricultural college—it is a hard type of Afrikander beast. We have the “rooiwitpens” and “rinkhals” groups. These colours should again be bred as strains of the Afrikander breed. I also think of the yellow Afrikander beast. I was one of the first who asked that they too should be included in the stud-book, but for some reason or other that has always been voted down. In the meantime the yellow Afrikander is gaining more and more ground and we shall see him at the Jubilee Show at Johannesburg. He is being exhibited more and more to-day. I have good reasons for talking about him, because his yellow colouring is the best suited to his surroundings in the southern hemisphere. When you study wild life in the southern hemisphere, Sir, you find various shades of yellow …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the facilities for registration as provided for in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, what I have said can be related with the provisions of this Bill, namely, that if you can breed for six generations in a closed group, you will be able to produce a new breed. All I am doing is to refer to a type of animal which can be bred in terms of these provisions and I contend, with respect, that I am in order. By doing so I am not departing from the provisions of the Bill. I want to conclude by giving the reasons why I think this is one of the breeds which should be developed and for whom a new stud-book should be opened. The colouring of the animals in the southern hemisphere is known to be wonderfully resistant to the ultra violet rays of the sun. Amongst these colours the following predominate: grey-brown, yellow, red grey, etc. These are all shades in which yellow dominates. The wild animals in the warm tropical areas do not have this colouring, they are darker. As compared with that, you have the yellow hair colour in Australia, in the Argentine and in Southern Africa, a colour which has developed naturally in order to adapt the animal. Consequently animals with that colour are best suited to our climatic conditions. Apart from that it is very attractive to look at and the old transport riders confirmed that the hide of the yellow Afrikander beast was the most suitable for rimes and strops. If you walk amongst herds in the Northern Transvaal which are not dipped regularly you immediately recognize the yellow Afrikander because of the absence of ticks, probably because they become discouraged in having to bite into his thick hide. I maintain that if you want to breed this and other strains from the Afrikander breed, an interesting field lies open before you. All that is necessary is to breed for six generations in a closed group in terms of these provisions.

I want to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have given this Bill. I just want to say to the last speaker that if all his suggestions in regard to the breeding of various branches of the Afrikander breed were put into practice, there is nothing to prevent those breeders concerned from applying for registration. This Bill makes that possible and I am pleased that the hon. member appreciates that.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is really an omnibus Bill. Hon. members have had a great deal of work to do recently and I am aware of the fact that it is difficult to see a Bill such as this in its true perspective and that it requires a great deal of time to study all its implications. No less than six different Acts are affected by this Bill, for example the Native Taxation and Development Act of 1925; The Native Administration Act of 1927; The Native Trust and Land Act of 1936; The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951; the South West Africa Native Affairs Administration Act of 1954; and the Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959. Because I know the time that is required to make a study of all the implications of such an amending Bill, I have had a White Paper prepared which has been made available to hon. members. Hon. members would have noticed from the White Paper that this Bill has few provisions which are of a contentious nature and that most of the provisions are of an administrative nature where certain things are being put right. I want to deal briefly with a few of the proposed amendments.

We intend, in the first place, to amend the Native Taxation and Development Act of 1925. The most important amendment is that in future it will be legal for an employer to keep back some part of his employee’s wage in order to pay his tax, provided the employee asks him to do so. It is a well known fact that in many cases Bantu employees have already asked that part of their earnings be kept back so that their taxes may be paid. It really amounts to a kind of “pay as you earn” system. Many employers and employees are greatly in favour of such a system and have asked me whether it is possible to legalize it. Although that is already being done in many cases hon. members are probably aware of the fact that it is not strictly in accordance with the law. We intend making this practice legal by means of this Bill. Where the Bantu have been consulted in this matter they have expressed themselves in favour of this concession. They are grateful for it. There is a second amendment to this particular Act. If a person cannot pay his taxes he can, of course, be prosecuted. The law however, requires that those summonses should be signed by the magistrate of the district concerned whereas the person who is responsible for the collection of the taxes is the Bantu Commissioner. He is also the person who, for all practical purposes, prosecutes. As the law stands at the moment however, he must first get the magistrate concerned to sign those summonses before he prosecutes. That is really senseless and that position is being put right by providing that the Commissioner himself may sign the summons. A further amendment is in connection with the three councils namely the general councils which previously existed for the Transkei Witzieshoek and Thaba’Nchu. Certain local taxes must always be paid to these councils. With the advent of Bantu authorities, however, these names have changed and the objection of this amendment is to bring the existing position into line with the changed circumstances. We also provide what form the receipts for taxes received should assume. It will now be possible to paste that receipt in the reference book of the Native. That will be to his advantage. It is further provided that any Bantu authority who collects taxes may be compensated for it. I have personally seen how this system works in other parts of Africa. These authorities collect the taxes from the Natives and they do so more efficiently than an official of the Department could do it. A certain percentage of the taxes thus collected is then refunded to that authority as remuneration for its work. Hon. members should note that it is not refunded to an individual, but to the authorities as such. We are all convinced that such a system will assist greatly in South Africa in making the collection of taxes more satisfactory. At the same time it can serve as a training school for the Bantu while the authorities are compensated for the taxes which they have collected. In the second place we are changing the Native Administration Act of 1927. We have met a difficulty there as the result of a Supreme Court judgment. It has been the practice in the past since 1927 that when a chief dies and his successor is not yet able to take over because he is too young, or for any other reason, to nominate an acting chief until he is able to take over, and that also applied in the case of a headman. In other words the administration must go on. That has been the custom since 1927, but unfortunately the courts have expressed their doubt on this matter. They were not sure whether the Section was sufficiently clear and that such an acting chief could be appointed and dismissed. We are now simply amending the Section in order to bring it into line with what has really been the practice all the years, a practice which is welcomed by the Bantu. I want to say at once that there are many factors that have to be considered. In the first place, it must be clearly determined who the heir is. Hon. members who know the Bantu will know that on those occasions there are quite a few people who lay claim to the chieftaincy. Our expert must then go into the question and determine who the lawful successor is. Not only must he go into the historical aspect of the matter, but he has to consult the tribe itself, because they are really the people who say who should succeed. It often happens that the person who appears to be the likely successor is mental in which case somebody else must immediately be appointed in his stead to take over the administration. When the successor is able to take over, the acting chief must be dismissed. Another important fact which makes it essential to interfere here is this. In the case of many tribes you have the position that they do not want to talk about the chief’s successor, particularly when he has died, during the first year of his death. In other words, during that period of mourning nothing must be said about his successor, with the result that the administration of the tribe suffers. That is why it is necessary to have an acting chief or headman. My policy, however, is, and I firmly believe in this, that we should not act on our own in these cases, but that there should be proper consultation with the tribe. This is merely to remove a doubt which has existed on the part of the Appeal Court.

There is a second section which deals with the Native Administration Act, and that is the registration of customary marriages amongst the Bantu. As you know, Sir, only one Province, namely Natal has this custom. I think it is a very good system and I want to extend this Natal custom to the other provinces as well. There are practical reasons for it. The first is that my colleague the hon. Minister of Transport, follows the practice on the Railways of paying the married person a higher wage than the unmarried person, but in order to prove that he is married, the Bantu Commissioner has to submit a certificate. The result is that the Bantu Commissioner is involved in a great amount of work. When you find a person in the urban areas and he says he is married, he must hand in a sworn statement to the effect that he is indeed married before he is entitled to a house. It often happens that a person says he is married, he makes a false declaration and he is given a house. Within a short while he takes another wife or a number of wives. Strong representations have been made to me from various quarters in this connection that unless we extend this custom to the other provinces as soon as possible, there will be a great number of illegitimate children. Welfare organizations, Bantu ministers of religion and non-White administrative officials have made strong representations to me that this custom should be extended to the other provinces. All we are doing here is to extend it, but we are not making it compulsory. We are acting very carefully and with great circumspection. I hope it will be possible to make it compulsory eventually because this question as to who is the wife of the man who was not married according to Christian rites often causes great difficulty. It will remove a great many difficulties and facilitate administration.

Now I come to the Native Trust and Land Act and the amendments we are effecting to it; there are two things in particular. Provision is made in one of the sections that in future we will have the right under that legislation to purchase a commonage or a portion of a commonage which the city council concerned wishes to sell. This is also to remove a doubt which the legal profession has had as to whether this was 100 per cent in conformity with the 1913 Act. The opinion is that in terms of the 1913 legislation it is not possible to purchase such a commonage. I can only say that such commonages have already been purchased and many town councils are prepared to sell portions of their commonages to us, but under the existing legislation we do not really have the power to buy. All we are doing here is to make it legally possible for us to buy the commonage in cases where city councils wish to sell to us.

The second point is this that at East London we are now joining a portion of the Mdanzani area on to the Native area by proclaiming it a released area. It consists of the Mdanzani outspan and farms Nos. 100, 106 and 107 which border on the Matjolo location. What we are doing is to proclaim it a released area. The reason why we are doing this is to develop a Bantu town in that area. As hon. members know many fairly extensive schemes are afoot in the King William’s Town/East London area as far as industrial development is concerned. Various committees have worked on them the prospects are very good and various industrialists are interested. We have this difficulty at East London that its location is far too small and it cannot be expanded. The only solution is to transfer the location to the Mdanzani area which borders on the Native area and to develop a Bantu town there as was done in the case of Umlazi near Durban to-day. The Natives will have property rights etc. in this town which actually forms part of the Native area. I may say that generally speaking our experience has been that towns which border on a Native reserve and which are properly controlled by the Native administrative officers there, have produced very good results indeed as far as labour is concerned. A good example of that is the Bantu town at King William’s Town. Wonderful results have been obtained there as far as the development of industries is concerned. All we are doing here is to include this area. We have Area 34 nearby, which is really a Native area, but it does not serve its purposes and in addition to that various representations have been made to me that Area 34 should be cut off and consolidated with the Bantu area. I want to admit at once that the area which we are taking is not the same morgenage as Area 34. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) shakes his head. He is the brake when it comes to acquiring land for the Natives; he does not want them to get too much land, but the Cape Province still owes the Native Trust thousands of morgen of land, and this is merely a drop in the ocean. But the important point is that this is an important step as far as the development of the King William’s Town/East London industrial complex is concerned. It is therefore in the interests of the entire White community there. I think that the hon. member will support us in this case. East London has another problem as well. It barely has room for the establishment of its own urban Natives, but it is also faced with this difficulty that it lacks funds. We are now developing this Bantu town and all the workers from East London will be housed in this town and it will not cost the City Council and the taxpayers of East London one penny. It will also benefit the Bantu greatly. I may just add that I have had many letters of appreciation, not only from White inhabitants of East London but also from the Bantu, people who welcome this as an important step forward as far as their housing is concerned.

We are also amending the Bantu Authorities Act. All that is happening is that every taxpayer must pay his money into the local coffers. When he is punished for non-payment of tax, we provide that money should also be paid into those coffers. It is really to the benefit of the Bantu himself.

Then we have an amendment to the South West Africa Native Affairs Administration Act. As hon. members know, a formula was laid down a few years ago, in 1954 or in 1955 in respect of the South West Administration’s contribution to the development of the Bantu areas there. The contribution of the Administration amounts to approximately R100,000 per annum, but this formula can only be changed after ten years. In the meantime it has become necessary for us to start developing many of those places. I announced a three year plan a few years ago in terms of which we embarked upon certain developmental works and we have achieved wonderful results. Some places did not have any water at all; at one place where there was only one borehole we sank 17 boreholes, each of which was successful. The whole area is now provided with water. Likewise we embarked upon other developmental works with very good results. I want to give you one example, Sir. You have the Omaramba. It looks very much like a river but there is no water in it. We have constructed a canal scheme there so that when it rains the water is trapped in the canal and led into the various dams which have been constructed. I may add that had I not done that a few years ago, some of the Bantu people in the Ovamboland would have died of thirst last year. But fortunately we constructed it timeously and it was not necessary to cart water to those people. I can mention a couple of schemes where we have attained wonderful success. We find, however, that we cannot carry out all these undertakings with R100,000. The law does not permit us to add anything to it. All we are asking here is to be allowed to use R100.000 at least, and then to exceed that amount albeit in the form of loans or in the form of contributions voted by this House. Everything will, of course, be laid before this House. I think hon. members will welcome this.

Then finally we have an amendment to a section of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act. The Act provides that assistance can only be given to Bantu in Bantu areas. It cannot be given in locations. The position unfortunately is that we cannot give assistance in the existing locations in the Transkei, which is a totally different complex from other locations. I want to give an example. A person may apply for permission to run a bus service between the Bantu area and the location, for instance. We cannot assist him. A group of Bantu who formed a company, a very sound proposition, in Umtata wanted assistance with their company, but because they were situated in the Umtata location they could not be assisted under the law. All we are doing here is to provide that in areas such as the Transkei where the White towns are surrounded by Bantu areas, we shall have the right to assist those Bantu. Take another example. A Bantu may want to erect a building which may be of great value to the Bantu community in Umtata, but because he wants to erect it in the location we cannot assist him because the existing legislation forbids although we realize how essential it is. We are creating an opening in the case of the Transkei so that this can be done. There is a rumour that there are 30 persons who want assistance which we cannot give, but they will be able to get it now. These are areas which are surrounded by Bantu areas but I want to make it clear that it will not apply in the case of locations surrounded by White areas in the rest of the country, or in the case of border areas. Those, briefly, are the amendments contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill amends six Acts and the Minister has given us an explanation of the various provisions of the Bill and I want to say at once that there will be other speakers on this side who will deal particularly with certain aspects of the Bill. The Minister has commented already on the particular interest shown by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in certain sections of the Bill. In the main, the provisions of this Bill deal with administrative matters so we do not propose to deal with any aspect of separate development for Bantu areas with a view to their becoming independent or things of that sort. We propose to deal with the Bill on the basis of its administrative amendments. I want to deal only with some of the provisions of the Bill. I am not going to follow the Minister from clause to clause.

The first thing I want to deal with is Clause 1, which inserts 5bis in the original Act. This is the clause which permits the employer of a Native to collect the tax or the rate which the Native has to pay and to pay it on his behalf. The White Paper in that regard says the law prohibits an employer from deducting any amounts from the wages of his employee for the purpose of paying taxes, even if he is requested to do so; many employers are, however, prepared to assist in this regard and provision is accordingly made to authorize such deductions. Sir, the truth is of course that very many employers do deduct it because they are pestered by their employees to do so. That is recognized in the White Paper, but they do not say that those employers are breaking the law. Many employers pay the tax themselves. We are all getting rather hard up now so that not so many of us do it as used to, but in the main it is a good provision to put on a legal basis this practice which has been observed in the breach as far as the law is concerned. It does not harm anyone, but it does a great deal of good as far as both the taxpayer and the Receiver of Revenue are concerned, who now gets his money with the minimum of trouble.

The next clause I want to deal with is something I raised here before and I make no apology for coming back to it again. It is Clause 8 and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to Section 9, and particularly Section 16. Clause 8 (a), dealing with an amendment to Section 19 of the principal Act, says that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”; and in Clause 16 there is a whole row of changes of definition from the word “Native” to “Bantu”. I am going to make another appeal to the Minister in this regard because he comes now with another Act which will make this change throughout virtually the mass of legislation dealing with our Bantu people, and I want to appeal to the Minister to deal with this matter as he would wish it to be dealt with if the shoe was on the other foot. If we are to deal with a fundamental word such as the nomenclature to be used in connection with the Bantu people, then let us at any rate use their language correctly when we use it in our legislation. In the way of ordinary conversation, if people make mistakes, if their grammar is poor, and if when talking to one another, use the wrong word now and again, and even if it becomes a colloquialism, fair enough, but when we come to putting it in our law let us put the right thing into the law when we know what the right thing is.

It is like calling an Afrikaner an African.

Anyone can make a mistake in ignorance, but when we know the right word dealing with the matter, why not use the right thing? We know that the Bantu want the matter dealt with in the right way. Then why do we persist in entrenching it in our law? Surely the least the Bantu can expect is that when we, the White Parliament of South Africa, pass legislation by which we describe them and give them a name, seeing that we are using their own word, let us use it correctly. Let us not take their word and use it incorrectly. This is not our word; it is theirs. Recently when the matter was raised I was told that this had become through general usage the word “used”. I am sorry, but that still does not justify us in putting it into our Statutes. There are some of the people concerned who in any case do not look upon themselves as Abantu. The Minister knows that. This is one of those cases where we should not say that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”. It has not. “Bantu” has not got the same meaning as “Native”. If you say a man is a Bantu you are wronging him by misusing his own language against him. It is so easy to put the thing right. Why does not the Minister grasp the nettle? He grasps the nettle with great courage in regard to things far more difficult than this, but the Minister would be surprised at the number of members of the Bantu people who are upset about this form of nomenclature used in our legislation. Sir, they do not like it. The Minister surely must know that one of these days when they start to deal with their own education, one of the first things they will put right will be this matter of calling themselves, in terms of their own language, by a name which is acceptable to themselves. They will not agree that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”.

What must they be called?

If we are going to use the word at all, then we should call him what he is, umutu. Bantu is the plural. Why do we use the plural to denote the singular? AbaNtu is the plural form. Ntu is the root word, and Ntu is a person. abaNtu is a person.

But we are speaking in the plural.

Yes, abaNtu is the plural form, people. umuNtu is the singular. If we are going to say something is the same as “Native”, we should say “umuNtu”. [Interjections.] I am not going to move amendments in the Committee Stage. I am appealing to the Minister to put the thing right. Hon members opposite may laugh, but they would not go to a big tribal gathering in Pondoland or Zululand and meet the Banza and laugh at what they are saying here, because they will find that they are dealing with extremely dignified people who would not dream of laughing at such a thing. This is an important matter to them. It is the same as enshrining in our legislation the plural form when we mean the singular. So I appeal to the Minister not to give offence unnecessarily and when we know what the right word to use is. Let us not give them these pin-pricks, although this is more than a pin-prick. But I leave that and go on to the next point.

I come to Clause 9 (1) (d) (ii). This clause deals with the appointment of an acting chief or headman. The Minister says quite rightly that provision has not been made for the appointment of an acting chief or headman and for his retirement at a later stage when the heir becomes of an age to take over the chieftainship. This, in terms of Native administration, is a very important matter indeed. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in regard to these acting appointments a special ceremony should be adopted. In a tribe where the heir is a child and an acting appointment has to be made, often called a regent, once again taking over the European term and applying it to the Bantu, complete and absolute certainty should be registered regarding that acting appointment so that the tribe will have no doubt whatever not only as to who has been appointed but that he has the authority of the Government behind him. This question of young boys, near-children in some cases, getting the chieftainship of a tribe and then having an acting chief appointed creates extreme difficulty every time it occurs. It was traditional in the old days, even after the White man came, for a Native child in such a case to be spirited away very often for 100 miles so as to have him right out of the way of temptation, so that he was not poisoned by the regent who was going to take his place or by someone else who hoped to get the chieftainship of the tribe. There is still a tradition, a system, which lingers to the present day. Many chiefs’ sons are sent a long way away to school so as to get them away from the temptation of older people to “do them in”. The Princess in the Tower is a very fine story which we all learnt at school, and that is the way they had of dealing with such little children there, but in Africa they deal with them in a more direct fashion, although the result is the same.

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 until 6 March.