Under paragraph (viii) “research” is defined as “research in the field of the human sciences in connection with all national groups”. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether non-Whites will be employed in this research and, secondly, whether there will be research into the cultural life of non-Whites generally?

Research for non-Whites will be conducted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper, as follows—

I understand there is a difficulty in connection with this subsection, which provides that no research shall be conducted by another Department of State without the approval of the Minister. There are, however, minor matters in respect of which research is conducted by other departments, and in order not to embarrass them I am going to delete this subsection, so that they need not approach the Minister for approval in regard to every trifling matter. If there appears to be some overlapping later, it will be ironed out administratively.

You explained that at the second reading.

That is so.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain the first section of clause 8. It is not very well stated in the English version, and I presume the Afrikaans version is very much the same. Does it actually mean that when a man is transferred from a Government Department to this Department he will lose nothing in his pension rights or salary?

Yes.

Then surely it could have been stated more simply.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have already at the second reading discussed at length our objections to this Bill, the reasons why we felt the Bill should be amended, and the reasons why we felt the Bill offended against the institution of marriage, against the ceremony of marriage and against the normal attitude that one has towards the rights of children whose existence would be prejudiced and whose existence was hardly their fault. We dealt with those points in the second reading. During the Committee Stage we had no debate because what we wanted to do in the way of an amendment was ruled out of order. Here we are dealing merely with the contents of this Bill at the third reading. The principle has been agreed to. The principle is interesting, because during the Committee Stage, what arose was this. The principle was not, as the hon. the Minister himself conceded when he introduced the Bill, one of prohibition of mixed marriages. The Minister agreed that everyone on both sides of the House did not want mixed marriages. But the principle, as it emerged after the Chairman’s ruling during the Committee Stage, was that what we wanted to do was to protect the rights of a wife, married absolutely bona fide but yet offending against the provisions of this Act. In the second place, the children born out of such a marriage should likewise have their rights protected. The Minister himself argued on the point of order during the Committee Stage and he in effect said the principle of this Bill is to extend none of those privileges and none of those protections to the wife or anyone else.

The position in which we on this side now find ourselves is that we have this Bill in exactly the same form as it was when it was introduced, without our having had the opportunity of amending it. We find ourselves in this extraordinary position that if one contracts a marriage which is a mixed marriage, that is to say a marriage between a white and a non-white person, in the Republic, we have the provision that any such marriage shall be deemed to be valid. The marriage itself is deemed to be valid if it has been solemnized in good faith by a marriage officer, if neither of the parties has made a false statement, and if the parties appear to be what they profess to be. In this country that marriage is valid; it is deemed to be valid. Furthermore, any children born or conceived of such a marriage before it is declared invalid, are deemed to be legitimate. It seems inconceivable that this should not be applied to those persons who are married outside the Republic, where the sanctions are not so great, where one is not so much aware of these things, where one is not on the look-out for these things and where one is not so careful of these things. Nevertheless, here it is. The Minister has spoken about this Bill as being a logical consequence of the first enactment, of the original Act. Well, it is no logical consequence surely where you have a provision that in this country such a marriage is deemed to be valid, but that a man can go out of the country, get married and come back again, and forget every vow that he ever made in his church and forget every obligation that he has to his wife. It is not logical. We on this side feel that our approach to this matter is more logical, it is certainly more humane, and it is certainly more practical. For those reasons. which I do not want to dwell on now because we dealt with this at great length in this House we on this side will vote against the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North) would have held water, were it not for one fact, namely that we have control over our marriage officers in South Africa. If the hon. member reads the Act he will see that it must be a marriage solemnized by the marriage officer in good faith, and that neither of the parties must have acted other than in good faith. Then only is the marriage recognized by us.

Returning to the question of children I want to say this. In the first place, a marriage contracted in this country differs from the case I mentioned a moment ago, that is to say, when two persons are married in good faith by an officer acting in good faith. Such a marriage is not recognized here. It is national policy not to recognize it. That such marriages should be recognized, also runs counter to the views of the Opposition. Any marriage between persons who are domiciled in this country and then leave the country and get married abroad, is not recognized in this country either. Neither is the legitimacy of their children recognized, for the simple reason that their children take their domicile from their fathers, who are domiciled in South Africa, where the marriage is not recognized. But the kind of marriage that will be affected by this Bill is of quite a different nature. Such a marriage can be duly contracted abroad and will be completely valid. Since the father must of necessity be domiciled abroad, the children will have the benefit of such a valid marriage abroad. Since the father is domiciled there, the children will be legitimate. Under these circumstances I cannot see at all in what respect any of the children are being done an injustice. The only difficulty is that a man can in fact leave his wife and return to this country. That is not an uncommon occurrence either, because it has already happened in the past. An English lady made use of that provision in our law when she was married to a South African Bantu abroad and subsequently discovered what the law in this country was. She came back to South Africa and applied for a divorce here. I readily concede to the hon. member that this does happen. However, it cannot be said that the children are being done an injustice.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Clause 8 (1) (b) makes provision for the election by local authorities of one or two persons to the council. What I should like to know from the Minister is how many of these local authorities there are. The Minister mentioned some when he introduced the Bill. Furthermore, will it be at the discretion of these local authorities whether the person or persons they elect are Whites or Indians? Will it be at their discretion?

Yes. Of course, they must be donors.

Yes. That is understood. Then I have another question. What does the hon. the Minister have in mind under 1 (e)? Does he intend appointing Whites and Indians, or only people from one race group?

Whites and Indians.

Having said that, I presume the hon. the Minister will approve of the ordinary people co-opted by the council under 8 (1) (g)? Is that the intention?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 24:

I move as an amendment—

This, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of conveyancing.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

The present South African Indian Council of 21 members was instituted by my predecessor on the 3rd February, 1964, after he had had a conference with the Indian leaders in Pretoria towards the end of 1963. The purpose of that conference was to promote the establishment of a body which would facilitate contact between the Indians and the Government. It was there agreed that a nominated administrative, consultative body, to be known as the National Indian Council, should be instituted as an interim measure to assist the Department of Indian Affairs to develop the ultimate pattern of representation and to serve as a contact between the Government and the Indian community until such time as it became expedient to introduce a more permanent statutory body.

Hon. members will remember that at that stage there was a concerted campaign to cast doubt on the Government’s intentions and bona fides in regard to the Indians, with the result that some Indian leaders, who feared victimization and ostracism, were reluctant to come forward to serve on the council. Nevertheless, on the 3rd February, 1964, the names of 21 prominent Indians who were prepared to serve on the National Indian Council, later to be known as the South African Indian Council, were announced. And I think to-day I should pay tribute to those men who, in spite of abuse and threats, had the courage to co-operate with the Department of Indian Affairs in working out the future development of the Indian community in South Africa.

After the events of 1963 and 1964 a period of consolidation followed with the Indian Council finding its feet and gradually fulfilling the role for which it had been created. It soon became apparent, however, that the time was fast approaching for the creation of a more permanent body with wider powers and functions. The South African Indian Council was consequently asked to appoint an ad hoccommittee to advise the Department of Indian Affairs on the question of the conversion of the present council into a statutory body.

This ad hoc committee duly reported to the full council in February, 1967, and recommended an ultimate representative council based largely on the pattern of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The ad hoccommittee felt, however, that it could not make final recommendations in regard to matters concerning provincial representations, voters’ qualifications, certain wards, etc., and it finally recommended “… that the present nominated advisory South African Indian Council be elevated to statutory status as from the date on which the contemplated Act (i.e. this Bill) is assented to by the State President and remain in office until the date on which the first elected council is constituted.” It is clear, therefore, that the introduction of this Bill conforms with the feelings of the present South African Indian Council, which unanimously adopted the ad hoc committee’s report. Sir, I may say that on the 20th of this month the Indian Council met in Cape Town. I have a resolution here which they passed in regard to this bill and which reads as follows—

But, Sir, I anticipate that the question will no doubt still be raised as to why the council will consist of nominated members only. The answer is that it is undesirable to delay the creation of a statutory body until such time as all arrangements can be completed for an elected council. The Indians are in the process of being resettled in Indian Group Areas, and until resettlement has reached a more advanced stage there will be practical difficulties in the way of compiling a voters’ roll. It will be possible, later, to use the voters’ rolls of local committees or Indian authorities as a basis for the compilation of comprehensive rolls for use in council elections. The demarcation of electoral divisions, the fixing of quotas, the determination of the qualifications of voters, etc., are all factors militating against the immediate creation of an elected body. But it will be one of the tasks of the statutory council which is being created in terms of this Bill, to give attention to these matters as soon as practicable, because the next step in the development of Indian affairs is the establishment of an elected controlling body. I give hon. members the assurance that this will be done as soon as circumstances permit and in full consultation with the statutory council now being created. In the meantime the council, as a statutory body, will be able to pursue even more effectively its functions as a channel between the Government and the Indian community. It will also be in the position to initiate its future role as the top Indian statutory body empowered to control other statutory bodies provided for in measures affecting the Indians.

Sir, this is all I want to say by way of introduction. Other aspects of detail can be dealt with when the various clauses of the Bill are discussed in committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the establish-sisting of not more than 25 members and appointed on a provincial basis.

A council consisting of 25 members is necessary to give the widest possible representation to individuals representing the various interests of the Indian community, e.g. education, commerce, industry, agriculture, social welfare, transport, health, local government, labour, sport and the like.

Clause 4 makes provision for oath-taking by members of the Council, as was recommended by the ad hoc committee. Clause 15 contains the alternative, namely that a solemn affirmation may be made in lieu of an oath.

Clauses 5 and 6 provide for such matters as the period of appointment, the filling of vacancies. disqualifications, etc., and I do not think I need elaborate on those.

Clause 7 provides for the chairmanship of the council. When the present council was con-constituted it was necessary, in order to maintain the necessary liaison and co-ordination, to appoint the Secretary for Indian Affairs as Chairman of the council. This temporary administrative arrangement now falls away and the council, by electing a chairman from amongst its members, becomes an all-Indian body.

Clause 9 allows council members freedom of expression and protects them from legal action being taken against them in regard to matters raised in the council. The council will therefore be able to discuss freely any matter which affects the Indian population. Clauses 10 and 11 provide for an executive committee, which will carry out functions delegated to it by the council. This measure maintains the present organization of the existing council, except that members of the executive committee are now being bound to observe the confidential nature of their duties.

Clause 12 provides for the remuneration of members of the council and the Executive Committee. So far, council members have only been paid certain daily allowances for their attendance at meetings and for their subsistence and travelling when attending those meetings. Experience has proved, however, that the calls made by the Indian community and by other bodies on the time of council members involve them in considerable expense which they have to pay out of their own pockets. It is therefore only just that they receive some remuneration for their services.

Clause 13 sets out the functions of the council. These confirm the council’s liaison with the Government in respect of matters affecting the Indian community. I would like just for a minute to expand, however, on the provision that the council shall receive and consider recommendations and resolutions of the Education Advisory council established under the Indians Education Act of 1965. It is envisaged that education should eventually be supervised by the ultimate representative Indian Council. The object is now to enable the South African Indian Council, through this measure and by way of orientation, to gain experience in evaluating and commenting upon proposals of the Education Advisory Council.

Does that include higher education at the university college?

No, I think there is some special provision there.

And advanced technical education?

Yes, eventually it will come under the Indian Council. A further consideration in this regard is the fact that as the South African Indian Council now becomes the uppermost statutory Indian body, other statutory bodies established for Indians should fully liaise with it. The intention is clear. The South African Indian Council must be placed in a position where it will be able to fulfil its role when it is given fuller administrative and legislative control over matters affecting the affairs of the Indian community.

The provisions in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of clause 13 in regard to the participation of the Secretary for Indian Affairs or members of his staff in the affairs of the council are designed to synchronize the work of the council with that of the Department of Indian Affairs. I do not think that the remaining clauses call for any comment.

I want to say, finally, that this measure before the House constitutes a further step forward in the implementation of Government policy in regard to the Indians in the Republic. It comes at a time when there is marked enthusiasm noticeable amongst Indian leaders to serve on the council and to share the responsibilities of the future development of the Indian community. I may tell hon. members that I already have a list of candidates who have approached me for membership of this statutory Indian Council.

I would like for a moment to take a general view of this Bill, not only in respect of what is here before us but in respect of what the hon. the Minister has said. I think one must be struck at once by the fact that a statutory body is being created here which has virtually no power except that of advising the Minister. I do not think the Minister will disagree with that assessment of the position. When one leaves out all the frills and the machinery which is being created to establish this new council and its Executive Committee, the payment of their fees, etc., one must still come to the conclusion that except for advising the Minister there is no power vested in this new council. The Minister anticipated that there would be criticism because the council was not an elected one. I think that is quite a valid criticism. The Minister said there were difficulties in getting voters’ rolls prepared, etc., and that that may take a long time, and in the meantime he wants to have a statutory body. He has the present advisory body. What is this one now before us? It is a statutory body with precisely the same powers, as far as one can judge, as the present Advisory Committee. In passing, may I say that the hon. the Minister went out of his way to laud the courage of the members who were prepared to serve on this Advisory Committee. He pointed to them as brave men who took their courage in both hands and were prepared to co-operate with the Government, but now that he is going to pay them for their services he has a waiting list of new candidates who are coming along prepared to serve on this new council. That seems to be the great difference as far as the mental approach of the leaders of the community is concerned. They are not standing for election but they are putting their names forward and saying to the Minister: “What about appointing me? I am a man who is qualified for this job.” I think that when you read the correspondence in the daily Press coming from Indians, you realize that there is no great liking amongst the rank and file of Indians for this legislation.

Where is your proof for that?

I said it was in the daily Press. If the hon. member can read, which I assume he can, and if he reads the daily Press, he will see the letters. If he wants any more enlightenment on that point, I have dozens of cuttings I can let him have, and he can regale himself by reading what the ordinary rank and file of Indians think about this proposal.

I should like to deal with one or two of the matters dealt with by the Minister. Firstly, let me say that when we are dealing with this future body, we must remember that, after this statutory body has been created and after it has been working for a while, and after it has given its advice to the Government and then comes the future body which the hon. the Minister foresees, the body which is going to have those powers, whatever may be delegated to it by Parliament. The Minister says that will be an elected controlling body. When the Minister replies I hope he will tell us whether that is to be a body consisting wholly of elected representatives. His exact words were, “an elected controlling body”. Does he mean wholly elected representatives, or will some of them be appointed and some elected?

Some will be nominated and some will be elected.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for answering that at once. Apparently it will not be an elected controlling body. The Minister makes it clear now that some will be appointed, so that it will be a body consisting partly of elected people and partly of appointed people. No doubt the numbers will be decided at some future time.

As far as clause 2 (2) is concerned, we have rather a curious position here. When the Minister spoke just now he said the members of this council would be appointed from the various provinces; they would represent the various provinces. The whole of the Republic would be adequately represented. But clause 2 (2) provides that “when the Minister appoints a member of the council the Minister shall indicate which of the said provinces such member is to represent”. Surely that is a most extraordinary provision if the members whom the Minister appoints are going to represent the areas from which they come. The picture presented by the Minister was of a Republican widespread representation of Indians by Indians. With the exception of the Orange Free State Indians are found in the other three provinces. Here is a clause which permits the Minister to say to an Indian who, for instance, comes from Natal, “I am appointing you now and I deem you to represent the Transvaal”, or the Cape, as the case may be, or somewhere else. Otherwise why is there such a provision?

Or a portion thereof.

Yes, it may be a portion thereof. I want to tie this clause up with two more clauses which follow, I want to deal with this clause in the light of those two clauses. Two of the following clauses are qualified by a further clause at the end of the Bill. The two clauses give the wording of certain oaths which must be taken on assuming office by members of the council and by the executive committee of the council. Provision is also made for a solemn affirmation in the same words. Those oaths end with “So help me God”. I really think the hon. the Minister should reconsider this. Why is an oath of that character laid down to be taken by Hindus, Moslems and various other sub-groups of the Indian people? Admittedly many members of the Indian group are Christians. But to the non-Christian members of the Indian community that type of oath means nothing whatsoever.

That is why there is the alternative.

But the alternative is an affirmation which has. the same words.

Should it be “So help me Allah”?

It may well be so, I doubt whether they would say, “So help me the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education”! However high he may place himself in the hierarchy on earth, I do not think the Indians would go as far as that. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this matter.

I may say that the Indian Council asked for the oath to be in those words. [Interjections.]

I am sorry. That kind of assurance, and the Minister will appreciate this, leaves me stone-cold, as did the message which he read which was issued entirely unsolicited and which he read at the end of his speech just now. It was a message from the present Indian Council expressing their approval of the Government and all it had done, how happy they were to collaborate, etc. I have lived in official circles far too long to let a thing like that unduly worry my conscience. I shall sleep quite happy tonight with all the doubts in the world as to the authenticity of these entirely unsolicited testimonials which come from members of the present Indian Council, until the new council has been appointed by the Minister. If I am told that the members of the present council suggested this type of oath, then I want to ask the Minister this: Are all the present members of the Indian Council Christians?

No, I should not think so.

Can one imagine Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, and so forth, asking for that type of oath? Would Parsees ask for such a type of oath? Would these people ask for such an oath with which to seal their membership of the council or the executive committee?

I want to come back to subsection (2) of clause 2. The power of the Minister to appoint a representative and say to him, “You are deemed to represent such and such a province, although you are not living in that province …” is one which calls for further examination. That, I submit, is the meaning of clause 2 (2). We tend to lump our Indian population groups together and call them Asiatics. Yet they have different language groups, different religious groups, and so forth. They cannot all be thrown together and given a common name. I want to suggest to the Minister that even now he should consider that in the new council the Indian groups be given the opportunity of electing their own representatives. The groups, not the provinces, should be given that opportunity, for the simple reason that on an elected basis each particular group will be adequately represented. Which people have now been selected? They are all well-to-do people, all people of a certain high economic standing. If they were not, they could not afford to devote their time to the affairs of the council. The Minister quite rightly said the members are giving a lot of their time to the affairs of the council. He said he proposes paying them. What is wanted is representation of the Indian people, and from my own experience I know only too well of the differences, the cleavages between group and group. The Minister will find that out himself later on. May I give a case in point?

On one occasion, some years ago, when I occupied a different position, we decided, because of particular representations that had been made, to provide a Moslem headmaster for a special school. But before the week was out I had received representations equally strong and cogent from no less than eight separate religious groups of the Indian community asking that their headmasters and teachers should be from the religious groups to which they belonged. This is not a case of saying that a representative should come from this or that province; it is a case of saying that a person is elected by a particular group of Indians of whom he is indeed the representative. One should not have a Muslim representing the Hindus, who may be in the majority in a particular area. That should not be the position. A Hindu should represent the Hindus, a Moslem the Moslems, a Tamil the Tamils, etc. The Minister will then realize why there was so much trouble in 1948 in the Indian sub-continent when partition took place between Pakistan and Hindustan.

I want to move on to another clause. I am going through the provisions of this Bill very briefly. I said the council is purely to advise the hon. the Minister and its powers are set out, for all to read, in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 13 (1). In those four paragraphs we see the general functions of the council and its liaison with the Government, as it is called. It is to advise the Government, to receive and consider recommendations about the Education Advisory Council, to make recommendations to the Government, and generally to serve as a link and means of contact and consultation between the Government and the Indian population. Then one comes to clause 14 and I wonder quite frankly why the hon. the Minister did not make this his Bill. Clause 14 reads as follows:

The Minister may make regulations as to—

1. (a) any matter which by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed; and
2. (b) all matters, generally, in regard to which he considers it necessary or expedient to make regulations in order that the objects of this Act may be achieved.

This Bill is being held out by the Minister himself as the prelude to something else. We on this side of the House have, I think, grown accustomed to this kind of legislation. In the light of past events we are therefore entitled to look further than merely at the Bill which we have before us, particularly since the Minister himself says that this is so. He says in effect that this is merely a stopgap. He feels, and the Government feels, that there should be a statutory body. This body virtually has the powers of the existing advisory body but it is to be a statutory body. It is only the beginning. In the light of past promises which have been made in this House in regard to the future development of the Indians we want to ask the hon. the Minister this question: In this Bill, is the passage for the development of the Indian community upon which he is now embarking, namely the establishment of the first statutory body for the government of the Indian community throughout the Republic, i.e. by a council composed of Indians, going to lead to the self-government of the Indians in the end? We do not want the Minister to allow his vision to go halfway and then stop.

What is your policy in this regard?

We hope that the Minister will tell us precisely how far Government policy will go in this regard. The hon. member for Klip River wants to know what our policy in this regard is. This is the kind of question to which we are accustomed. This is not our Bill. We are not the Government. We were not responsible for the speech made by the hon. the Minister.

We want to know what your alternative is if one day in a thousand years you should come into power.

Yes, there is an alternative. The alternative is a different Government, a United Party Government. That is the answer to all these problems. We will then handle the problem.

The Minister must not stop halfway. We hope that the Minister is going to be just as courageous as the Indians who joined his Advisory Council. He said that they were brave and courageous men and we hope that he too is going to be brave and courageous. We have been told in this House that this development will go on until there is an Indian Prime Minister with a Cabinet and an area in South Africa demarcated as a Hindustan over which that Prime Minister, Government and Legislative Council will hold sway. Is the Minister now embarking upon the first steps to that political goal which he is seeking to attain in the end? That is what we want to know. We want to know whether we are now dealing with the first step towards that end, or whatever end the Government may have in mind. But we now challenge the Minister to tell us in his reply precisely where he is going with the legislation which he has now brought before the House for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast elaborated on a few clauses which he might just as well have dealt with in the Committee Stage. But two of these clauses concern the oath a member of the council has to make or the solemn affirmation that has to be made in lieu of that oath. I do not know why the hon. member elaborated so on the oath, because the alternative will be there. The hon. the Minister also made this very clear. The hon. the Minister also said very explicitly that the present members of the Indian Council wanted it that way. I want to inform the hon. member that the same clauses are also contained in the legislation in respect of the Coloured Council. In the present Coloured Council there are also Moslems to whom this choice is given. It functions quite satisfactorily.

What will the majority in the Indian Council be?

It does not matter whether it is one or ten. The principle is there and they also accept it in that way. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister furnished a brief and clear explanation in regard to the whole matter. The attitude adopted by the hon. member for South Coast is that we should force the Indians to accept certain things faster than they themselves want to accept them. Whereas at the moment the Indians are asking that it should be a nominated statutory body, this hon. member wants to know why it cannot be an elected statutory body. In other words, the hon. member wants us to move at a faster pace than the one at which the Indian leaders themselves want to move. The Government will move at the pace it deems fit and not at the pace the Opposition is dictating to it.

I regard this Bill as a further milestone, as the hon. the Minister rightly put it, on the road of separate development. It is also a further milestone on the road of good relations among the population groups in the Republic. In debating this Bill one feels compelled to expose the United Party policy first and then to contrast it with the positive policy of the Government.

What policy?

I shall deal with that in a moment. [Interjections.] Those hon. members know what is coming and that is why they are causing such a din on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No. When the hon. member makes his own speech later, he may ask that question. Years ago the United Party placed Act No. 28 of 1946 on the Statute Book. What did it comprise? It was a lengthy, voluminous Act which granted franchise to the Indians. I have that Act here in case hon. members feel inclined to argue. In terms of that Act which the United Party placed on the Statute Book at that time the Indians would have been granted—and now hon. members should listen attentively—three white representatives in this House and two in the Senate.

In the same Act it was also provided that the Indians would be granted in the Provincial Council of Natal two representatives who could be either Whites or Indians. On that occasion the Indians were dissatisfied with what they had been offered, for reasons I am not going to mention here. But they were dissatisfied and they did not accept it. Fortunately the National Party came to power in 1948; consequently that legislation of the then United Party Government was never implemented. but where does the Opposition stand to-day in regard to promises contained in Act No. 28 of 1946. for instance? According to the latest information we have on this side, the United Party does at least have a specific pattern in respect of Indian representation. According to what we can deduce from this information, the United Party wants to grant the Indians two representatives in this House and one in the Senate. They must all be Whites. Please note. Sir. that after 22 years the United Party is willing to grant the Indians one representative fewer in the House of Assembly. In other words, they want to grant the Indians 33⅓ per cent less representation than was laid down by statute 22 years ago. In the Senate the Indians will have one representative, i.e. exactly 50 per cent less representation than was granted them by statute 22 years ago. As far as the Indians are concerned this is a retrogressive policy. We do not know whether it is under pressure. At any rate, in that regard we have breach of faith. If one talks about breach of faith then this is breach of faith towards the Indians in Natal. In 1946 it was laid down by statute that the Indians in Natal would be granted two representatives in the Provincial Council. They could be either Indians or Whites. Twenty-two years later no promise is being made in respect of the greatest concentration of Indians in South Africa, namely those in Natal. At a future congress of the United Party they will perhaps make a promise to the Indians in Natal in respect of representation in the Provincial Council.

Mr. Speaker, now I just want to bring the following to your notice: At that time the Indians did not want to accept the political or constitutional alms of the United Party. Now the alms they are offering are even smaller. I wonder whether the Indians are going to accept that. I want to ask the Opposition this question in respect of their new policy: Have they consulted any Indian leaders or any Indians to hear whether they are satisfied? Please remember, 22 years ago the Indians were not satisfied. Have they consulted any leaders this time to hear whether they will be satisfied with these reduced alms? Perhaps one of the members of the Opposition will be able to give us a reply to this.

When the National Party took over in 1948 there were many matters that were in a state of chaos. This also applied to Indian affairs as a result of the legislation of 1946, which was an utter failure.

It is generally known, and the hon. the Minister also referred to this matter, that one of the most difficult break-throughs of the present Government policy of separate development was in fact to obtain the co-operation of the Indian community. With the establishment of a Department of Indian Affairs in 1961, the Government effected the first major change. Initially the Indians regarded this development with a great deal of suspicion. It was difficult to obtain the co-operation of the Indian population group, also as regards the policy of separate development. The goodwill on the part of the Government met with suspicion, opposition and obstruction on the part of the Indians, all of which were artificial in many cases and were stimulated and encouraged by instigators and agitators, of whom the majority were the rich Indians who at that time were members of the Natal and Transvaal Indian Congress. After the establishment of the Ministry of Indian Affairs it was, therefore, particularly difficult to induce leaders of the Indian community to co-operate. But in due course the establishment did find favour with the Indian community as such.

Despite insults the law-abiding and the indigent Indians as well as a few leaders began to co-operate. So it happened that in 1963 the previous Minister of Indian Affairs addressed a representative Indian conference in the Indian township, Laudium, outside Pretoria, and out of this conference the Indian Council was born. Then the Indians began to realize in increasing numbers that it was wise and essential for them to abandon their indifference and to avail themselves fully of the opportunities the Government’s policy of parallel development offered them and their communities. Just as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Bantu, the Indians accepted the merits of separate development. and in increasing numbers they began to hold the view that in the future the various population groups in South Africa would have to live side by side and co-operate with one another, but that each of them would nevertheless be able to retain its character, without integrating with one another. Despite initial scepticism, prejudice and suspicion towards the Indian Council, all Indians who were leaders in their communities began to lend their co-operation and support. The establishment of the Indian Council brought about a major change in attitude.

On the one hand the Government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, persevered with its goodwill, its willingness to oblige, its honest and sincere intentions and with its positive actions. On the other hand the Indian Council as well, with its positive attitude and the sound judgment on the part of its members, created an atmosphere for effecting sound co-operation. Since then the Indian Council has developed into an integral part of the administrative machinery of the Department of Indian Affairs. This Indian Council has become a particularly fruitful and effective means of establishing contact. I want to emphasize this; it has become an effective means of establishing contact between the Indian community and the Government, and it has decidedly started to render a very praiseworthy service. This Indian Council realized fully, and they still do, that the Government policy and its implementation implied very significant benefits for the Indians in the Republic. That is why they gave it their whole-hearted support.

On a certain occasion last year the hon. the Prime Minister also referred appreciatively to the great work that was being done by this Indian Council—

In the course of time the Indian Council has become so popular that at the moment the Indian leaders are very keen to serve on the new council, as we also heard in the speech made by the hon. the Minister. The opposition to and suspicion towards that council has virtually disappeared altogether, because today those people regard that council as their mouthpiece.

I want to conclude with this thought. This legislation emphasizes the cardinal difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the Government. In this Bill, too, the Government rejects as a possible solution to our problems in the Republic, a state of affairs where the Indians share political rights with the Whites—in other words, the United Party policy which will eventually amount to the fact that the Indians will in due course obtain political rights and representation in this House of Assembly. The Indian Council agreed to this legislation unanimously. That is why we believe that this legislation is to the advantage of the Indian community, no matter what the United Party may suggest.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has delivered himself of what was obviously a very well prepared speech, which he had taken some trouble to prepare beforehand but, Sir, I do not know why he became so excited, because it should have been obvious to him, if he had listened to the hon. member for South Coast, that we are going to support this Bill at this stage. I do not know why he got so excited. [Interjections.] Well, it would have been interesting to have heard what adaptation the hon. member would have made if he had not misunderstood the hon. member for South Coast.

Even in this House you do not know which way you are going.

You have been lost for a long time, Frank.

You are the lost one; you are getting lower and lower.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Minister can back the winning side as often as he likes, but there are some of us who stand for something else.

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort ought not to go back into the past. He spent a long time dealing with the United Party and what had been said in 1946 and so on. [Interjections.] Do hon. members opposite who are making all this noise realize what their election manifesto was in 1948? The hon. member over there will confirm that they said that they stood by that manifesto. What was their manifesto, what was their policy, in relation to the Indians? It was to repatriate them or, as it was put colloquially, "Die Koelies in die see.”

“Die Koelies uit die land jaag.”

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is right.

Is that what you want to-day?

Sir, I take the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word for it; he probably wrote it.

No, he belonged to another party then.

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort must realize that he has fallen into exactly the same error as the hon. the Minister. The Indian leaders asked for a nominated council. As the hon. member for South Coast has said, who are the Indian leaders? Are they the persons appointed by the Government from amongst the wealthy, well-to-do leading businessmen of the Indian community, or are the Indian leaders the persons who represent the Indians and whom the Indians want as their leaders? How on earth do you ever tell who their leaders are and who represents them unless you have some form of participation by the Indians themselves in the choice of the persons who acts as their representative? Who are these leaders? They are nominated. They represent the people who nominate them, as every representative does; he represents the people who give him the powers and the “say so”. The people who give these members the powers and the “say so” are this Government, and if they represent anyone they represent this Government because the Government have chosen them for a reason. The Minister is not just going to choose anybody to serve on this council. He is going to choose someone who has a certain approach or a certain attitude. [Interjections.] I will not go so far as to say that, but you will certainly choose someone for a reason, and the reason is obviously that this is a political appointment the result of which will be good for the Government.

Sir, it is no good talking about the United Party’s policy. One of our principles is that there must be consultation at all levels. Tell me, Sir, how do you consult with the Indian people, if you pretend that this is one of the functions of the council, unless you get to the Indian people and not just those persons whom you select as the persons who you think should express the views that you want to hear. That is what it amounts to and that is what the hon. member for South Coast has said and that is something to which we have had no answer whatsoever as yet, except an anticipatory argument from the hon. the Minister. What has the hon. the Minister said? The Minister says that we must have a nominated council only; we must have a statutory body now because we cannot set up a proper representative Council, because we cannot set up voters’ rolls, because we have not got the group areas settled yet, because we have not got our municipal bodies settled yet and so on and so on, and therefore because this is like pie in the sky—it might never happen—we are now going to do something else; we are going to take a great step forward and we are going to create a statutory body.

You must crawl before you walk.

Yes, of course, I appreciate that, but what is this body that is being set up by this Bill? We agree that we must have it, but this is no different from the council that has been in existence since 1964. It is on a statutory basis, as the hon. the Minister has explained, but the one big change will be that it will have its own chairman. It will not have the Secretary for Indian Affairs who is the chairman of the existing council. That is the one change, but otherwise, as the hon. member for South Coast has said, they will have exactly the same powers as they had before. If there is no difference at all, why is this suddenly announced by the hon. the Minister as a great step forward? What is this step forward? It has become a statutory body. How do you get a statutory body? You pass a statute; you pass a Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why this could not be done before, because all he has really said to-day is this: “Look, we have made all sorts of promises in the past”—he has not actually said that but they have—“we have made promises about an elected Indian Council ever since the inception of the present advisory council, but now in 1968 we are not in a position to implement it and we do not know when we are going to implement it, so what we are going to do is to create the same body as the one we have today but we are going to give it a statutory form and then we are going to tell everyone that the Indian Council wants it and approves of it.”

Sir, where is the advance? Let us consider some of the promises which have been made in the past. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is with regard to one matter which came to my notice just this weekend, and that is that the Indian Council, having asked for military training for Indians on the same basis as the Coloureds, were then told that they would get it. They passed a resolution at their recent meeting in Cape Town saying that they were very pleased about this and that they welcomed it. This is what the Indian Council is told and this is what it has said, but in Die Beeld of yesterday there appeared a report of an interview with the hon. the Minister of Defence, who says that the Indians are not going to be given this sort of military training. What goes on in this Indian Council? Who is bluffing whom? What sort of consultation is there; what sort of liaison is there and what in fact is the position in this regard? Because if that report had not appeared I have no doubt that the Indian Council would have gone away with the impression that in fact they were going to be given military training. The Indian Council was told that they were going to get it and a statement was issued that in fact they had been told this by the Secretary and that the council was very delighted.

Sir, in February, 1964 the hon. the Minister’s predecessor as Minister of Indian Affairs said, when the council was appointed and the names were announced, that the council would develop into a permanent body which he was prepared to allow to be 100 per cent elected, with legislative and executive powers. That was in 1964.

With legislative power?

With legislative and executive powers. I am quoting from a report in the Cape Argus of 3rd February, 1964.

But the Minister has explained that.

Yes, but that was in February, 1964. Then he went on to say that it would develop along similar lines to the Coloured Council, and in addressing the members of the council who had come down to Cape Town he said that the council would be developed into a fully representative, democratically elected and statutory body with powers to partake in and exercise control over the administration of such affairs of the Indian community as may be entrusted to it by Parliament. In other words, on the lines of the Coloured Council.

Did he give a date?

Of course, he did not. That is the trouble; one can never get a Minister of the Nationalist Government to give a date for anything.

What about the date given by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

Well, he is only a Deputy Minister. No doubt if the event occurs on the date anticipated by him he will be raised to ministerial status. Sir, this was the promise. Now, four years later, this hon. Minister comes here and says, “You can have a statutory body.” In other words, all he is doing now, after four years, is to say, “This council of yours will now become a statutory council and the members will now be nominated by virtue of an Act of Parliament.” Sir, what is the advance? It is no good the hon. member for Brakpan saying that you must crawl before you can walk. How fast can you crawl; what sort of pace does one set? What is the difference in the end? In terms of clause 13 this council has to advise the Government at its request. They receive and consider recommendations and resolutions from the Educational Advisory Council; they make recommendations at the Government’s request. They make recommendations to the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic development of the Indians—this obviously was so before—and generally they are to serve as a link and as a means of contact and consultation between the Government and the Indian population. Sir, we wish this body luck, but we do not believe that it can properly fulfil its function unless at least some of the members are elected. On 23rd March, 1964, the then Minister said to the council that for results he wanted them to be reasonable, responsible and realistic. Well, I have no doubt that they have lived up to the hon. the Minister’s every expectation. One appreciates that the hon. the Minister has troubles, and one appreciates that his predecessor had troubles, because after he made that speech in September of that year there was a tremendous uproar at the Nationalist Party Transvaal Congress. The Government was criticized for allowing Indians to trade in white areas and there was a call for a general boycott of Indian stores in Pretoria. But let us go to the next step; that was in 1964. In 1965, a year later, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister’s predecessor, told the Indian Council again that it would be developed into a fully elected council with powers to legislate on their own affairs and to control such matters as education and health services, I am beginning to wonder whether he had not read some of the United Party’s pamphlets. Then he went on to say that at the next meeting of the council he would suggest certain steps to make it an elected council with powers to legislate. That is what he said in 1965 at the council’s next meeting. I do not know when its next meeting was due but one can assume that at least the next meeting would have been in 1966. Can the hon. the Minister tell us when he replies what happened; can be tell us whether in fact his predecessor did suggest certain steps to make this an elected council with powers to legislate, because that is what he is reported as having said, that he would do this at the next meeting. Well, Sir, we are now in the year 1968. What we would like to know is what happened, because this is quite a different story from the story the hon. the Minister told us to-day.

One appreciates that this Minister was not the Minister at that time. This hon. Minister was in Labour. It is perhaps a pity that the former hon. Minister of Indian Affairs was not also in Labour, because he has produced nothing at all. At least we hope that this Minister will produce the explanation as to what happened to the Minister’s assurances to this House in 1965, and why it was that he could not implement it, and if he could not, why it was that he did not know then that he could not implement it. Then we have the change-over in 1966 and got the new Minister of Indian Affairs. I am sorry, Sir, to have this tedious repetition. I know it is against the rules of the House to indulge in tedious repetition, but you must excuse me, Sir, because I am merely quoting what the Ministers have said each year since 1964. In September, 1966, this Minister said to the Council that he pledged his support to the conversion of the nominated Indian Council into an elected or partly elected statutory body when the time comes. When is that time going to come? There are many people who can answer that question on behalf of the Government, including this Minister. You cannot go on promising these people something and not giving it to them, and withholding from them many other things also. If your policy is to withhold from them any sort of participation outside of their own community, any sort of consultative link anywhere else except through official Government sources, then you should know what you are going to give them and when you are going to give it to them. That is as far as we have got. This hon. Minister said then that authority could be assigned to such a body for administering, on local and even national level, a large share of the affairs of the Indian residents of the Republic. What has happened? This step was not even taken then. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why. He said that he had no doubt that the Council was functioning efficiently and in the real interest of the Indian community. This really is not good enough. In February of 1967, to come to the next year when the Council met again in Cape Town, it was decided to submit to the Government a report and recommendations drawn up by a Council Committee which was instructed to investigate the conversion of the present Advisory Council into an elected statutory body. That was last year, Sir. What has happened? This was a statement issued by the Chairman of the Council, Mr. Van der Merwe, who was the Secretary for Indian Affairs. He said that the report and the recommendations were adopted by the Council after a full discussion. What has happened to that? Did anything happen? Is anything going to happen to it? On 14th February last year the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the Council, and he was thanked by one of the members for the speech he had made and he, speaking on behalf of the Council, expressed confidence in the Government as the guardian of Indian interests, and said the Council was 100 per cent with the Prime Minister in all respects as far as separate development was concerned. Sir, you have an election on whether the Indian people are 100 per cent with the Government’s policy of separate development (whatever that might mean) as far as they are concerned. Ask them whether the application of the Group Areas Act to the Indian population is part of separate development and whether they would support it. If you have an election on that, you might find a few people whom you can appoint on your Council, but you will not find that the majority of the people agree.

Order! Is the hon. member not somewhat out of step now?I think he is going far beyond the scope of this Bill.

I am out of step with the Minister, yes.

The hon. member is out of step with the Bill. I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The facts I have just mentioned just indicate the sort of trouble you can get into, the sort of illusion that can cloud your vision if you do not have a council which is really representative. It is necessary to start somewhere, and although it is four years late we are going to support this measure, but we do hope that it will not take another four years before the next real step is taken in regard to giving the Indian people a body and a framework within which they can conduct their own affairs on matters which concern them, and indulge in those matters of government which are important to every race group if it is to participate in the government and the future of this country which we believe is the country in which all the different population groups will live.

I listened with astonishment to the hon. members on the opposite side and I was amazed at having to hear them speak such words, a party which as recently as October of last year held a congress and also at that congress took certain policy steps in regard to Indian representation in the Republic of South Africa, but which came here to-day and accepted the basis of this Government’s policy of separate development for all groups.

Where did you hear that?

The hon. member for Durban (North) stated unequivocally that they accepted the Bill before the House; and he went further and stated that the hon. member for Koedoespoort had not understood the hon. member for South Coast correctly, because he had supported the Bill throughout. Now I want to ask whether the United Party is really giving up? Have they given up to such an extent that they do not even have the courage to state their own policy to the country? Are they going to state here this afternoon that the National Party is stealing their policy, the policy of Act No. 28 of 1946? Is that the policy of Mr. Koos Strauss and the United Party? Is that the policy of the United Party in Bloemfontein, in October, 1967? What must I go and read to learn about the policy of the United Party in respect of the Indians in South Africa? That is why I say that for the hon. member for Durban (North) to have come here this afternoon and discussed one thing only, i.e. that these people on the Indian Council are being nominated and not elected, was to indulge in carping criticism. And the hon. member for South Coast could only speak for 18 minutes because he was in agreement. I say that if this Opposition now accepts that this policy of the National Party is the right one, then what they must also do this afternoon is say so. The hon. member for Durban (North) asked the specific question: Does the National Party still adhere to its policy of 1948 which was published in pamphlet form, i.e. that the Indians must be repatriated? My reply is that it has never been withdrawn; it has always been possible for the Indians to be repatriated, and if they want to return to-day, they can still be repatriated. [Interjection.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that we are not dealing with a policy motion, but with a Bill. He must return to the Bill.

In all deference, I should like to come to the Bill, but I had to react to points made by hon. members on the opposite side.

The vast majority of Indians in South Africa are to-day accepting the policy of separate development, and the basis of this Bill is in fact the policy of separate development. The Indians in South Africa are accepting the good and honest intentions of this Government. The Indians of South Africa are, to a greater extent, accepting the policy of autogenous development, the segregation, the parallel policy, the policy of apartheid—call it what you will—of this Government, just as hon. members on the opposite side are also accepting it this afternoon. Listen to what one of their spokesmen has to say—

Then this spokesman, an Indian, goes further and states—

Now my standpoint is this. The Indians are, to an increasing extent, accepting the policy of this Government. They are, to an increasing extent, accepting the honest intentions of the Government, and in this way they will also accept this Bill. Similarly they have already intimated that they accept it. They will therefore welcome the fact that on a high level, on a representative level, there can be contact between the Government and the Indians of South Africa which will give rise to good relationships between them. The channels by means of which consultation and deliberation can take place are being created, and such consultation and deliberation will take place on a high level of co-operation. Up to four or five years ago these good relations did not exist in South Africa, or existed to a lesser degree than at present. The great change which has taken place must be ascribed to the establishment of the South African Indian Council. Note carefully that this Indian Council was not elected by their own people, but was also nominated by the Minister. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North): Why stir up such a fuss if, at this stage as well, these people are also going to be nominated by the Minister? The first South African Indian Council produced good results. Why should this one not produce good results as well? Since the establishment of this Indian Council four years ago, relations in South Africa have been greatly improved.

But this Indian Council has a particular function, and that is to provide this direct channel of contact with the Government. Now the Government is able to hear the opinions of the Indians from the mouths of the Indians themselves. In this way the Government is now becoming acquainted with the aspirations of the Indians and it knows precisely what the needs of these people are. But, secondly, the Government has here a body with which it can consult directly. In this way it will become acquainted with the requirements of the Indians. In other words, it works both ways, from the Government to the Indians, and from the Indians to the Government. This has been the development process up to now. Now I want the hon. member for Durban (North) to listen very carefully. I maintain that this has been the development process up to now, and that it has had very good results which have been achieved by steps taken by the Government. We have advanced step by step. You will recall that in the beginning the Indians did not easily accept the Department of Indian Affairs. They did not easily accept the idea of the South African Indian Council, but step by step they have been led to accept these things, and to realize to-day that these are the correct things. In other words, we have progressed, and relations have been improved. Mutual trust has been established and we have made progress with a purely advisory body, a body whose members were nominated by the hon. the Minister. At that time it was argued that that body did not represent the Indians because it was a nominated body, but in spite of that it has succeeded, and now we are going a step further with the development process.

It is the intention of this Bill to convert this Council into a statutory body. The Indians to-day form one of the smallest population groups in South Africa. But although small, it is the duty of this Government to see to their needs. The Government must also see to it that they are brought to full maturity. But there are other population groups in South Africa as well. We in the National Party accept the differences between these various groups, the difference in approach which this requires, and the difference in regard to the arrangements which have to be made for each group. We realize that such differences exist, and we accept them. We also accept the need, and we are adjusting our policy accordingly, to allow each population group to retain its own identity.

It can be argued that instead of this step the Indians should be given the franchise. This can, however, result in far-reaching complications and that is why I am pleased that hon. members on the opposite side are no longer coming forward with that argument. We have heard of “one man, one vote”. But the Indian himself does not want that. In this regard I want to quote an extract from the speech of a certain Indian—

Who said that?

Even if I were to furnish the hon. member with his name, he would not recognize him. But I do not have the consent of this person to reveal his name here. However, I have his speech here in front of me.

The United Party may as well accept that the Government will move forward step by step, and accept that we will move forward with bills such as this one to further the interests of the entire country. I want to state this very clearly for the sake of the hon. members for Durban (North) and South Coast: They must not come and ask me what the end of the road for the Indians in South Africa will be. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (North) is trying to put it to me again. Now I want to state very clearly that for the sake of the well-being and future of a population group, we cannot try to precipitate the ripening process. We must adapt to circumstances. May I explain this. What would the hon. member for Durban (Point) look like to-day in the long suite of clothes he had when he was 16 years old? And what would he look like in 20 years’ time in the suit he has on to-day? As I have said, we cannot be allowed to precipitate the development of a population group. What we must do, is to move forward step by step and cope with things as circumstances cause them to crop up.

Order! When does the hon. member intend saying something about the Bill?

With this Bill it is our intention to protect the rights of this population group, the smallest population group in the country so that they too can grow to full maturity. Every population group in the country must be afforded this opportunity, and must not be frustrated. That is why the Government will continue along this road and do things for these people at the right time. We must not try and anticipate matters, and in particular we must not try and precipitate the ripening process.

Mr. Speaker, despite the speeches of the hon. members for Klip River and Koedoespoort I should like to add my support to this Bill now before us. It is interesting to see the violent reaction of Government members when we support a measure. I do not know what they will do when this side opposes one. We on this side want to support this Bill and I want to give my reasons therefor. We want to support this measure because the Government is taking a step in the direction which we in the United Party have advocated for the last 14 years. [Interjections.] Part of the fundamental concept of our race federation policy has always been the concept of an Indian council which would deal with affairs peculiar to the Indian racial group. It has always been our policy and it was confirmed again at Bloemfontein. When the hon. member for Koedoespoort challenges us to say how we can support this measure, and the hon. member for Klip River asks us, “How can you support this fundamental step in separate development, after your Bloemfontein congress?”, then I ask them to read their politics and study it. Because at that congress the United Party reaffirmed its belief in a council for the Indian people, a council which would deal with, control and direct Indian affairs. We reaffirmed our belief in an elected council which would deal with those affairs peculiar to the Indian community. We have not changed our policy one iota. All our Bloemfontein congress added to it was the details of the link between that Indian council and the Central Government, this Parliament of South Africa. It added a select committee from this House to meet with a select committee from the elected Indian council, and it specified that the representation within Parliament would be through two white members elected by the Indian people and one white senator also elected by the Indian people. The concept of an Indian council remains, as it has always been, part of the fundamental approach of the United Party to the question of race relations. Yet those hon. members on the opposite side accuse us on this side of changing our policy, after what their party has done in the field of Indian affairs. I want to relate this Bill now to Government policy, to the Nationalist Party’s policy. I want to quote from the official policy of the Nationalist Party. This is a typescript but we have the original on file. The first sentence of official Nationalist Party policy reads as follows—

I repeat, Mr. Speaker—

But we have just heard from the hon. member for Klip River that they are a part of our population, that they must grow, that they must be cared for and nurtured, they must be nursed by this Government and brought to full enjoyment of life as a permanent part of South Africa. But that is not what Nationalist Party policy said. It is intact what that hon. member now says and it is what this Bill implies. The very title of the Bill reads, “South African Indian Council Bill”. I repeat, “South African …” Yet according to original Nationalist Party policy, the policy which the hon. member for Koedoespoort said they had never deviated from, the policy which the hon. member for Klip River said they had followed “konsekwensieel, stap vir stap”, the policy which that hon. member said was the basis of this measure, the Indians cannot be regarded as South Africans. I have here in my hand an excerpt from an official Nationalist Party publication, namely Die Kruithoring … [Interjections.] This was the platform on which the Nationalists fought the 1948 election.

Who was the editor?

It was because the editor was forced to write this sort of unmitigated … [Interjections.] … this un-South African approach to politics, that he resigned. He resigned because he could no longer allow his conscience to write the sort of rubbish which he was expected to put out.

I want to go on. The hon. member for Klip River said the policy of the Nationalist Party was still to-day repatriation. He said it was still the policy of the Nationalist Party and the Indian people could be repatriated if they wanted to leave. But this is what they said in 1948––

—the party regards as the very foundation of its policy—

Here is the kernel of the piece—

What financial sacrifices does this Bill entail? This Bill takes a step forward towards the United Party’s proclaimed and accepted view that the Indian people are a permanent part of South Africa, that they are a permanent population group who must be part of our concept of a nation, a government, and a state. This Bill is a step forward, albeit a hesitant step without the teeth of an elected council, but at least a step in the direction towards giving them a stake in the administration of South Africa. The hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Party accept that this Bill is a Bill towards giving legislative power to the Indian people. I assume I am right when I say this Bill is a step towards giving legislative power to the Indian people.

That is right.

The Minister nods and says: “That is right.” This is a step towards legislative powers. But in its Indian policy of 1948 the Nationalist Party said—

Is this Bill not creating a “wetgewende lig-gaam”? Is it not creating a legislative body? This is a legislative body for the Indian people. But the Nationalist Party said, oh no, they must have no say in the legislative machinery of South Africa. They did not say in the Parliament of South Africa, they did not say in this House. No, they said the Indian people should have no say in the legislative bodies of South Africa.

In clause 2 of the Bill there is provision for the election of people from the different provinces. They will come together and deal with the affairs of Indian people throughout South Africa. They will travel to a place to be named. It is laid down in the Bill that the Minister shall determine where that place will be. They shall come together to deal with the affairs of their people. But in this policy statement, the official policy of the Nationalist Party, it says—

Their policy says that they must not move. Their movements must be laid in bonds, “aan bande gelê word”. But here we envisage their moving. Must they have a permit every time? What I am proving now, is that this measure is totally opposite to the approach of the Government throughout its history and throughout the period which brought it to office.

But the introduction of this Bill was foreshadowed a little later. In Die Burger of the 15th March, 1961, the first announcement of the concept of this measure, the concept of an Indian council, was made. Here we find:

In other words, in 1961 their official policy was abandoned, and we were now to have a policy similar to that in regard to the Coloured people. Die Burger's comment was:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, an element of realism, as Die Burger itself accepted in 1961, the first element of realism in Nationalist Party thinking! It is the acceptance of the permanence of the Indian people. The next little grain of realism was the acceptance of another aspect of United Party policy, namely the recognition of the need for a council.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Sport can make all the funny noises he likes. I cannot quite understand him. I do not know whether he is speaking Urdu or Hindustani; I assume that he needs an interpreter. But what matters, is that that hon. Minister was on this side of the House and supported our policy which accepted the Indian people as a permanent population group. He was one of the people who supported our concept of the Indian people running their own affairs. No wonder that hon. Minister, who is so anxious to make his voice heard, is anxious to support this Bill which …

Which you are supporting?

Yes. He is anxious to join us in supporting a Bill which enables him to say: I am voting with my conscience. I am supporting a measure which follows a road I helped to create. No wonder the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was so keen to support us and put the hon. member for Durban (North) right when he misquoted the “slagkreet” of 1948. He said: Oh no ! It was not “die Koelie in die see”, it was “die Koelie uit die land”. It was “Die Kaffer in sy plek en die Koelie uit die land”. You see, those two hon. Ministers are the ones to make the most interjections and noise now, because here is a measure which reflects their thinking over the years. We on this side of the House are pleased to welcome this slight glimmer of light at least from the hon. the Ministers. But I hope that those hon. Ministers will now push this a little further, and push for a little more of what Die Burger calls “die aanpasbaarheid van denke wat in dje ware tradisie is van die Nasionale Party en die Afrikanerdom”. Now we have a policy “in die ware tradisie van die Nasionale Party”. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Sport will, I am sure, join me in saying: It is not the “ware tradisie” that they and I know about; it is not the “ware tradisie” on which the Nationalist Party came into power. It is the “ware tradisie” of the United Party which has established at least a direction which the Nationalist Party is half-heartedly following. We support this Bill in the hope that they will take the next step, namely to expedite the election of members to this body, and that thereafter the congress decisions which we took in Bloemfontein will be carried a step further and implemented fully, so that South Africa will have a policy for the Indian people which will give them the sort of stake in South Africa which they deserve, which will be in the interests of the future of all races in South Africa and which will lead to peaceful co-existence. That can only be achieved if this Bill is taken that extra step. I support the measure, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if this is the way in which the Opposition supports a Bill, goodness knows what will happen if they oppose a Bill! I will deal with some of the points raised by hon. members which I think call for a reply.

The hon. member for South Coast first raised the question of provincial representation in terms of clause 2. That clause was drafted in this particular way on representations from the Indian Council. They drafted certain provisions which they thought they would like to be included in this Bill. That was one of them. They wanted the Minister to retain his discretion as widely as possible. But at the same time, they wanted some indication as to the Provinces from which those representatives would be nominated. I think the reason is that there is a big disparity in Indian population in the various provinces. In Natal there is an overwhelming majority of Indians. In the Transvaal there are much less, and in the Cape Province still less. There may be one or two very good men in the Cape whom the Minister would like to see on this council. I think it is only right that he should state when the appointment is made, that they represent a particular province.

But are they not classified as Coloureds in the Cape?

No, there are one or two members from the Cape who are on this Indian Council. There is a certain amount of representation on the Indian Council from the Cape. There is a class of Indians in the Cape which is similar to the Indian in Natal. For all political purposes they are classified as Indians.

They can register as Coloureds.

No, they cannot. The Malays can, but not the Indians.

The hon. member also raised a question in regard to the oath. I must admit I had some difficulty about that myself. That is why I drafted the alternative that they have the right of affirmation. This was also asked for by the Indian Council, as I pointed out. Let me just remind the House that, if an Indian goes into the witness box in court, this is the oath he takes, irrespective of his religion or any objections he may have. So I cannot see any difficulty.

Then everybody believes his evidence after that!

I will not say anything about that. I am a lawyer myself and I have had some experience of evidence.

Then the hon. member raised the question of representation on the council by groups, but he did not say what sort of groups he envisaged. How would they be grouped together? Would they be grouped together on religious grounds, or on what grounds will they be grouped together? I would find great difficulty in giving representation to nominees of certain groups, unless I have clearly defined groups. Let me just read to the hon. member and to the House a statement which I received a few days ago from the Regional Representative of the Department of Indian Affairs in Durban. I quote—

There we have the support of quite a representative group of leading businessmen and professional men and so on.

Who said that it was representative?

The Regional Representative is really the only man who can judge whether it is representative or not.

I think the hon. member for Durban (North) also raised the question of group representation. I think I have now answered him, too, in that regard.

The hon. member for South Coast made certain observations on the Bill and concluded his speech by asking me what this would lead to eventually. I am afraid that the hon. member must contain his curiosity.

Are you going back on your previous statement?

No, I am not. I do, however, think that I must leave that question in abeyance until we come to this House in a year or two with a Bill constituting the council on an elected basis. I think that we will then be able to see clearly where it is leading.

What do you mean by a year or two?

As the hon. member knows, and as I pointed out in my second-reading speech, a Representative Council requires a lot or organization. When we have dealt with the question of delimitation, the registration of voters and the resettlement under the Group Areas Act, we will be able to introduce the Bill which we envisage.

Do you intend to complete all resettlements first?

It is obvious that we cannot complete all resettlements first, because some of the resettlements will take years to complete, as the hon. member knows. When, however, we have a more or less settled community which can be identified and which can be registered as voters, then we will undertake the registration.

Our support of this Bill cannot necessarily be regarded as support for your next Bill.

No, I accept that. I said in my introductory speech that this is an interim measure. This measure was introduced at the request of the Indian Council.

In this regard I also want to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (North). He mentioned a number of dates, and I think the last one he mentioned was 1965. He said that my predecessor gave an undertaking then that he would proceed in due course with an Indian Council which would be a representative body. My predecessor made that statement to the council after it had been appointed in 1964. Minister Maree then returned to the Council in 1965 and asked it to appoint an ad hoc committee to inquire into the change of status of the council, as he had promised the council he would do. As I have stated previously, this Bill has been drafted on the basis of that committee’s report and it had the support of the full council. That is the step that my predecessor took. The report of the ad hoc committee was handed to us at the beginning of last year. They took a long time to compile it because it is a very long document. They also took pains to draft the Bill they envisaged. I only had last year to consider this draft Bill and to redraft it into proper legal form.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Do I understand the hon. the Minister to say that the Council rejected the thought of an elected council and suggested a council of this nature?

No, they did not actually reject it, but they thought that an interim measure, such as this, was necessary before we reached the next stage. That was what they recommended.

Then I want to clarify a matter which was raised by the hon. member in regard to military training for the Indians. I think the hon. member referred to a statement issued by my colleague, the Minister of Defence, during the week-end. I want to say that as far as military training for Indians is concerned, it had been agreed upon in principle that eventually there would be an Indian Corps, based on lines similar to those of the Cape Coloured Corps. But in the meantime, in the process of planning and implementation, consideration will in due course no doubt be given to the desirability of providing, as in the case of young Coloured boys, preliminary youth camps which will provide a reservoir from which Indians can be drawn for training as non-combatant units in the Defence Force or, for that matter, as recruits for the South African Police Force.

Have you read yesterday’s Beeld? It completely denies all possibilities of military training for Indians.

I have read yesterday’s Beeld. All I can say is that the principle has been accepted. It is a matter of planning and implementation. What the Minister said was that these camps would be established on similar lines to those for Coloured youths from which recruits would in due course be drawn.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made several quotations. It is not my purpose to go back to 1948. I am dealing with circumstances as I find them to-day. Let me say that I have a copy of a speech made by the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, in this House on 23rd January, 1962.

That was after the New Vision.

I do not know about that, but it was in 1962. He had this to say—

He was then speaking about the Coloureds.

In other words, the same policy will be applied in respect of the Indians. That is why we have taken these steps from time to time. Let me quote just shortly from a speech made by my predecessor on this subject on the 21st November, 1963, in Durban—

That is the policy that is being carried out and, as I have tried to emphasize, this is just an intermediate step. Then, Sir, let me conclude by quoting a report of an interview with a well-known Indian in Pretoria, who is the chairman of the executive of the existing Indian Council. This is what he said a few days ago—-

Then he goes on to say—

Sir, that is all I am endeavouring to do. I am simply endeavouring to enshrine in legislation something which this Indian Council has been striving for since their appointment. This Bill, as drafted, is really the fruits of their work. We have acted upon their suggestions, and I am glad that this Bill has the support of the Opposition. I am also indebted to the hon. members for Klip River and Koedoespoort for their contributions to this debate. They have traced the development and the political background in, I think, a most effective way. I hope it will assist hon. members opposite to see what the Bill really means and what the policy of this side of the House really is.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

When we came to this hon. House in 1966 with certain amendments to the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act, Act No. 25 of 1957, one of the main objects of that amending Act was to afford recognition to alcoholic beverages manufactured from kinds of fruit other than the grape. This was to enable manufacturers of these beverages, who already had vested interests to some extent, to enjoy statutory recognition of their products, and also to afford the public the protection of having the quality of the products properly controlled.

After the amending Act had been passed by Parliament and my Department was engaged in drawing up the regulations envisaged in terms of the amending Act, it came to light that certain fermented fruit beverages were being manufactured in such a way (for example, by causing cane sugar to ferment with greatly diluted fruit juice and certain additives) that such products could be marketed much more cheaply than other fermented fruit beverages, and that, as far as the technical side was concerned, they were being manufactured on an unfair basis as compared with other fermented beverages and wine. The authorization of such a beverage could naturally lead to serious malpractices, and could be a source of great danger to both the winemaking industry and the manufacturers of other fermented beverages of the fruit industry.

After thorough consideration and detailed discussions with various interested parties, it was decided that only those persons who were manufacturers on the date of commencement of this Bill would be allowed to continue their activities under special authority and upon conditions issued by the Minister, but with regard being had to the assurance given during the second-reading speech on the amending Bill of 1966 that the manufacturers of the aforementioned type of alcoholic fruit beverage who already had established interests would not be prohibited from continuing their production. I want to emphasize once again that these persons, some of whom have built up vested interests over many years, will not be deprived of their livelihood, but I merely want to prevent a door being left open to malpractices which it may only be possible to curb with great difficulty at a later stage.

While the Act is to be amended, we have deemed it fit, after repeated representations were made by certain sectors of the winemaking industry, also to make provision for the manufacture of wines of a special type and quality which fall into the same category as the famous “auslese” type of wine produced by certain overseas wine-producing countries. The manufacturing process of this type of wine is unique and the wine cannot be marketed in terms of present legislation. As a result of the special manufacturing process and requirements for the wine, the sugar content is higher than in the case of ordinary wines, and therefore special statutory provisions have to be made. The addition of cane sugar to wine to increase the sugar content is of course illegal. The manufacture of this “auslese” type of wine will naturally be limited in extent and the persons wanting to manufacture it will be specially authorized to do so by the Minister upon application being made, and strict control measures will be applied in this regard as well.

At the request of the organized liquor trade vodka is also being defined in the Act in order to eliminate practical problems, especially in connection with its labelling. In order to place the functioning of the Brandy Board on a more efficient and practical basis, the amendments proposed in the Bill are being requested.

The further amendments in the Bill are consequential upon the few matters of principle which I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will receive the support of the House for these few amendments.

On behalf of this side of the House I just want to say to the hon. Minister that we have no criticism of the proposed amendments.

The few principles which the hon. the Minister mentioned namely those contained in clauses 1, 2 and 3, were explained to us last year, and after consultation with the Department it was very clear that these amendments would have to be made at some stage or other. Then there is clause 4, which deals with the definition of vodka. Clauses 8 and 9 contain consequential amendments. We accordingly have no objection to the proposed amendments. We shall therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The water in the Watervai River was apportioned by an order of the Water Court on 7th October, 1918. Mr. Speaker, this is the river flowing to Burgersfort in the district of Lydenburg. The said order of the Water Court provided, inter alia, for the following—

This and the uncertainty as to how the water should be apportioned inter se between the upper and the lower farms, have caused many problems.

This creates a problem—

This state of affairs has presented many problems and has caused dissension. The building of a dam will not, in itself, solve the problems of the riparian owners, and the only way in which this matter and the periodical shortage of water can be rectified, is to annul the existing order of the Water Court by legislation and to construct a dam in the river for the storage of surplus water. The building of the said dam has been approved by Parliament in terms of White Paper No. W.P.O.— ’65 and funds have been made available for this purpose. The riparian owners have also been duly informed.

This Bill, as well as the steps taken to supplement the available water and the proposed apportionment of all water, were explained to the riparian owners at a meeting convened for this purpose, and the Department’s proposals were unanimously accepted at the time. There is, therefore, no dispute over the contents of this Bill, or the agreement contained therein.

This Bill provides for the annulment of the order of the Water Court of 1918, for the basis on which permits for existing use will be issued and for the control of the water in the proposed dam to be constructed in the Watervai River, as well as any other water found in the river, with a view to placing the existing development in the area on a sound basis. I should like to reassure land-owners up stream of the proposed dam whose properties will be situated within the Government water control area and whose water rights were also laid down in terms of the order of the Water Court of 1918, and who may be concerned about the way in which their water rights will be affected by this legislation, by pointing out to them that permits will be issued and that the quantity of water authorized by these permits will be based on the decision of the Water Court; in other words, existing lawful and profitable development will be recognized. I think that the riparian owners in this area will also be reassured by this.

As regards the establishment of an irrigation board for this area, I may also point out to these owners that although an irrigation board is authorized to levy rates, such a board will not levy rates on land in respect of which no services are rendered. I am mentioning this specifically because there may be some uncertainty on this point as well. In the case of substantial differences in the value of the service rendered, the Water Act provides for the levying of differential rates.

An irrigation district may be divided into several sub-districts at the request of the owners in the area and each sub-district will be represented on the irrigation board. Members of the irrigation board are elected by vote, and each ratepayer under the board scheme has one vote for every five morgen of rateable land, with a maximum of ten votes. I hope this makes clear to the riparian owners what precisely their rights will be, and I hope—and I am addressing this to the hon. member for Lydenburg in particular—that the riparian owners will have no further anxiety.

This is the first Bill that the hon. the Deputy Minister brings before the House, and I would like to congratulate him on his perspicacity in bringing a non-contentious measure of this kind before us. I think it bodes well for his future progress in this House. I think he has taken a very bold step, but one which has been carefully timed, to come with a measure of this sort.

The subject matter of the Bill is simple. There is only one point which worries me a little about this Bill and that is that we are repealing by legislation a decision of the Water Court which was applicable to these people who are drawing water for irrigation at present from the Watervai River. But the dam is not built vet and there are other dams which are contemplated in terms of the White Paper issued so that while we are now annulling an order of the Water Court we have not yet provided a dam from which the water is in future to be drawn by the irrigators. The present works and the present beneficiaries no doubt will, as I understand from what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said and from the White Paper, be cared for during the intervening period between now and when the dam is built, but perhaps when the Deputy Minister replies he will tell us, not only for the information of this House but for the guidance of the farmers who will be interested, as irrigators, in the water from the dam to be erected, when it is anticipated that this work will be put in hand and when it will be completed; so that while we repeal the Water Court order now, we substitute something of substance hereafter in its place. Apart from that, we have no objection to the Bill, and I want to say again that we wish the Deputy Minister luck and wish him well in his career as Deputy Minister of Water Affairs.

As the hon. member for South Coast has once again made the point, I should like to give the assurance, in order to satisfy him and other parties who will read the reports of this debate, that we shall not lightly do something so drastic by way of legislation unless the different parties have reached an agreement beforehand. I also want to give them the assurance that we are trying in this way to solve a problem that has become such a difficult one. I want to assure the hon. member that there is complete unanimity. The position was so difficult that it could not really deteriorate any further, and this Bill can only improve matters.

As regards the time of completion of the water works, we have already given the riparian owners the assurance that it will be done expeditiously and that it will receive priority, and they are satisfied to accept that. I want to tell the hon. member that they are completely satisfied about the establishment of the principle contained in this legislation, which they welcome, as they are with the promise that the work will be tackled soon.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Only two principles are actually involved in this Bill, namely—

1. (a) the way in which the white portions of the districts of Matatiele and Port St. Johns will be dealt with, and
2. (b) the position in relation to paramount chiefs, chiefs, headmen and tribes.

Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 (a), (b) and (c) deal with Matatiele and Port St. Johns. Occupation or ownership by Bantu persons is not being envisaged for the white portions of these two districts as is the case in respect of those portions of the other Transkeian districts which are at present being occupied by Whites and which will have to become black. Consequently, the portions in question of the said two districts were dealt with somewhat differently in the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963. In this way the Transkeian Legislative Assembly may in terms of Items 2 and 14 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Transkei Constitution Act make laws on Bantu education and welfare services in the 26 districts of the Transkei, but it has been provided specifically that this power does not apply in respect of any area in the district of Matatiele or Port St. Johns which is not a Bantu area.

On the other hand, however, the Transkeian Legislative Assembly does have legislative power in respect of the white portions of the said two districts as far as certain matters are concerned, and consequently the amendment of the Transkei Constitution Act so as to exclude the relevant portions in all cases is being contemplated. This entails amendments to the following provisions of the said Act, namely—

1. (a)courts—sections 48 and 50 and Item 4 of Pant B of the First Schedule;
2. (b)matters relating to group areas—section 60;
3. (c)estates of citizens of the Transkei—Item 8 of Part B of the First Schedule; and
4. (d)births, marriages and deaths in respect of citizens of the Transkei—Item 15 of Part B of the First Schedule.

As far as the courts are concerned, I just want to touch on clause 1 of the Bill. The seats of the existing Bantu affairs commissioner’s and magistrate’s courts in the two districts concerned are at present situated in the white portions and not in the Transkei. Of course, the Transkeian Government will eventually have to move the seats of the courts which will fall under it to its own area, but this naturally depends on the provision of officers, etc., and consequently it is being provided in the proviso to the proposed new section 48 (6) of the Transkei Constitution Act (clause 1 of the Bill) that the seat of an inferior court which comes under the control of the Transkeian Government, may, until the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development determines otherwise, be situated outside the Transkei. This is being done merely for the sake of affording them an opportunity to acquire the necessary accommodation inside the Transkei.

In terms of clause 1 (2) the State President will determine the date on which the arrangements in regard to the inferior courts will come into operation, so that the preliminary arrangements which are necessary to enable the Republic to establish separate courts for the areas concerned, may first be made.

The second principle contained in the Bill relates to the position of paramount chiefs, chiefs, headmen and tribes. Their position is being affected by clause 4 (d) of the Bill—i.e. the proposed new Item 22A of Part B of the First Schedule to the Transkei Constitution Act. That Act does not give specific legislative powers to the Legislative Assembly in regard to paramount chiefs, chiefs, headmen and tribes as such.

There are, however, several provisions in terms of which the Legislative Assembly and other Transkeian bodies have indirect and sometimes direct powers in relation to the said matters. So for instance section 45 provides that the function of designating paramount chiefs, chiefs and sub-chiefs, vests in the regional authority concerned subject to confirmation by the State President, and the creation of any new paramount chieftainship or chieftainship, which means the creation of a new tribe, is subject in addition to a recommendation of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly also has legislative powers in regard to matters such as Bantu authorities, agriculture and settlements, in respect of which existing legislation is larded with provisions giving powers to and placing duties on chiefs and headmen.

As far as headmen are concerned, there is the additional consideration that, according to a legal opinion, the Legislative Assembly does have certain powers in relation to them, because of certain legislation which was in force at the time of the establishment of the Transkeian Government.

Therefore it is not always clear where the line is to be drawn in regard to legislation of the Legislative Assembly which affects the said matters, and consequently it is being proposed to rectify the position in the new Item 22A by specifically giving the Legislative Assembly legislative powers in respect of paramount chiefs, chiefs, headmen and tribes, subject to the provisions of section 45 and subject further to the condition that no paramount chief or chief may be dismissed without the approval of the State President. The latter condition is necessary because paramount chiefs and chiefs are also members of the Legislative Assembly as a result of which their dismissal may affect the constitution of the Legislative Assembly which is a matter in respect of which the Transkeian Government has no powers. These are the two principles.

I want to set the Deputy Minister’s mind at rest at once by telling him that we support this Bill. I would also like to say that we realize that he was not responsible for the original drafting of the Act. If the Government now finds itself embarrassed by the uncertainty as to what the position is, obviously this Deputy Minister is not the man who must take the responsibility for it, and therefore I cannot criticize him too severely on that issue.

The Deputy Minister has dealt with the clauses seriatim and has explained why it is necessary to pass this Bill to deal with the establishment of courts by the Transkei Government in the Transkei proper. That is quite understandable, and we have no difficulty in that regard, in respect of the ordinary Bantu affairs commissioners’ courts. However, he did not deal very fully with the High Court and there is just one question I want to ask him. The High Court of the Transkei only operates in the Transkei and has jurisdiction over Transkeian subjects. The amendment says that the High Court of the Transkei shall not have jurisdiction in or over any area in the districts of Matatiele or Port St. Johns, which is not a Bantu area. I want to ask the Deputy Minister to clarify this for us, either now or in the Committee Stage. What will happen in regard to divorces? Because that court also handles divorces in the Transkei. What will happen to Transkeian citizens who are resident in the white areas of Port St. Johns and Matatiele? At the moment we have the Bantu Divorce Court which comes to the Transkei; it visits the whole of the Transkei and the cases are dealt with there; but if the High Court is established and it takes over all divorce cases as well as appeals from the Bantu Appeal Court, may not these citizens of the Transkei who live in these particular white areas be denied the right to go to the High Court for their divorces? Will they not be compelled to follow the ordinary procedure and go to a Bantu divorce court established elsewhere? In this case it would be at King William’s Town. I mention this because of the possible additional expense or difficulties they will have in attending this court unless, of course, it is decided that the court will in any event still visit Port St. Johns and Matatiele. I mention this as an administrative matter, because for the sake of convenience it might be better to have the High Court of the Transkei actually exercising jurisdiction over the Transkeian citizens who are resident in these two white areas.

As regards the zoning clause, this has, of course, become necessary because of the uncertainty which existed in Matatiele and Port St. Johns. It will be remembered that originally an indication was given by the Government that Umzimkulu would be in the same position as Port St. Johns and Matatiele, in that it would not form part of the Transkei proper. But subsequently the Government changed its mind as regards Umzimkulu, and though when the zoning commission was appointed …

When was any indication given that Umzimkulu’s position would be the same as that of Matatiele?

It was given on frequent occasions. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that when the zoning committee was appointed Umzimkulu was specifically excluded from its operations. Why was that when the rest of the Transkei was zoned?

Quite a big part of Umtata is zoned for Whites.

The zoning commission certainly visited Umtata because Umtata was included in its terms of reference. It visited every other village and town in the Transkei, except Umzimkulu, Matatiele and Port St. Johns.

This is not a zoning question; it is a group area question.

No, I am talking about the zoning clause. In terms of this amendment Port St. Johns cannot be zoned now.

It is for group areas purposes—you must read the Bill again.

Surely this will have the same effect in that Port St. Johns will not be zoned now. Will the Minister tell me Port St. Johns can still be zoned in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act? Will he tell me?

Never, never.

But there is nothing to exclude Port St. Johns from the zoning provision as the Transkei Constitution Act reads at present.

You are confusing zoning and group areas.

As the Transkei Constitution Act now reads, a zoning commission can be appointed to zone any of the towns mentioned in the definition clause of the Transkei.

Yes.

The Minister says “yes”. Well, Port St. Johns and Matatiele are two towns which are mentioned. Let me read clause 3 of this Bill. It refers to section 60 of the Act and reads as follows: “Section 60 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection …” Now, what does section 60 of the principal Act say? I quote section 60 (1)—

That is subsection (1) of section 60. Clause 2 of the Bill now before us specifically mentions the districts of Matatiele and Port St. Johns, along with all other districts. Clause 3 of the Bill adds a subsection (5) to section 60 of the principal Act, and reads as follows—

Does the Minister not know what is contained in his amending Bill? Does he not know?

Yes, I know, but what is your point?

The point is simply this, that in the past Matatiele and Port St. Johns did not know what their position was with any certainty. They had assurances from the Cabinet, but they did not accept those assurances, and they have requested time and again that their position be made clear. The hon. the Deputy Minister is quite right, he is trying to protect his Minister. He is quite right. This amending clause 3 of the Bill now makes it quite clear that Port St. Johns cannot be zoned, but previously Port St. Johns could be zoned.

That is quite clear. I do not know what you are arguing about.

It is the Minister who is arguing.

Order! I think the hon. member should come back to the Bill.

It is the Minister who is arguing, the Minister does not know what is in this Bill. I welcome this amending clause 3 because it now gives certainty to Port St. Johns and Matatiele as to what the position is. The Minister will know that his predecessor, and, in fact, I think he too, had requests from Port St. Johns that he should by means of an Act of Parliament make it clear that they would not be included in the Transkei but would remain outside the Transkei. The reply those people received was, “You are a white area, it is not necessary to make any such provision.” But because of section 60 of the principal Act, those people were worried. They said: “There is nothing in the Transkei Constitution Act which can stop the Minister from appointing a zoning commission to come and zone Port St. Johns.” That was the position. But this amending Bill excludes Port St. Johns and those people know now that this Minister cannot appoint a zoning commission to zone Port St. Johns for black occupation.

Now you blame us for that?

No, but I blame the Minister for not knowing what is in his Bill. [Interjections.] What was the point the hon. the Minister made? The Minister said this clause had nothing to do with zoning. That is what he said to me. If one looks at the Hansard report one sees he made the interjection: “This has nothing to do with zoning.”

I said you were confusing zoning and group areas. [Interjections.]

How can I confuse them if this Bill particularly mentions zoning?

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the Bill? He must ignore the interjections because they have nothing to do with the Bill.

With due respect, Sir, this clause …

Yes, the hon. member can speak about zoning, but the Deputy Minister has explained that that is covered in the Bill.

Yes, that is what I am dealing with, and I say we accept this measure because it now clarifies the position which was not clear before. The interjections made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon have proved the necessity for having something more definite on the Statute Book when dealing with these matters. Because there is more certainty now as regards the two places mentioned, we on this side support this measure.

I now come to clause 4 of the Bill, and with regard to the new paragraph (d) of part B of the First Schedule to the principal Act. I want to ask the Deputy Minister to explain to us in his reply or during the Committee stage whether it is but an oversight or whether it is intentional that the words “acting chief" were omitted. The paragraph is probably quite in order, but I just want to make sure there has not been an oversight. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it has been omitted on purpose. The new paragraph (d) refers to section 45 of the principal Act, and section 45 reads as follows—

and it is then laid down that certain things will be done in a certain manner. The latter part of the new paragraph (d) reads as follows—

I want to know whether “acting chiefs” have been left out on purpose and, if so, why? Will the Minister please explain it to us?

Mr. Speaker, the measure now before this House, supplies long-felt want. I want to point out to the hon. member for Transkei that this Bill makes provision for group areas in the white portion of Mata-tiele, both in the town itself and in the district, as well as in Cedarville. It is not at all concerned with zoning. In 1965 a commission was appointed to investigate the question of zoning in the magisterial districts situated within the Transkei. The commission was not in Matatiele and Port St. Johns. This measure now makes provision that group areas may be established in Matatiele as well as in Port St. Johns. An uncertainty of long standing is now being removed by this Bill and now there may be confidence in the future of the white part of Matatiele. As matters are at present, three fifths of the district of Matatiele is white whereas two fifths is black. These people felt that the Transkei Constitution Act is its present form placed them in a difficult situation, but they never felt that they would be discriminated against. There has in point of fact been no discrimination against them, because now we have this Bill which will establish group areas in Matatiele.

The legal competency of the courts is also being established until such time as it is possible to build the black township outside Matatiele which is being planned. When that township has been built, the administrative offices of Bantu Administration will be transferred from the present town to the black township where it will then function inside that black area, which surely is quite logical. Unfortunately, as a result of lack of funds, that cannot be done at the present time. The administrative buildings and the courts will therefore have to remain where they are until such time as funds become available in due course.

The most important point, however, is that group areas can now be implemented, which will create a geat deal of confidence amongst the Whites as far as the future of that part of the country is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the omission of the words “acting chiefs” I want to point out to the hon. member for Transkei that they are included in the definition of “chief” in section 73 of the principal Act. Consequently it is not necessary to insert those words here.

In section 45 they are specially mentioned and that is why I raised it.

I shall ascertain exactly what the position is as far as this matter is concerned, and I shall deal with it during the Committee stage, if necessary. As far as divorces are concerned, I shall fully acquaint myself with the position and I shall give the hon. member a full statement during the Committee stage. As there are no differences in regard to matters of principle, I move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.