Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

of Enquiry into Improper Political Interference and the Political Representation of the Various Population Groups.

Mr. Speaker, it fell to my lot and it was also my privilege to act as chairman of the commission, the report of which is now under discussion. When we commenced our activities I think that all of us—and I am speaking on behalf of all the members of the commission —were deeply impressed by the magnitude of the task that had been entrusted to us. Therefore we tackled it in earnest and we agreed mutually, as it were, that we would carry out this task objectively and in earnest. We were aware of the scope of the terms of reference and we were also aware of the fact that our recommendations would have far-reaching implications. not only for race relations here in South Africa, not only for peace and calm among the various race groups, but also, to a large extent, for the political future of particularly the Coloureds, who were under discussion.

In the time at my disposal I want to confine myself to that part of the recommendations which affects the political rights of the Coloureds. Since there will obviously not be sufficient time for discussing this matter in full detail, I should like, more in general, to give you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, a survey of the discussions, i.e. how they took place, and briefly the reasons why those of us who signed the majority report, had arrived at our findings. I want to start by saying that I as a member of the National Party have no reasons for taking political expediency into consideration, nor did I do so. The present position is that the Coloureds have four representatives in this House. The continuation or the termination of that representation can hold no political expediency for me as a person who is in politics and who is a member of the National Party. For that reason I found it easy and simple to approach this matter quite objectively. The only considerations I did take into account were, on the one hand, the political future of the Coloureds in South Africa, i.e. what would be just and fair towards them, in terms of which they would best be able to develop their own political future, and, on the other hand, also the question of peaceful coexistence between us and the Coloureds, the Indians and the other race groups in South Africa. I should like us to take into account that we are not only dealing here with the interests of the Coloureds, but, by taking decisions concerning the political interests of the Coloureds, we must inevitably affect the interests of the other various race groups in South Africa as well. For the above-mentioned reasons I want to say right at the beginning that I definitely want to reject any accusation of a lack of objective approach, against me at least—and, I think, the members on my side who signed the majority report—and I feel inclined to say the other members of that commission as well. In the first instance we as a commission tried to secure the opinions of all bodies and persons who might perhaps have had an interest in these matters or who deemed it expedient to furnish us with information. Initially we mainly received memoranda from white institutions and persons such as the Progressive Party, the Trade Union Council, the Liberal Party, the Institute of Race Relations, Sabra, Professor Olivier and others, and it was really with difficulty, after representations had been made to these people, that we received memoranda from the Coloureds themselves. That is why we had the following result, namely that out of 45 memoranda that were submitted—excluding the two official documents—17 were from Coloureds and Indians, whereas the rest were from white persons or white bodies. Taking a general view, I had no alternative but to come to the conclusion that there was a fair measure of lack of interest among the Coloureds. Initially this was one of our problems, namely that interest had to be aroused, as it were, among the Coloureds. In several cases specific representations and requests were made to them in which they were asked to show interest and to submit memoranda.

A second problem we experienced was that many of the bodies that submitted memoranda, and some of the people who gave evidence before the commission, were to a very large extent uniformed. It happened quite often, on several occasions in fact, that we had to struggle in the evidence with people who had to be informed first about what the commission was really about, what the actual state of affairs was at present, what aims we had in mind and in what regard they could furnish us with information. In this regard I want to refer in particular to the District Six Association. If you look at that, Sir, you will see that those people revealed their innermost thoughts to us, and that is why I should not like to reject their evidence; may I say in passing that this is not because of the fact that they did support the idea on which I eventually decided. They said from the beginning that they did not want any representation in this Parliament and that they wanted a body which represented themselves. This is the way these people revealed their innermost thoughts to us. But the other members will agree with me that it took a long time before they could be made to understand what the inquiry was about, what the present state of affairs really was and in what connection we wanted information from them.

Another problem we experienced, was that so many of the bodies did not attend our meetings in order to assist us in analysing our terms of reference and the problem we had to deal with, but they went there simply because they were opposed to apartheid and because they wanted to use that platform of the commission’s activities to reveal their opposition to apartheid once again. The people who attended those meetings with that aim in mind, were, inter alia, the Institute of Race Relations, the Christian Institute, Nusas, the Liberal Party, the Black Sash and perhaps a few others as well. But I want to say right here that as far as I am concerned these people attended those meetings with ulterior motives. It was not their intention to assist us in giving effect to our terms of reference. They wanted to use the commission as a platform to voice their objections to apartheid once again, and their arguments were based on that. That is why I have no alternative but to attach little importance to the evidence they submitted to us. I want to emphasize that they without the slightest doubt revealed undisguised hatred of separate development. On several occasions questions were put to them to show, and it was indeed shown, that their consideration was the campaign they were carrying on against separate development and not the problem we were dealing with at that stage. That is why I say that under the circumstances one cannot attach much importance to evidence of that nature.

Another problem we had was that witnesses so often contradicted themselves, and therefore we could not attach much importance to the evidence they gave before us. In this respect I should like to mention one striking example, and that is of Mr. Schwartz, the leader of the Federal Party. He gave evidence before us, and it seems to me—according to reports that have already appeared in the papers and according to conversations I heard—that he will quite often be quoted here. By quoting what he said, I do not want to be contemptuous of Mr. Schwartz and the evidence he gave. I think that the evidence he gave before us was very sincere, and it may perhaps be his very sincerity that gave rise to this great measure of contradiction in his evidence. We have already seen in some of the newspapers that Mr. Schwartz quoted what he had supposedly said —I can do so again, but there is no time for it —namely that he could not go on with his party if he did not accept as one of his principles that the representation of Coloureds in this Parliament should continue. I myself asked him the following question—

Does this not contradict what you have said in your oral evidence?

Then he said—

I am quoting this to indicate to what a large extent the witnesses contradicted themselves there, and particularly because the evidence of this person, who attaches such slight importance to the representation in this Parliament, will to a large extent be used against the idea of terminating Coloured representation in this House. But I shall come back to this again. There are a few aspects of his evidence that I should like to discuss.

Another problem we had was that the Coloureds themselves were actually divided into various groups. We had evidence from the Durban Coloured Federal Council. They do not regard themselves as being part of the whole Coloured community in South Africa. They are saying, “No, we are different; we are—I might as well say—super-Coloureds, and we do not want you to add us to the other Coloureds in South Africa; we want to be treated differently from the rest of the Coloureds.” With all these problems I must admit that the majority of the memoranda and the majority of the evidence did not present us with much that was positive. Ever so often it was a repetition of the political philosophies of which we had already heard such a great deal in the past and of which we know enough in any case. The solutions suggested by many of these people who gave evidence before us did not have any connection with the actual political realities, and in any case they did not comply with the definition of politics which, to my mind, Professor Olivier worded so well. He said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the responsibility of the timeless.” In view of the fact that the realities in politics were to such a large extent not taken into account in the evidence, substantial parts of the evidence we obtained really have little value for us.

But I asked myself, and I should like to consider this matter in your presence, what should the approach of a commission be when such terms of reference are entrusted to it? What should it consider? I have already said that I feel convinced that we had no reason to be anything but objective. But what is the further approach that one should have? These are terms of reference that were given us by a higher body, and I think the idea was that we had to secure and analyse evidence and that we had to discuss it in the calmer surroundings of a smaller council, and that we had to return from that council with the information we secured and the resolutions we passed and then to make recommendations to this higher body. We do not have many of these commissions in South Africa. Referring to the many commissions that had been appointed in England, Sir Winston Churchill once said, “We are overrun by them like the Australians by the rabbits.” We have few of these commissions and that is why we still attach great importance to the commissions which have to bring out such reports.

There is one point I should like to emphasize as my duty and as being my approach in respect of the work that has been entrusted to me, namely that it can certainly not be expected of me to give effect slavishly to the evidence that was submitted and dished up to the commission. I am convinced that it is my duty to separate the chaff from the wheat and not merely to take the evidence as a whole and to say, “So many said this, the others said that; now I must see who is in the majority.” That is most certainly not my task. It is indeed my task to see what evidence is of importance and valid and then to make an analysis accordingly. [Interjections.]

Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up!

In considering the evidence, we find that the evidence of the Whites was to a large extent reasoned, whereas the evidence of the Coloureds was to a large extent a revelation of their feelings and their wishes. That is why it is essential to consider each piece of evidence on its merits and then to see where one stands. I approached the matter in this frame of mind, namely to take into consideration the sound reasoning as well as the feelings of the people who will possibly be affected by legislation. At this stage I want to say that as regards the evidence, one phenomenon was very obvious throughout, particularly in regard to the evidence of the Coloureds, and that was that they were tremendously enthusiastic about the establishment and development of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. All of them, from the first to the last, were enthusiastic about this. At this stage we must accept one fact, and I suppose no member of the commission will differ with me in this regard, namely that the Coloureds are approaching the establishment of the Coloured Persons Representative Council with great enthusiasm. They do not want to do anything at all which may obstruct the development of that Council to the fullest extent possible. Now I want to refer to certain parts of the commission’s report, and after that hon. members opposite may laugh once again about the minority report that was introduced.

The majority report was approved in Cape Town and approximately 14 days later a copy of the minority report was submitted to me. Paragraph 2 of the latter report, which may be found on page xix of the report, reads as follows—

When I read the words “bitterly resent” in their report, I was shocked, because it is absolutely untrue.

Read the evidence.

I shall do so, why am I standing here? As I have said, that allegation is absolutely untrue. I think the hon. members who signed the minority report could have argued that there were doubts in the minds of the Coloured witnesses, and they could have referred to the number of witnesses who were in favour of the representation in this House being continued and the number of witnesses who were against it. But to say that the majority of them “bitterly resent” this, is untrue; it does not contain a grain of truth, and I should like to prove this by quoting parts of the evidence.

Mr. Schwartz, to whom I referred a few moments ago—and his evidence will still be quoted here a great deal—said certain things which are relevant to this allegation in the minority report. He indicated that representation for the Coloureds in this House did not interest them. I have already mentioned what he had said in this regard. Is that not enough? Was there “resentment” on the part of Mr. Schwartz if representation here would be discontinued? Mr. Schwartz clearly gave us to understand that to him the policy of representation here was merely “political expediency”. He said, “I cannot go to my people and speak against this. I know that this representation means nothing to me. But this is a popular idea and we all, the Coloured political parties amongst one another, use this as a plank in the platform. That is why I must also retain it as a plank in my platform.” That is his approach.

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

Hon. members will be afforded an opportunity to refute this. I say that if we as members of the commission want to do our duty, we should not take excerpts of the evidence but we should treat the evidence as a whole and make the necessary deductions. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the evidence given by Mr. Petersen, the leader of the Conservative Party. I think that we can attach very great value to his evidence. His evidence was as follows—

Is that “resentment”? Is it “resentment” if that is the way the representation of Coloureds here and its possible abolition are being talked about?

I also want to refer hon. members to what Dr. Van der Ross said. Dr. Van der Ross was the leader of the Labour Party, and of the three parties that appeared before us his party was most certainly the most leftist. Dr. Van der Ross said the following—

Is that “resentment”? That is why I say that I was shocked when I saw this deduction in the minority report which is being sent into the world as a result of the evidence to which we, who served in the commission, listened. In the time at my disposal I cannot indicate how great a measure of enthusiasm there was about this. All the Coloureds were tremendously enthusiastic about the establishment of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Do hon. members want to suggest that this, too, was a U.P. idea? They were enthusiastic about this. But this does not only include the Coloureds. I want to refer hon. members to a person whom they esteem very highly, namely Judge Fagan. Amongst other things he criticized in his booklet “Co-existence in South Africa” the old Coloured Council because of its shortcomings, particularly because of the fact that this body met in secret. He said the following—

Hear, hear!

Those hon. members are very good at exclaiming “Hear, hear!” about a council we established, a council they opposed when we wanted to establish it. Now I ask myself the following: What will the position be if the council we are developing at present has to be developed to its optimum and there is still at the same time representation in this House of Assembly?

What is its optimum?

That council must be developed as soon as possible and the Coloureds it represents should be trained in politics and developed as soon as possible. On page 132 we have the evidence given by Mr. Fortuin, who was a very good witness, and on page 153 we have the evidence given by Mr. Schwartz. We have Dr. Du Plessis’s evidence to the effect that simultaneous representation will simply not work; for that reason it must be a very important factor in considering the decisions that have to be taken here.

Unfortunately I have almost no more time left. With that in view we came to the conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances, i.e. the political development of the Coloureds in the future and the peaceful coexistence in South Africa of all the various race groups, it would be a good thing to continue at first—in the light of all the evidence with which I cannot deal now—with the establishment and development of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Simultaneously with that or subsequently we may then terminate the representation in this House. In the light of the evidence that was given and the circumstances in question and particularly as a result of this enthusiasm that was displayed by the Coloureds in respect of the Coloured Council. we decided that this council would not develop to the highest extent if this representation here were continued. In that regard we have the evidence of the Coloureds themselves, and hon. members may refer to it if they wish to do so.

Having due regard to the wishes and the feelings of the Coloureds and the sober-minded reasoning of people such as Dr. I. D. du Plessis with his tremendous experience, I am convinced that if we took this course, we would be taking a further step in respect of the political development of the Coloureds.

What did Dr. Du Plessis suggest?

He said that the representation here could not continue. The day will come when those people who at present are opposing the representations of the majority report will say that this was the right step.

Mr. Speaker, if I had been chairman of a commission which had published a report and which had paid so little attention to the evidence which it had heard and which came to conclusions in such sharp contradiction to the evidence, I suppose that I would be forced to make the kind of ridiculous speech which we heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon. I suppose that I too would be forced to make a speech of that kind because I would be faced with the position that I had come to conclusions which would be very difficult to support with evidence, if the evidence were considered in its entirety.

Tell us about your ridiculous somersault.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear an interjection of that kind from that hon. Deputy Minister. He is the greatest expert on somersaulting this House has ever seen. In fact, I believe that he would be given the international medal for somersaulting if there were something of that kind.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down of course found himself really hoist with his own petard because he said that if the Coloured Council were to be developed to the optimum, then representation in this House would conflict with that development. But what is the optimum for the Coloured Council? Is there any suggestion in this report as to what the optimum for the Coloured Council is? Has there been any suggestion from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what the optimum for the Coloured Council is? Are we again going to have two parallel Parliaments and a state within a state, of which we have heard before from that side of the House?

What is a federation if it is not a state within a state?

That hon. member must not ask ridiculous questions. We want to know what the optimum is to which this council can develop. That is the question we have been putting to them for 15 years in this House and we have not had an answer yet. I am hopeful that before this debate is over, we will get an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope we get an answer from him because I was most interested to see …

The report does not deal with optimums.

No, it deals with minimums and jolly poor minimums at that. I have here an article which appeared in one of the newspapers, supporting the Government on the 24th December, 1967, which states—

The article was written by the political correspondent of Dagbreek. Is this the direction in which we are going? On that basis the hon. gentleman who has just sat down might have some substance for his findings, but is that the policy of his party? I think we are entitled to know because that is the only basis on which he can justify it. I expect the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us in the course of this debate whether he stands for a Coloured homeland in the same way as he stands for a Bantu homeland. When one has heard a speech of the kind we have just heard, one realizes that if you are to deal with this report at all, I think there are six issues which one has to face. I think that those issues must be debated to the full.

The first is whether the main finding of the majority report, namely that the representation of Coloured people in this House should be done away with, is not against the weight of evidence and against the wishes of the Cape Coloured people. I think that that is the first issue on which we must take a decision.

The second matter on which we must decide is what sort of blueprint we will be left with in South Africa if we accept the findings of the majority on that commission. Will the hon. the Prime Minister accept it? Or has he accepted it already? When the hon. the Deputy Minister was speaking, he spoke as a Nationalist and a member of the Government.

What are you speaking as?

I am speaking as a Leader of the Opposition. I am perfectly entitled to criticize that report. But is the Government committed to it? Are you prepared to tell me now that the Government is committed to it? Will the hon. the Minister say to me now that the Government is committed to that report? The hon. Deputy Minister spoke as a Nationalist and a member of the Government.

[Inaudible.]

It seems that the hon. the Minister is speaking merely on his own behalf.

I think that the third question to which we want a reply is whether so-called improper interference is capable of being defined in a manner not already covered by the existing electoral laws and whether it can be further controlled and contained by legislation. I think once we have that information before us, we can decide what alternative solutions there are to the solutions proposed by the majority group and apparently accepted now by the Government. Then I think that, if an alternative policy is advanced, we should deal with the main criticisms which may come against that policy and compare their policy finally with the recommendations made by the majority group in their report.

Let us have a look at this report. Let us have a look at the memoranda that were presented to the commission and the evidence that was placed before it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I practised in the courts for quite a long time, as the hon. the Prime Minister did. We both know what can happen in cross-examination and re-examination. Therefore I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The evidence given must be looked at as a whole. When one looks at the evidence as a whole, one finds of the 47 individuals and groups that submitted memoranda or gave evidence, one can come to no other conclusion than that 27 of them were in favour of the retention of representation in this House in one form or another, that nine of them favoured abolition and that the rest seemed to be undecided. I concede that to the Minister.

Now, Sir, who were the nine who favoured the abolition of representation in this House? One was a Mr. Van Zyl, a member of this House. Another was Professor Olivier from Durban. The third was the District Six Committee of which I have no doubt we will hear quite a lot still, despite the fact that in the political life of the Coloured people it seems to have played no part whatever. Most of us know why it came into existence and why it claims the support it does. It has nothing to do with politics. What it had to do with was with the removal of the Coloured people from the District Six area. Then there was Eerw. Engelbrecht, a Coloured man from Natal; a Mr. Badat, an Indian from the Transvaal, who seemed a little uncertain? Mr. Jacobs, a Transvaal Coloured man; Sabra, which has now changed its mind yet again from the evidence it gave when I sat on the old select committee on the Coloured Vote and changed its mind again from a statement by its old chairman, the late Rev. Gerdener.

You must not accuse anybody of having changed his mind.

Mr. Speaker. I have a feeling that before we finish this afternoon I will be accusing the Prime Minister of having changed his mind, and his whole Party with him. Then there were Mr. Dollie and Dr. I. D. du Plessis. Now, with great respect, is that a representative group of the Coloured organizations in South Africa? Is that a representative group of European political feeling in South Africa? What was noteworthy was that amongst this whole group there is not one representative responsible Coloured organization.

Is there one?

The hon. the Minister of Defence was Minister of Coloured Affairs. Is this the fruit of his work, namely that there is not one single responsible Coloured organization left?

It is as a result of your agitation!

After 20 years of Nationalist rule this former Minister of Coloured Affairs says that there is not one single responsible Coloured organization. What a charge against him!

Is there a representative organization? Reply to that question.

There are a number of representative organizations. I am going to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two just now. What I want to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to, is one matter, namely, that Dr. I. D. do Plessis who favoured the abolition of Coloured representation in this House was forced to the conclusion, despite all the cross-examination by the majority group, that ultimately there must be a super-central body in which Whites and Coloureds are represented.

I want to say that some of the evidence in favour of the retention of representation in this House is particularly impressive. The hon. the Deputy Minister has sought to try and prove that Mr. Schwartz contradicted himself—no doubt he did. But I think he will agree with me that a fair representation of Mr. Schwartz’s evidence was that he stood for representation in this House. What is more, when he was re-examined later he said “I have already said that we would always want a voice in Parliament, for the simple reason that we live together in the same territory”. When the other members of his group were examined, we find that Mr. Sanders of the Free State and Mr. Paley of the Transvaal made it absolutely clear that they, too, stand for representation in Parliament.

Then there is the conservative group of whom Mr. Petersen has been quoted. Here is what Mr. Fortuin said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that was political expediency. Is that not representative of the Coloured people’s point of view? Is that not the voice of the Coloured people and is that why they have been expedient about it? I shall go further. Dr. Van der Ross has been mentioned. This is what he said. He makes it clear that the Coloured Representative Council cannot take the place of representation in Parliament which is responsible for the fate of South Africa as a whole. Later he goes on to make it clear that, while he can see that certain functions can be given to the Coloured Representative Council, nevertheless there are other functions which are common to the country as a whole. Therefore he feels they should still have representation somewhere in the Central Parliament.

What are their wishes in that regard? How do they want to be represented?

We shall deal with that later. The hon. the Prime Minister need not be so impatient. However, they are pleading for representation of some kind in the Central Parliament. Some of them changed their minds about the form this representation should take. Some of them started off by pleading for one type of representation and ended up prepared to settle for another type; some started off by asking for Coloured representatives in this House but were prepared to accept Whites; some wanted Common Roll representation and if they could not have that they would be satisfied with direct representation on a separate roll. But the point I am trying to put across is that according to the evidence of the overwhelming majority of responsible Coloured organizations the Coloured people want representation in one form or another in the central Parliament in principle.

I want to go further and say that the abolition of the Coloured people’s representation in Parliament will be presented by the vast majority of those Coloured people for whom these organizations spoke, as it will be resented by a large number of people who are …

That statement of yours is altogether incorrect. You are not justified in coming to that conclusion.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may think so now, but by the time this debate ends he will subscribe to another point of view. Because I want to say that I believe that a large proportion of the Coloured people were too frustrated even to give evidence before this commission. These will resent it even more.

And then you deny that you are agitating!

Of course I deny that I have been agitating. You see, Sir, this is the principle of improper interference: If the Minister of Coloured Affairs goes and agitates to the Coloured council it is proper interference but if an Opposition member makes a speech which is reported in a newspaper read by a Coloured man, that is improper interference! I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should talk to many of those Coloureds who have left South Africa and should read the evidence of people who appeared before the commission and who knew those Coloured people. What did they say? The hon. the Deputy Minister should know what part this question of the franchise and their right to vote played in their decision to leave South Africa. They felt that they could never become real citizens of the country.

If the Government’s decision on this matter is contrary to the weight of evidence and contrary to the wishes of the Coloured people, even if, to put it at its lowest, they do not resent it—which I believe they do—why then did the majority group of the commission come to the decision which they have put forward? They gave two reasons: The one has to do with the unfortunate exploitation of the vote, and the other with the conflict of interest which would arise if the Coloured people were given representation in this Parliament alongside the Coloured council. They believe that representation in Parliament as well will retard the development of that Coloured council. I shall deal with this question of exploitation later. In regard to the second reason I want to say at once that, to my mind and from the evidence I have read, the idea that representation in this House will lead to a conflict of interests with the Coloured council and retard its development simply does not hold water. We, this House, decide what power to give that Coloured council, just as Parliament has decided what powers provincial councils should have. Is there a conflict of interests between provincial councils and this Parliament? How can there be? They have one sphere of influence and we have another. You go to your provincial councillor for one thing and to your member of Parliament for another thing. We have, furthermore, been told that the fact that the Coloureds have representatives in this House will result in members of the Coloured council being regarded not too highly or not being given that measure of attention which would otherwise be the case. But these Coloured councillors would have only certain rights; they would have control only over certain matters, while over other matters they will have no say whatsoever. Parliament has all the residual rights. Is the voice of the Coloured man then not to be heard when it comes to the exercise of these residual rights?

Surely, Sir, the representatives of the Coloured people should have a say in what powers we are going to give this council? And in respect of those matters over which Parliament retains control, matters of vital importance to the entire South Africa, Whites and Coloureds, should we not hear the voice of the Coloured people through their representatives in this House? Should they not be here to tell what their people think? Surely, Sir, there is no conflict of interest. How can there be? Parliament is the supreme, sovereign body. It has the power and it decides. How can there then be a conflict? Should representatives of the Coloureds not be heard here when we take decisions on those matters? You see, Sir, when I see recommendations of this kind, all I can conclude is that there is a cynical disregard of the political development of the Coloured people, a development which has been going on for more than 100 years here in the Cape and for many years in other provinces. I can only conclude that it is a rejection, a relegation of the Coloured people to an inferior position.

What sort of blueprint are we going to be left with if this representation is removed? What sort of blueprint will there be for South Africa in the future if Coloured representation here ceases? It means that in the first place the Coloured people are being relegated not only to a position inferior to that they have enjoyed up to now but also to a position inferior to that of the various Bantu groups. That side of the House has always indicated that it had not wish ever to diminish the political rights of the Coloured people and they gave various undertakings to that effect. But their star witness, Dr. I. D. du Plessis, said that if the representation of the Coloured people in Parliament were removed it would amount of diminution of the political rights of the Coloured people.

He did not say that. He said it “could” be.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this hon. Deputy Minister is ever going to be promoted. Let him go and read the evidence again. But I want to go further. When I say that the Coloured people will then be relegated to a position inferior to that of the various Bantu groups, I say it because where is there talk on the opposite side of an independent Colouredstan, apart from this newspaper cutting? The Bantu people have been promised Bantustans. Where has there been talk of sovereign independence being granted to the Parliament of the Coloured people? No, Sir. Their say in Parliament here is to be removed. I say they will resent it, and I think that is borne out by the evidence of some of the witnesses before the commission.

But it will mean a third thing, i.e. a departure from the blueprint laid down by Dr. Verwoerd, the first prominent Nationalist to accept our idea of communal councils and to apply it to the Cape Coloureds. [Interjections.] He did not for one moment feel that the continued representation of Coloured people in this House would lead to a conflict of interests or retard the development of the council. He was at pains to emphasize, in season and out, that the creation of a new council would not mean the disappearance of the representatives of the Coloured people from Parliament. I have here a report in Hansard, The then Minister of Coloured Affairs, the present Minister of Defence, was speaking on 16th April, 1964, and this is what he said—

For how long?

I have said that it will remain in existence. Must I say “forever”? I repeat that I have no plan at all, that I have no plan in connection with the development already announced which includes the disappearance of the Coloured Representatives here. I am not even considering it.

If they have their own parliament?

The hon. member looks surprised, but I have already said it twice. What I said was that when we have that parliament, then in my view the white representatives will still be here. Is that clear now?

“For the record”.

What did you say about the common roll?

I want to go further, and for the sake of the record also, I want to read into Hansard what was written by Allen Drury of his interview with Dr. Verwoerd—

“Will the four white representatives of the Coloureds remain in Parliament?”—“Of course they will, but we want to be sure that they will not be used by other political parties to advance the ambitions of those parties. The Coloured Representatives in Parliament must really reflect what the Coloured people are thinking.”

“Some people fear you will abolish them altogether.” A quick smile, a dismissing expression: “Oh well, that is just politics.”

Sir, that was in 1966, after legislation creating this Coloured Council was on the Statute Book.

Drury does not know that smile.

Does the hon. Minister mean that the late Prime Minister was misleading him?

Is that what you are suggesting?

He shrugs his shoulders.

Is he suggesting that the late Prime Minister was being deceitful?

Sir, are the late Prime Minister’s views to be thrown overboard before we have even had one election of this council? Sir, here is what is so interesting: The present Prime Minister, in his address to the Coloured Council on the 4th April, 1967—the existing Council—said this—

Even a man like Dr. Du Plessis, who favoured the abolition of representation of Coloureds here in Parliament, realized that since Europeans and Coloureds inhabited the same territory, there would have to be somebody in which Europeans and Coloureds took joint responsibility for matters of common concern. He spoke of a super federal body, an umbrella parliament, which would take over certain of the powers of this Parliament. If that is so, why break down the present system when your most expert witness tells you that you will have to reconstruct it in some way again later? Why not do the sensible thing, the wise thing, and retain the advice of the representatives of the Coloured people in the sovereign Parliament which will have to take the ultimate decision as to what those rights and powers should be? I want to say that the party on this side of the House has always been committed and remains committed to the principle of representation of the Coloured people in a central Parliament.

On the Common Roll?

I do not believe that that representation should retard the development of the Coloured Council or should in any way conflict with its interests.

Sir, the majority report gives a further reason for the conclusions arrived at, and that was that there was unfortunate exploitation of that representation. Sir, if there is unfortunate exploitation, is that a ground for punishing those who were exploited by diminishing their rights while the people who did the exploiting go scot-free?

Members of the United Party did that.

That does not seem to be just to me. In any event, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether that exploitation was so serious as to justify the cancellation of any type of representation in this House? Let us look at the evidence before the commission. What was the evidence of exploitation? In fact, there was nothing that could not be countered by a strict application of the existing electoral laws, with the possible addition of two things: A system of general registration for the Coloured people and a ban on foreign financial aid. The evidence given to the commission seemed to indicate that the only malpractices had been false registrations, of which there were many and for which the people concerned were punished, and possibly the passing of certain funds. There was no clear evidence on that subject. If that is the evidence—and I do not think any single member on that side of the House will deny it—then that raises the whole question as to whether the phrase “improper interference” is capable of definition in a manner not already covered by the electoral laws, with the additions I have suggested, and whether it can be further controlled and contained by legislation. The report of the majority group shows that they thought the original Bill was impossible. They watered it down in the most staggering fashion and suggested that it should not be proceeded with. There is no doubt about that. They then proceeded with the task of devising methods, in their own words, “against improper interference by one race group in the politics of another”. In this they seem to have failed entirely. Nowhere do they define “improper interference”; nowhere do they recommend provisions to prohibit improper interference.

We shall then have to watch every member of the United Party.

In fact, Sir do you know what they do? They throw the baby out with the bath water, and they recommend that all common political activity by the various race groups be stopped. There is only one significant exception to this recommendation, and it is a most significant exception because they do recommend in paragraph 16 (c) that the Coloured Representative Council should consist of 40 elected and 20 nominated members. Apparently when the Government interferes in the political activities of a nonwhite group to the extent of nominating one-third of the members of the Council to represent its interests, then that is proper interference. If any other political party of any other white group, perfectly legally constituted, tries to get a member elected to this Parliament, or somebody sharing its ideas to the Coloured Council, that is improper interference. That is what we are up against. But does anyone think for one moment that those nominated by the Government will not be supporters of the Government’s philosophy, if not of every detail of its policy? Sir, there was one witness who told the Commission on page 273 that it was his conviction that if he did not support the principle of separate development he would not have been in the present Council of which he is a nominated member. Can anyone say that he was wrong? That is why I feel the minority group in this Commission was correct in refusing even to participate in the discussions on this particular matter, because they thought that it was impracticable. Sir, I am convinced that if the majority group had felt able to do so, they would have produced a new draft Bill and would not have submitted a vague set of recommendations. I believe that perhaps old Dominee Botha of Malmesbury was correct in certain of his attitudes. He said there were really two questions you had to ask. Would there be any practical effect if the existing legal political parties were forbidden to approach Coloured voters, and secondly, would it be wise? He said the answer to the first question was that any Coloured political party would be bound to be a pale reflection of one or other of the European parties, and the answer to the second was that we are very fortunate that this is the case since it has made for stability among the Coloured people. This is my summary, Sir, and not a verbatim report.

Now, I believe that there are alternatives to these majority recommendations, alternatives which are worthy of consideration and which should be put before this House. I say by all means let us have a Coloured legislative council. I will support the Prime Minister in that, and let us give it extended powers. I would prefer to see all its members elected and not one-third nominated. Surely the Coloureds have had political rights long enough to be spared this ignominy. I would also say let us develop that council so that the representatives of the Coloured people in the provincial council are unnecessary. I will support the Prime Minister in their removal. And let us have a Coloured Affairs Commission and liaison between Parliament and the Coloured Legislative Council, through the agency of Select Committees of Parliament and the Council. But I should like to see the duty to consult made mandatory and not left purely permissive. Having done that, do not let us bluff ourselves for one moment that these developments, however praiseworthy they may be, are an alternative to representation in Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that if you take away their representation it depends on what you give them instead, as an alternative. I agree with everything the Prime Minister wants to give as an alternative, if he is going to follow the report of the majority of the Commission, but do not let him bluff himself that that is adequate compensation for representation in this House. And why not? Because this House has powers over certain matters of vital importance to the Coloured people of South Africa over which the Coloured Council has no say whatever.

When you talk about representation in this House, what type of representation do you mean?

The hon. gentleman need not be so impatient. He will have it chapter and verse.

In respect of those matters of vital importance to the whole of South Africa, over which the Coloured Council has no say whatever, the Coloured people have a right to be heard through their representatives in this House, and no case has been made out by this Commission, or the evidence before it, for removing that representation in respect of those matters.

That is the principle. Now we come to what interests the hon. the Prime Minister so much, namely the mechanics. What is the most satisfactory way for that right to be exercised? We on this side of the House believe that it should be exercised by a Coloured electorate which includes Coloured women and which embraces Coloureds over the whole of South Africa, but that it should be extended only to those capable of passing an educational test. As far as we are concerned, votes for the utterly illiterate is no part of our policy at all. We believe that this Coloured electorate over the whole of South Africa should be entitled to elect a defined number of representatives to this House and to the Other Place, namely six to this House and two to the Other Place, and they should be elected on a separate roll. [Interjections.] Of the six in this House, four will be elected in the Cape Province, one in the Transvaal and one in the Orange Free State and Natal together.

Why?

The four in the Cape Province will be elected on one roll in one constituency. That is, the top four are elected and the others fall away. The two Senators will be elected by popular vote in one constituency consisting of the whole of the Republic.

Is that the minority report?

We are very well aware that these constituencies are enormous and that the number of voters voting will be very heavy indeed, but we believe that that is the surest safeguard against malpractice, because these constituencies are so big and the numbers will be so large that malpractices will have to be practised on a tremendous scale and on an easily detectable scale to have any appreciable effect at all. I know that there are hon. members opposite who believe that the representatives of the Coloured people should be elected by the Coloured Legislative Council. We do not favour that because the body is too small and because, if there were any chance of subornation, it will be greater in a body of that size. We do not favour it either because you might find people elected who are not really representative, and they may be elected just by one majority group and not be representative of the whole of the Coloured people. I go on to say that we believe that both Coloureds and Whites should be eligible for election. I want to say at once that this is no new idea. It had the support of many political thinkers in South Africa. “Dawie,” writing in The New Nation of March, 1968, at page 7, said—

And Graaff of De Grendel?

I know the hon. Deputy Minister will be happy to be counted in that company. But I am going to go further now and tell him that what surprised me was that “Dawie” did not say that Die Burger had a number of leading articles in 1960 favouring that idea. There was a most comprehensive list given by a political columnist last year on this subject, and this is what he said—

I am not competent to say whether that report is correct. Here is a copy of the letter written by the late Dr. Verwoerd to Mr. Menzies and published in his recent book “Afternoon Light”, at pages 205-6, I understand with the permission of the late Prime Minister’s widow. He says—

It is no new idea, and I think these views reflect the attitude of the serious-minded Nationalist who justifies the policy of apartheid on the ground that the Bantu will have separate homelands where they can theoretically develop to the utmost of their ability. These people can find no similar alternative for the Coloured people in South Africa. And because they can find no similar alternative, they are prepared to discriminate in favour of the Coloured man, so that he can be represented by his own people in this House if he so wishes. You see, Sir, what is interesting about the evidence before the commission was that the great majority of representative witnesses wanted representation in Parliament, some on the common roll, some on a separate roll by direct representation, but nearly all who asked for a common roll amongst the Coloureds were prepared to accept separate direct representation. Many were of the opinion that that would assist in combating malpractices. This embodies the proposals which I believe could be put before this House. I know they will be subject to criticism, criticism which we have heard so often, and perhaps I might anticipate some of the criticism. It might facilitate and shorten the debate.

I know the first criticism will be from those, like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who are unhappy that the United Party has not pressed for common roll franchise for the Coloured people for representation in this House.

Everything you do makes me happy.

Look how happy you look now.

This suggestion is really based on a misunderstanding of what the policy of the United Party was. Our policy was to restore to the common roll in the Cape and Natal those male Coloured men who would have been on that roll in the Cape and Natal but for the Separate Representation of Voters Act.

[Inaudible.]

It was never our policy, not even in the lifetime of the hon. the Minister of Planning, to extend common roll representation to the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State. We believe they should be given representation on a separate roll and in the Senate. Nor has it ever been our policy to extend common roll representation to Coloured women anywhere in South Africa.

In other words, you had six classes of Coloureds.

You have a point there.

I believe the Minister can count up to six. I do not think we can go any further on that aspect. What I want to emphasize is that we appreciate there were certain difficulties in connection with common roll representation, and even in the minority report of a previous commission on this issue we said it must freely be admitted that common roll representation was not a panacea for all ills or for overcoming all cleavages. Sir Herbert Stanley, a former governor of Ceylon, stated in evidence that the abolition of separate representation and its replacement by common roll representation had not wiped out Ceylon’s very violent racial antagonisms, which have their bases in religious differences.

When did you say that?

When this minority report was written in 1949 or 1950. What is more important was that that statement was based on the findings of the Soulbury Commission, which reported on the constitution of Ceylon after the constitution recommended by the Donoughmore Commission had been put into operation. There it was found that the difficulties were such that the commission, while it still hoped to retain a common roll, recommended that constituencies should be so delimited, territorially and with regard to community of interest, to ensure that minority interests were represented. They say quite categorically in their report they realize the delimitation will have to take place, not on a territorial basis but with regard to communal interests. They say this may be called a mixture between territorial and communal delimitation.

With that in mind, and having in mind also the development in recent years amongst the Coloured people, one found” that there was a need for some representation for the Coloured people in the northern provinces and for Coloured women throughout South Africa. Evidence before a commission appointed by the party and before the recent State President’s commission, made it evident that under the impact of 20 years of Nationalist Party rule and Nationalist Party policy …

Before this commission?

The two sat simultaneously. I do not have the exact dates, but the one commission reported a little before the other. As I said, it was evident that under the impact of 20 years of Nationalist Party policy the Cape Coloured people were moving away from the Whites and developing to an ever-growing extent their own group consciousness. I think one thing that was exemplified by the evidence before this commission, is that there were only three points of view canvassed by the witnesses. One group wanted a common roll for everyone throughout South Africa; the second group wanted direct separate representation, often accepted as an alternative by some common-roll protagonists; and the third group, a small minority, wanted the abolition of the present representation in Parliament.

There was nobody who wanted to return to the status quo before 1955. In those circumstances the Party at its national congress in November decided to make a change and accept direct representation on a separate roll for the Coloured people throughout South Africa. I am happy to say that that decision has the unanimous support of everyone on this side of the House.

The second criticism which is often levelled at the proposals we have made, is that the representatives of the non-Whites in Parliament will form a pressure group and in the event of more nearly equal representation of Government and Opposition in this House, they will use their position to force changes to the advantage of their group. I must concede at once that this may well be attempted. The most likely claims will be for additional representation and possibly for a change in the system of representation. But the fact that there is pressure does not necessarily mean that concessions must be made. In fact, to ensure that changes will not readily be made, we have given the electorate an undertaking which we are prepared and would like to write into the Constitution. That is that no change must be brought about in either the number of the representatives of the non-Whites or in their system of representation without a reference to the white electorate by way of a referendum or a general election on the issue, both of which will require a substantial majority to bring about a change. I may say that the United Party is satisfied that in the event of any threat to Western standards in South Africa or the future position of the white race, the white electorate can be relied upon to stand firm and to protect its position. There has also been the criticism that representation for the Coloureds as proposed by us will prepare the way for larger representation and direct representation for other groups. My answer to that is that inevitably the various groups in South Africa are going to demand more for themselves as time goes by. The Bantustan Governments are already asking for more ground and more rights and wanting generally more than has been given them. It will be for the sovereign Parliament of South Africa to decide whether their demands should be met or not. I say that a United Party Government or any government worthy of its name will oppose any demands which are not in the national interest. As far as we are concerned the principle of the need for the civilized leadership which the white people can give South Africa is an overriding national interest. I know that there will be people who say that if you have granted direct representation to the Coloureds, it is indefensible to refuse it to others. My reply to that is that the Coloured people are a unique population group in South Africa. They are a separate population group. They are closer to the Whites than any other group in South Africa. We have always regarded them as having a special relationship to the Whites. They have been our natural associates in South Africa. They are the only other Afrikaans-speaking community in the world. There are 2 million of them to-day and they follow the Western way of life. Most of them are Christians. I think that the refusal to appreciate these facts and not to reflect them in policies, is a denial of statemanship.

Then we will be asked how we propose to put this policy into practice. The answer is that when we are elected to power we shall do our best to introduce these constitutional changes. We will see to it that only changes submitted to the people by way of a referendum or a general election have any chance of success. Our object will be to prevent hasty changes being made. I think, for example, of the Bantustan policy.

You now want to protect yourself against yourself.

No, I want to protect the Government against another Prime Minister doing what the late Prime Minister did when he announced the Bantustan policy in Parliament without any prior consultation with the congresses of the Nationalist Party. I believe that such arbitrary changes in policy should not be made by individuals, but by the people.

The last question which hon. gentlemen opposite asked was what advice the United Party would give the voters who will be able to vote in such a referendum. The answer is that the United Party’s advice to the nation will be such as to ensure that no change will endanger the principle of white leadership in South Africa.

I think I have shown that we appreciate some of the difficulties with which our policies may have to contend, but what about difficulties connected with the policies suggested by the majority of the commission. Does the Government appreciate them? We will have a Coloured Legislative Council realizing that it can never have a real say in matters of vital national importance which affect the life of their own people. They are bound to become a hot box of frustration without a safety valve. Do the hon. members opposite realize how much damage they can do to the loyalty and the attitude of the Coloured people? By contrast the policy we suggest offers those people a voice in matters of vital national importance, provides a safety valve, affords an opportunity to answer and cope with unreasonable demands and stupid claims and creates an atmosphere in which you can develop a common loyalty to South Africa.

Is there to be one nation?

I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister asked that question. I think that he is quoting from something which Die Burger published and which is not a true reflection of what was published at the congress in Bloemfontein.

That was said at your congress.

That is so incorrect that Die Vaderland actually accused us of stealing the Nationalist Party slogan. We have the cuttings in this regard and other speakers will deal with this matter. It is rather sad to find the Prime Minister quoting that statement. I know that Die Burger has been running it for some time without much success.

I want to say by contrast that I do not propose to motivate what I have just said with further readings from evidence. I believe that the acceptance of the majority group report would mean that Coloured and White will go forward in one territorial entity here in South Africa because quite frankly I do not believe these stories of a Colouredstan. I believe that they will go forward in one territorial entity with no effective meeting point. There would be contact at select committee level, but their power to liaise would be permissive and not made mandatory. There would be contact through the Coloured Affairs Commission an through the Minister. But is this Parliament which controls the destiny of these people, just as much as it controls that of the Whites, ever really going to know what those people are thinking? I have no hesitation in saying that it will never know if the Minister concerned does not want it to know. That is the situation in which we are going to find ourselves. I want to know what the Coloureds have done to deserve this treatment. They are the group closest to us. They have a long history of loyalty to us, they speak our language, they have a Western culture and they are the most developed non-White group in South Africa. They also have a long history of loyalty to the Whites. If we ever needed friends on this continent with its vast numbers of non-White people, we need them now. Here is a group anxious and ready to be friendly, as appears so evidently from the evidence given by some of the witnesses, I think particularly by Dr. Van der Ross on pages 112 and 113 of the report. The history of the political rights of the Coloured people makes pretty sorry reading. I do not think it is necessary to go into it. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what effect this suggestion of the majority on the commission is going to have on South Africa’s image overseas and on his outward looking policy. Does he realize that much of the work that he has done in the last 18 months may be nullified? Does he think that anybody outside South Africa is going to believe for a moment what was said in the majority report, i.e. that a Coloured legislative council with no power to discuss or legislate on the most important matters that affect our national life, will, and I quote, “completely fulfil the political ambitions of the Coloured people”? Surely, it is time we had a little realism in our public affairs. I believe the Prime Minister, if he thinks about it, cannot accept the recommendations of that majority group.

Now, Sir, what about the Indians? The majority group recommends that there be established an enlarged, expanded and reconstituted Indian council on the same lines as the Coloured Legislative Council.

Not only the majority group.

We accept that. We support that. We have no worries about that. But what does worry me, and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can help me, what of the points of contact? Are there going to be select committees? Is there going to be an Indian affairs commission or not? Was it your intention to recommend it or not?

It is clear. You can read it for yourself.

Mr. Speaker, I regret it. It is quite clear to me that it does not seem to have been considered. The minority group did recommend that there should be …

Based on the same principles; that is what they recommended.

Mr. Speaker, I looked at this very carefully. It is not clear, and the Minister would not give me his statement. He can say yes or no.

Do you know who moved that? It was the member for Yeoville!

The hon. member for Yeoville has signed a minority report in which there will be contact by way of a select committee of the Indian council and a select committee of Parliament.

It was unanimously accepted and was moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister and he could not give me an answer. But we believe that we should go beyond that. We believe that there should be representation for the Indian community in this Parliament. We believe that time has come. We believe that representation should be by two white representatives, elected on a separate roll, in this House and one white representative elected on a separate roll, in the upper House.

That is one of the reasons why you lost the 1948 election.

That is 20 years ago. I want to say that that is part of the federal concept for South Africa. I believe that we cannot stop still with the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party at a point 20 years ago and think that there has been no development since then. Even he is not the man he was in those days. He has developed as others have developed.

We believe that the proposals we put before the hon. the Prime Minister are not only worthy of serious consideration, but worthy also of acceptance over and above those put by the majority group who sat on this commission.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what was going to become of our image overseas if we accepted the recommendations of this commission. I want to begin furnishing the hon. the Leader with a reply to that question at once. I want to furnish him with a reply after making a certain statement, and I have no doubt at all that there is not a person in this House who will disagree with that statement, and that includes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all those sitting on his side, because it happens to be true. That statement is this: No matter in how favourable a light we try to present the position, no matter how—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in his speech this afternoon—we have talked about representation of Coloureds in the past, the fact remains that the Coloureds of the Republic of South Africa have, as a whole, never had political rights in South Africa under any régime, neither the old colonial régime in its various forms and in the various provinces, nor any former government in this country. I think the hon. the Leader will grant me that. He will grant me that, speaking only of those, male and female, over the age of 21, there are easily 700,000 Coloureds, according to the figures which have been furnished to me, who could have political rights and who could exercise them if they had them. Of those 700,000 there have been 33,000 to date who have had a certain measure of representation in this House. This is what the figures and the facts tell us. In other words, it is a bluff and it would be dishonest of anyone of us to want to pretend to the world outside or to ourselves that the Coloureds have enjoyed political rights in South Africa. That is not so.

What does this commission now want to do, and what is the National Party prepared to do through its acceptance of this commission’s recommendations? It is to grant political rights to the Coloureds of the Republic of South Africa for the first time—and herein lies the historic significance of the recommendations of the commission, recommendations in regard to this matter with which hon. members on the opposite side agreed. The historic significance lies therein that it is being done under the leadership of the National Party, and that the United Party agrees with it. What they had before. Sir. was not political rights; it was only a small group that retained it as a legacy of the previous century, and it had been given to them for a specific reason. It was not for the purpose of exercising political rights. We have debated this matter in the previous debates. It is therefore not necessary for me. nor will my time permit me. to cover that ground again. But the fact of the matter is that we would be deceiving the world outside, and everybody, if we maintained that the Coloureds in South Africa had had political rights. They simply did not have such rights. I am grateful and pleased that the United Party agrees with us that we should now confer political rights upon the Coloureds. No harm will be done to South Africa’s image. South Africa can only benefit by it in that the world outside now knows that this Parliament is prepared to grant the Coloured group political rights. That is the significance of this commission. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now appended to this that if these four representatives who are at present sitting here should disappear, it would be a blow, and would be wrong. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts forward that argument he does not realize how he is offending the hon. member for Yeoville, because if the hon. member for Yeoville had had his way, they would already have disappeared. But I must say that the real scapegoat is the hon. member for Transkei. According to page xxix of the commission’s report the hon. members for Yeoville and Transkei, at a meeting which was held on Tuesday, 29th August, 1967, at 9.30 a.m. wanted to have them disappear. On that occasion the hon. member for Transkei moved the following motion (translation)—

And if this recommendation had been accepted and had been approved by Parliament? Then my two hon. friends, the Coloured Representatives, would have been gone now.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming back to that. I first want to deal with the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and when I have finished with that, I shall tell the hon. the Leader what the standpoint of the Government is in respect of this report, I want to take the view here that the new policy which the hon. the Leader has extolled to such an extent … I hope he keeps it a long time. It is difficult for us to keep pace if the policy changes so frequently. One has other business to attend to as well. Take for example the new policy which they found at Bloemfontein and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition extolled to such an extent. I want to say that it is the most half-baked policy I have ever heard of. And the cook of that half-baked policy is the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall prove this to you as I go along. Here and there the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned certain things, which also appeared in the newspapers. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the United Party had had the benefit of having two commissions, the one which we are dealing with now, and a Party commission which coincided with it. Have I understood it correctly? It is so?

Virtually.

They virtually coincided. I think the Party commission was a little prior to this one, which came a little later. Is that correct?

That is correct.

That is correct, says the hon. member for Yeoville. Now, the hon. member for Yeoville. in an article he wrote himself—this is not what he is reported to have said; his name is appended to this— in the Star of 4th December, 1967, with reference to the Party commission which preceded the other commission—as he has now told us —had the following to say. This is the Party committee of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was the chairman. The hon. member for Yeoville said—

He was aware of this. And yet the hon. member came forward in this same commission and moved that those Coloureds should be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll, on which they were prior to 1955.

On what date did I move that?

The date on which the hon. member advocated this was 29th August, 1967. At that stage the commission had finished hearing evidence. The commission’s deliberations were then in progress, and it was towards the end of its proceedings that he had to take up a standpoint. And the hon. member for Yeoville told us himself that they had the benefit of not only this commission’s evidence, but that of the other one as well. Not a single Coloured wanted it. Nor does that appear to be the case from this commission’s report. And yet the hon. member for Yeoville moves that the Coloureds of the Cape Province and Natal be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. On what grounds did he do so? For the sake of interest let me just point out how half-baked this policy is with which the United Party has at last come to light. If one has various policies, then surely there is at least one to which one gives priority. One cannot give priority to all. Now, I take it that of all the various policies which there are, this is the one to which the hon. member gave priority, because the motion was moved by the hon. member for Transkei, while the hon. member for Yeoville voted for it. On 29th August he voted in favour of the Coloured voters in Natal and in the Cape Prowince being restored to the Common Voters’ Roll on a qualification basis, and that representation in the Senate should be given to the Coloureds of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State on a separate Voters’ Roll. That is not “this House”, on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition placed so much emphasis. No, one now has two kinds of Coloured representation. In the Transvaal and in the Free State one now has Coloureds whose voices will only be heard in the Senate, whereas in the Cape Province and Natal one has Coloureds who must only be on the Common Voters’ Roll. And that is all.

You have not done your homework.

It stands in the report. But, as I have said, we now have various policies on the opposite side of the House. One must of course give priority to one of those policies. The hon. member for Transkei gave priority to that policy which was supported by the hon. member for Yeoville. But when it was voted down, they said: But wait, we have many policies. If you do not want this policy, then we have another one. Then we simply give you another one. And then the hon. member for Peninsula was so kind as to introduce a motion in order to give them a policy. He is very largely the father of the policy which the United Party has now found. I want to congratulate him on it. But immediately afterwards, on the very next day after this motion had been moved the hon. member for Peninsula moved that the Separate Representation of Voters Act should disappear, and he moved that in terms of the Act of 1964 there should be one large separate roll for all Coloured voters. He said, according to his motion, that six members should be elected to the House of Assembly from the ranks of their own registered voters or from the ranks of registered white voters on the basis that four such members should be elected to represent the Cape Province, one to represent the province of the Transvaal, and one to represent the provinces of Natal and Orange Free State jointly. That is precisely the policy which the United Party now has, and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also put forward here. It was given to them as far back as 29th August of last year. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not even have gone to Bloemfontein: he could simply have gone to discuss the matter with the hon. member for Peninsula in his office, and he would have had a policy ready to hand. This one can still forgive. But then the hon. member for Peninsula moved a further motion; he moved that from that Coloured Voters’ Roll, or from the ranks of the voters on the White Voters’ Roll, further members should be elected, i.e. two members to represent the Coloured population of the Cape Province in the Cape Provincial Council, and one member to represent the Coloured population of the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State in the Provincial Councils of these three provinces. But the hon. members for Yeoville and Transkei who sat on the commission on behalf of the United Party and who spoke on behalf of the United Party, wanted to go further; they were not merely satisfied to follow the example of the hon. member for Peninsula by bringing six members here to the House of Assembly. They went further; they wanted to introduce two into the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, and one in each of the Provincial Councils of the other provinces. Where is the policy now which the hon. members were then advocating?

Where is Dr. Verwoerd’s policy?

Sir, I am dealing with hon. members of the Opposition now, and when I have finished with them I shall come to Dr. Verwoerd’s, and my own, policy. Hon. members need not be concerned about that. Here the United Party intended not only to introduce Coloured representation into this House, but also to introduce Coloured representation into the Provincial Councils. When I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the debate the other day, “What about provincial representation?” he said, “No, we are abandoning it; we are doing away with it.” Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mention one single newspaper to me in which this question of provincial representation was mentioned? Of course, I was not present at the secret discussion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held with his supporters, and I do not know what happened there, but no publicity was ever given to the question of provincial representation. It was never discussed. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not make a statement on such a cardinal aspect of policy?

When the Prime Minister made his speech at Windhoek, and I think also at Durban, about the future representation of the Coloured people, did he not say that he was not binding his commission?

I stated my standpoint in general, in the same way as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated his. But the hon. member for Transkei was the representative of the United Party on that commission.

No, not of the party. We were members of the commission.

Sir, I find that this is becoming even more interesting now. The hon. member now wants to dissociate himself from his party. I do not blame him for wanting to do so.

What did the Deputy Minister of Police say?

Let us return to this very interesting turn the debate has now taken. The hon. member for Transkei said that he had not sat on the commission as a United Party man. In other words, he has one standpoint as an individual and another standpoint when he sits on the United Party side.

Why have a select committee if that is your attitude?

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the opposite side came onto that select committee as the representatives of the United Party.

That is not what the chairman of the commission said.

Hon. members of the Opposition can do what they please, but such chopping and changing in speaking and voting, until one ultimately had the policy that was found in Bloemfontein, I have never seen before in my entire political career.

When Mr. Strijdom voted in 1936 … [Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, we are back in 1936 now, and the hon. member knows that what he is saying now, is not correct. [Interjections.]

Order!

After having witnessed these antics of the United Party in this regard, let us now come to the hon. member for Karoo. You will recall, Sir, that what the hon. member for Karoo said on a former occasion in this House is in essence precisely the same as what he is now saying to this commission in his memorandum, but on that occasion he hid behind the Coloureds and said that it was their standpoint. Now he has presented it as his own standpoint as a member of the United Party, and what does the hon. member’s standpoint amount to? He is a United Party Member of Parliament. He is not a commission member who has the fig leaf which the hon. member for the Transkei has. What did the hon. member for Karoo say? He said—

My proposition therefore is for Coloured people to be entitled to elect six or eight Coloured men to Parliament, the Indian people to be entitled to elect two or three Indians to Parliament.

This is the standpoint of a United Party Member of Parliament, and he is not a mere backbencher of whom one need not take any notice; he was the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council. He was their key man there, and he was brought over here with a great fanfare of trumpets from that place. He occupies a leading position in the United Party. What value can one attach to the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition under these circumstances? He comes forward here and tells us that these representatives will be Whites, and leading figures within the United Party declare that they must be Indians. That is what the hon. member for Karoo said. But the hon. member for Karoo went much further than that. He came to the “second stage”, and there he introduced the Bantu within the White areas into this House with their eight representatives, who would be “Africans”. This from a leading member who is still sitting within the ranks of the United Party. This is what the sixpence policy of the United Party stated, but if you say so they kick you out. This is what the sixpence policy stated, and here a leading member of the United Party comes along and advocates having eight Bantu representatives in this Parliament. But then, on page 32 of the report, he comes forward with his “third stage” and there he advocates a common voters’ roll of Bantu, Coloureds, Indians and Whites. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Has he repudiated the hon. member for Karoo, who is a member of his caucus and of his party yet? Is he prepared to repudiate him? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us certain assurances. What value can we attach to his assurances if leading members of his party adopt attitudes such as this, and he, who is the Leader, does not even repudiate them? [Interjections.] I shall repudiate anybody, whoever it might be, who acts contrary to the policy of the National Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not evade the question now; I am asking him: What value does he think the electorate of South Africa or I can attach to his words if he does not even have the courage to repudiate a senior member in his party who propagates this kind of policy? [Interjections.] But let us proceed. I can so well understand—because I am human— why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to protect himself from himself by means of the entrenchments he wants to write into the Constitution. And above all, I can well understand why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave me the reply he did in fact give me towards the end of the debate on the motion of no confidence. I asked him: “Will you, who have previously intimated that the pressure became too much for you, be able to withstand the pressure with this new policy of yours?”

As your party withstood it in regard to the Bantustan policy.

Sir, I did not interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking; I asked him a few questions for the sake of clarification. I can understand only too well now why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to me at that time with a sigh of relief: “We believe we are strong enough”—that is, to withstand the pressure …

But you did not withstand it.

He said: “We believe we are strong enough, Mr. Speaker, because we know we have the support of that side of the House”. He thinks he will be strong enough if he has the support of this side of the House, but he cannot feel strong when he looks at the hon. member for Karoo. Can you see now, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an appeal to the people outside to accept this new policy of the United Party and to vote for the United Party, a party with such a history and such a background that nobody will have any respect for such a policy or believe in it.

They have no respect for your policy.

We now come to the question as to what the standpoint of the Government is in regard to this report of this commission. There are four matters which I must reply to in this connection. The first is: What about the political representation here? The second is in respect of the channel of communication which there will be between this Parliament and the Coloured Council. Then there is the question: What about the present representatives? Finally there is the question of interference. But before coming to that, I must naturally deal with the question of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council.

The commission made certain recommendations. Most of these recommendations have been accepted by the Government. In other words, where legislation already exists for the establishment of a council most of the members of which will be elected, this will be proceeded with and, where necessary, additional legislation will be introduced. I shall not motivate all these matters now; I shall merely mention what decisions have been taken. My colleague the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs will provide the necessary motivation when he participates in the debate. The commission recommended a name for this council, namely the Coloured Legislative Council. The attitude of the Government is that we want to retain the present designation, i.e. the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, for the time being because this is the name by which the Coloureds know this council, and because they have shown their attachment to this name. But if after its establishment the new council should decide that, for sound reasons which it may advance, it wants another name, that other name can be given to that council. The commission recommended that the name of the Executive Committee be changed to “The Executive”. This recommendation has been accepted. The commission recommended that the chairman of the Executive should be elected. It is the view of the Government that he should be designated by the State President. He must be designated for very good reasons, inter alia, because he will be the person responsible for handling the finances of that council, which will be a considerable amount, between R46 million and R50 million. For very good reasons it has been decided that he will be appointed by the State President, but my colleague will motivate this further.

The commission recommended that there be 40 elected members and 20 nominated members, instead of the 30-16 laid down in the Bill and the 12-15 as it is at present. The Government has accepted this recommendation. In other words, it will be a council in which the majority of members will be elected and the minority will be nominated. The commission made a recommendation in regard to the principle of loading and unloading, and this will in fact be introduced, although, as I have been informed, it is already written into the old Act.

The commission recommended that this body should have the power to make legislation ab initio instead of having preliminary proclamations of which mention is made in the present Act, and the Act will be amended in order to carry the commission’s recommendation into effect. The commission further recommended that the legislative powers be extended from time to time. This is being accepted. To the management of finances, local government, education, welfare and pensions and rural areas, the proposed legislation will add the following: Any other matter which is added by proclamation by the State President, provided that the Minister shall Lay a copy of such proclamation upon the Table in the Senate and in the House of Assembly within 14 days after publication thereof if Parliament is in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. The Commission further recommended that specific powers be conferred upon the council in connection with the levying of taxes. Of course, one cannot have two tax-levying machines. Nor do I think that this is what the Commission intended. We cannot see it as a tax-levying machine, but if this council wishes to impose specific levies, it will be granted the necessary authority, but the Minister concerned will give the necessary explanations in respect of this matter as well.

The functions in Appendix B, which cover an expenditure of R46 million for 1967-’68, have to be transferred. This the Government has accepted, and as the council gets into its stride, still further functions can be transferred to it. In other words, for the first time a representative Coloured council is being constituted on which the majority of the members will be elected, which will have considerable funds at its disposal, and which will have powers to adopt resolutions and make rules and regulations in regard to those matters which are peculiar to them. That is why I have said that we, not only this side of the House, but the entire Parliament, can really take pride in the fact that now, for the first time in our history, substantial political powers have in fact been conferred upon the Coloureds. The Commission also made recommendations, and quite rightly —and discussions have also been held on this matter both within and outside the commission—in regard to the channel of communication which should exist between this Parliament and that Coloured Persons’ Council. Let me say at once that it is my view, and that of the Government, that there should indeed be communication between that Coloured Persons’ Council—and what I am saying here now applies in principle to the Indian Council as well —and this Parliament, this House of Assembly. Now one asks oneself whether representation such as the present is the best way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make out a case for it. My view is that he did not and that one cannot make out a case for it. I am aware that one may say that that communication one must have may be a Coloured Affairs Commission, just as one now has the Bantu Affairs Commission. One may say that it may be a select committee. One may say it should be some kind of standing committee. But, to link up with the interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Defence, the truth of the matter is that there is no representative Coloured opinion in South Africa to-day. One can consult individuals and one can consult bodies, but the fact of the matter is that there has never been a body of which one could say that it spoke on behalf of the Coloureds and in regard to which one could accept that what it said reflected the feelings of the Coloureds. We have never had anything like that. We are going to have it for the first time now, when we have brought this council into being.

Is that not a condemnation of your own Union Coloured Council?

The hon. member need not be so concerned about it. As I have said, the fact of the matter is that, notwithstanding all the good work which the present council has done—and it has done wonderful work—it is a nominated council with a minority of elected representatives. I would be grateful if the hon. member who is making such a fuss now would participate in the debate and tell us what he meant by this memorandum he submitted to the commission. But it was the hon. member, more than any other person, who belittled that council whenever he could. I say that in view of all the good qualities which that council had, and it had many, I want to express my personal gratitude and appreciation towards those council members for opening up the road and making it possible for us, through their responsible actions, to come forward now with these further steps. If that council had not acted so responsibly, a Parliament would have been hesitant about proceeding to these further steps. But precisely as a result of the exceptional way in which they acquitted themselves of their task, it became possible for us to have this elected council with a majority of elected members which we now have. The Government’s attitude therefore is that it will not take a decision at this stage as far as that channel of communication is concerned. There must be a channel. There are various alternatives which one can put forward, but the Government’s attitude, and I have no doubt that this will be welcomed by all, is that it will not decide what that channel of communication will be until such time as it has had an opportunity of consulting with this new council which will now be instituted.

Will you recommend anything to them?

I shall consult with them. I shall present them with the various alternatives, and I shall confer with them about the alternatives, and then, after the Government has consulted them, it will decide. I believe that that is the correct way. I think it is a very fair way. One is now bringing a new council into being. A very large measure of the success with which it will exercise its functions will depend upon the communication it has with this Parliament; and I think that it is wrong to say to it in advance that this is its channel of communication, without having consulted it in that respect. I therefore repeat that as far as this channel of communication is concerned, the Government will decide and introduce legislation if and when the Council has made known to the Government its attitude in regard to the matter.

Then there is this question: What about the representation here in Parliament? Let me repeat that, as in the case of the Coloured Persons’ Council outside, the three representatives here have represented the Coloureds to the best of their abilities. I want to pay tribute to the late Mr. Barnett and the other two representatives who are still here. They have put the Coloureds’ point of view in this House as they saw it. I doubt whether it was always in fact the Coloureds’ point of view. Nor have I always accepted it like that. But I accepted their good faith when they presented the Coloureds’ point of view, as they saw it, in the House. The question now is what is to become of them.

I have said that there must be a channel of communication. I agree with the commission that Coloured representation as we have it here at present, with the handful representing the Cape Province, is not the answer. Consequently my standpoint is that, in the light of the increased representation which is being granted and in the light of the communication which is going to be created, the present Coloured representation, as it exists here, must go The question that now arises is, “When must it go?” Under the circumstances I do not think it is fair to let it go before something has been substituted for it. Consequently I believe that the council should first be instituted, as will be done next year, and that that channel of communication by means of which the Coloureds can be heard should first be established. Incidentally, that is my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who made a great fuss and complained that Their voice won’t be heard.” This House will be made thoroughly aware of the Coloureds point of view. With all due respect to the representatives who are here now, I believe the Coloureds’ point of view will be stated more effectively because it will be stated by the Coloureds themselves and will not be conveyed to us here at second hand. But leave it at that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I differ on that, and apparently we shall always differ on it as long as he retains his present policy.

The question as to what must become of the present representatives now arises. I say that I do not think it would be fair to say that they must go now. It is therefore my view that the term of office of the Coloured Representatives should he extented to the expiry of the term of this Parliament. In this way no vacuum will be created. On the contrary. It will be possible to have the necessary supplementation. The present representation here will therefore continue in this House for the duration of this Parliament.

I come now to the accusation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that in accepting the principle of this commission’s report I have deviated from the standpoint of my predecessor, the late Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. the Leader read out certain statements here. I have also read all those statements, but I read them in the correct context, and the context in which they must be seen, is the situation as it had developed up to that moment, in other words, the councils which then existed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition could himself have found the reply to the question which he put to me, because he had the same Hansard in front of him. To tell the truth, he even gave it to me across the floor of this House in his motion of no confidence. He referred me to the Hansard of 10th April, column 4193. I shall read out what is written there. The hon. member for Transkei put a question to the late Dr. Verwoerd in this House, which read as follows—

It is very clear, not so, that this is the same question which the hon. the Leader is asking me now? It is the same question. My predecessor’s reply was as follows—

We are going to reach this stage of development; we shall reach it when the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has been established; we are going to reach it when the channel of communication has been established. The hon. the Leader must not tell me now that it was a passing remark which he did not hear, because he debated it.

What is the reference?

It is the same reference as the one you gave me, namely 10th April, columns 4192 and 4193.

Of what year?

1961.

But I quoted from 1964.

You gave me the date, 10th April, in the no-confidence debate. What is more, the hon. the Leader debated this point, as did the hon. member for Transkei. That was the standpoint of the National Party.

He changed it subsequently, when I asked him again.

I want to go further. Towards the middle of column 4192 we find the following words of the late Dr. Verwoerd—

Then Dr. Steenkamp asked, “And representation here?” Dr. Verwoerd’s reply was—

As a matter of fact, in some respects they are getting more powers than provincial authorities have. This Coloured Persons Council is getting substantive powers. That is why I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it depended upon certain things. I readily concede that he would have an argument and would be able to make out a case against me if I simply abolished Coloured representation here. I told him it depended upon what was being given to the Coloureds in lieu thereof. Once again with due deference to the hon. Coloured representatives here—what the Coloureds are now getting is worth infinitely more than what they have had up to now, no matter from what angle one views the matter. It is my conviction that the Coloureds themselves will see the matter in that light. But we need not argue about that now, because this Coloured representation will remain until the expiry of the life of this Parliament. In the meantime this other body, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, will come into being, and we shall have many opportunities of hearing opinions and weighing them up against one another, and I have no doubt at all that the standpoint of this side of the House will be proved in practice.

Will the existing vacancy be filled?

No, for very good reasons this vacancy will not be filled. I shall tell you why not. Because I am still of the same opinion as the one the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I shared on occasion, namely that there is improper interference in the affairs of the Coloureds. I am still of that opinion. Therefore, since the commission has recommended that the whole of the Bill which was before it should not be proceeded with, this will be done. I agree with that, because with this new dispensation which is now being introduced, the need for it falls away to a very large extent. But, Sir. in my opinion it does not fall away entirely. The Cabinet is still considering the legislation which must be introduced in that connection. I shall tell hon. members along what lines I am thinking when I say that something will have to be done in this regard. My view is that no member of one population group may acquire membership of a political party of another population group. I really believe that the United Party will agree with me that there is no need at all under this dispensation of a Coloured Persons’ Council for Coloureds to be allowed to belong to the political parties of Whites and Whites to the political parties of Coloureds. I believe that those who do so, do so with sinister motives. Those motives bode ill for South Africa and its people. I also believe that Whites should not be allowed to act as electoral agents for Coloured candidates for the Coloured Persons’ Council, just as I believe that Coloureds should not be electoral agents for white candidates. We have had it before … [Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member for Sea Point has had experience of it.

Look, I am not guilty!

No, Sir, let me say in all fairness that the hon. member for Sea Point fell victim to it. I therefore think it is a good thing, if one’s thoughts move in this direction, that one should prevent that sort of thing.

I also believe that one’s thoughts should move in this direction: Is it fair for Coloureds to incite Whites against other Whites during an election, or that Whites should incite Coloureds against other Coloureds? I think this kind of thing is only done with sinister motives, and the Government will have to look into this.

What about Daantjie Scholtz?

What about Graham Eden? The hon. member need not go all the way to Springbok for an answer. All she need do is skip one bench and she will have the answer immediately!

Sir, I believe that another danger we have to face up to is the question of money from abroad which is being given to political parties here in South Africa. This is a form of interference which we cannot tolerate. I think that, as far as this is concerned, I have the support of the other side of the House as well. In other words, now that the Government has done what the commission recommended, it cannot simply wash its hands of the matter. I think that there is a further duty resting on this Parliament, and that is to try to prevent and eradicate, if one can, this blatant, dangerous interference as quickly as possible and without dragging in other people. One will not always be able to prevent it, but it is one’s duty to prevent those things which can be prevented. Accordingly the Government will consider taking the necessary steps in due course, and we shall return to this House in this connection.

To sum up, therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say that I believe, as I said at the beginning, that we have a duty towards the Coloured people in the political field as well. I believe that we are fulfilling that duty towards them by granting them political rights for the first time as Coloureds of the Republic of South Africa over those matters which fall within their domain, which are very dear to them, and which mean a very great deal to them. Let us grant them these rights, so that by so doing we shall not only grant recognition to them, but also lead and educate them. I believe that we are doing the right thing. I believe that we all have reason to be deeply grateful for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and I agreed at the time to appoint the commission.

I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation towards the commission for the good work which they have done over a period of many months. In particular I want to express my gratitude towards the chairman. He has been a brilliant chairman, apart from being a particularly able Deputy Minister. I do not think he deserved the accusation made against him by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think that was quite unnecessary. It was not funny. Why he said it, I do not know. I believe that this commission, under the leadership of this particular chairman, has rendered a great service to South Africa, a service which will benefit South Africa, but a service which, in particular, will benefit the Coloured population of South Africa as no other single action on their behalf by any South African Government has ever done.

Mr. Speaker, I personally am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister intervened in this debate so early. I was hoping that he would first have listened to some of the cogent arguments which I am sure are going to be forthcoming before making up his mind on some of the very important issues that emanate from this commission’s report. I am afraid that, as a result of the speech that we have just heard from the hon. the Prime Minister, the suggestion will be made that it lends colour to the accusations that have been repeatedly forthcoming that the Government has, long prior to the report of the commission, made up its mind with regard to the future political rights of the Coloured people.

I sincerely hope that even at this late stage the hon. the Prime Minister will reflect very carefully before taking an irrevocable step in regard to the future political rights of the Coloured citizens of South Africa. Before I deal with the various aspects of this Report, I should like to deal with one or two of the matters raised by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the various motions proposed by those who formed the minority on this commission. But before I do so, I should like to say publicly that I associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister had said in paying tribute to the chairman of the commission. I should like to say that it was a great pleasure and privilege for me to serve under the chairman. I was struck very forcibly by the courteous way in which he received all representations and by the courteous manner in which he allowed Coloured people to come forward to make their representations and generally by the fairminded way in which he presided over the deliberations of the commission. I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to him by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the motions moved by certain of the members who formed the minority on the commission. I should like to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister immediately. I think it is necessary that I should explain and place on record the circumstances under which the various resolutions were proposed. The Prime Minister will appreciate that in a commission of this sort you do not just move resolutions. There must of necessity be a full discussion on all the aspects raised in regard to the representations made to the commission. All the issues must be discussed in their fullest amplitude. Lengthy discussions took place among all the members of the commission over a long period dealing with the various matters which eventually formed the subject of these resolutions. Every aspect raised by the people who made representations to us was canvassed. When it became obvious to the minority members of the commission that we were confronted with almost a stone wall attitude on the part of the majority members who were going to recommend the total abolition of the representation of Coloureds in this House, we obviously had to explore every means to try to induce the majority members to reach some form of compromise in that regard. It was in those circumstances that these resolutions were moved. In the first instance this applies to the resolution asking for the restoration of the Coloured in the Cape and Natal on to the Common Roll. When that failed I put forward the resolution that under the separate roll …

You did not want to be the father of the child.

I shall come to that in a moment. I put forward the resolution that the Coloureds should have the opportunity of electing representatives to this House under the separate roll which has been established by Parliament. I am highly flattered by the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that the crux of what I suggested in my resolution eventually formed the basis of the policy of the United Party. I want to say that I was not present when the United Party adopted that policy and I had absolutely nothing to do with it.

So they actually stole it.

I am nevertheless very flattered because that does form the basis of their policy.

Having said that, I now want to deal with this Report as I see it. As I see it the commission’s majority report can be divided into two distinct categories. The one is to expand the Coloured representative council. The other is to abolish the representation of the Coloured people in the central Parliament. The first recommendation, namely to expand the Coloured persons representative council, is in principle one which I am sure will receive the wholehearted support of the entire House. I do not think that there is a single member in this House who would oppose the idea of expanding the powers of the Coloured persons representative council. The second recommendation, which to my mind is the important one at this stage, is in my view so retrogressive and in conflict with the solemn undertakings given by the Government to our Coloured people, that it merits the most careful scrutiny before any action is taken. It is in that spirit that I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will pause before he gives effect to his suggestions this afternoon in regard to that aspect of the Report. The second issue involved in this Report is to my mind one of the most important matters ever to have confronted Parliament. I will even go as far as to suggest that the issue is more important and will have a more farreaching effect than the many constitutional issues with which our country was confronted in the 1950’s. At that time the country was faced with the constitutional issues involving the removal of the Cape coloured citizens from the Common Voters’ Roll, a right which we thought was entrenched and which they had enjoyed for over a century. The proposal was then to place them on a separate communal roll of their own. It went without saying that that was a grave diminution of rights at that time but at least the Government had the fairness to preserve for the Coloured people continued representation of some form in the sovereign Parliament of their own country. It will be recalled that the Coloured people of the Cape enjoyed some form of representation in our Parliament for over a century. But even at: the time when the Government was responsible for inflicting these constitutional crises upon our country one after another, they took pains to ensure that this formal representation of the Coloured people in the Parliament of South Africa would continue, albeit in an emasculated form. To-day, however, if effect is given to the recommendations contained in the majority report of the commission on this aspect of the matter, it will mean that even this meagre form of representation in our Parliament will be denied our Coloured citizens. It will therefore be appreciated that the issues before us to-day are infinitely graver and more important to the Coloured people and the country as a whole than the problems which faced us in the 1950’s when we had the constitutional crisis. I therefore suggest that a greater duty and responsibility now devolves upon the Prime Minister particularly, and indeed upon every member of this House, to examine the proposals earnestly and sincerely so as to ensure that we do not take any decision that may bring our country in to any further disrepute and which can be attacked as a debasement of our national honour.

It is in that spirit that I propose to examine the recommendations of the majority report of this Commission in order to see whether any case has been made out which can justify our stripping our Coloured citizens of their small remaining representation in Parliament. I repeat that this was vouchsafed to them throughout all our discussions in the period 1950 to 1958 and its continuance was repeatedly guaranteed to them by every Prime Minister of this Government and every responsible spokesman of this Government since that time. I propose to examine the case put forward by the Government members of the Commission to see whether we are justified in breaching the pledges and solemn undertakings given on so many occasions to our Coloured citizens. In examining these proposals for a fundamental and irrevocable change in the political rights of the Coloured people, one must bear in mind a very cardinal principle. The hon. the Deputy Minister who was chairman of the commission will bear with me in that regard. The cardinal principle is that the onus of proving that a change is necessary and justified is upon those who seek to introduce the change. The onus rests on those who are asking Parliament to introduce this change. I venture to suggest that nowhere in this voluminous record does there exist any valid reason to justify or necessitate the proposed change. As one who sat on this commission from its very inception and who took a very keen interest in all the deliberations of the commission, I have no hesitation whatsoever in declaring now that the recommendations in the majority report are against the overwhelming weight of evidence.

That is untrue.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to allow this record to go to any independent judge or lawyer and let him determine whether what I have just said is correct or not. I repeat that these recommendations are against the overwhelming weight of evidence given by the Coloured people and the Coloured organizations to the Commission, as well as being against the Overwhelming volume of evidence given by white persons and white organizations. Any fair-minded person who reads the evidence given before the commission and the voluminous memoranda submitted to it, must come to the conclusion, and a just one, that the abolition of the representation of our Coloured people in this Parliament was supported only by a very small number of people who appeared before the commission—only a very small number of them. The greatest part of the evidence strongly supported the viewpoint that our Coloured citizens should continue to have some defined form of representation in our sovereign Parliament and that to deny them this basic right, a right which they have enjoyed for more than 100 years, would be a gross injustice and most detrimental to race relations in the country.

I do not propose to go into the detail of the evidence given before the commission. My time is limited and I have of necessity to skim over some of this evidence. But let me say once again most advisedly that an examination and analysis of the evidence justify the declaration made in the minority report, i.e. that the overwhelming volume of evidence given by the Coloured people before the commission was against their being deprived of representation in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. And, despite what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, I want to say that they will bitterly resent such a deprivation. Let me quote from the evidence of one person in this regard, from the evidence of no less a person than Dr. I. D. du Plessis. It will be seen from page 321 of the commission’s report that I asked him the following question—

To this Dr. du Plessis Replied—

I then put this question to him—

This comes from Dr. I. D. du Plessis, a former secretary for Coloured Affairs. Therefore I say that we are justified in having said in our minority report hat the overwhelming volume of evidence is in support of our recommendation.

In the light of this fact, and again bearing in mind that the onus is on those who seek to bring about the change, are we not entitled to ask what justification is there for the recommendations contained in the majority report. I feel it is necessary for me to emphasize that even those Coloureds and Coloured organizations who have of recent years been strongly supporting Government policy have declared in no uncertain terms that they are opposed to the elimination of Coloured representation in this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has already referred to certain of the evidence given by the present chairman of the Coloured Council, Mr. Tom Schwartz, when he appeared before the commission as chairman of the Federale Kleurling-Volksparty. We all know that Mr. Schwartz in all his public statements has declared himself to be an ardent supporter of this Government and its policy. But notwithstanding this, it is interesting to note what he said before the commission. On page 149 of the commission’s report I put the following question to him—

To this his reply was “That is so”. My next question was—

To this his reply was—

Political expediency.

The other bit of evidence I want to draw attention to is the evidence given by the Conservative Party, Mr. Fortuin. On page 138 I put this question to him (I only quote part of the question)—

To this he replied—

The Prime Minister can repeat as many times as he likes that a representation of the Coloured people in this Parliament has not served any useful purpose. I say it is a matter of good faith. Here a Coloured man himself has said that the Coloured people have over the years come to accept it as a matter of goodwill and good faith.

In the light of this evidence, clear evidence by Coloured supporters of the Government’s policy, and in the light of the overwhelming corroborative evidence given by the vast majority of persons and institutions which appeared before the commission, how can we in all conscience agree with the recommendations put forth in the majority report in this connection? In paragraph 16 of the majority report the members who signed it states: “After careful study and consideration of the memoranda and the evidence submitted to it …,” they recommend that the present system of representation of Coloureds in Parliament be discontinued. But to-day the hon. the Deputy Minister himself admitted that he ignored most of the evidence and took an objective view of the matter as a whole—in direct conflict with that statement in paragraph 16 of the majority report, a report which he as chairman signed.

That is playing with words.

These words are simple English words and they can speak for themselves. Let me repeat: If the evidence is analysed by any independent fair-minded individual, it is humanly impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the weight of evidence in any way justifies the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the members of the commission.

How can one reject evidence without having considered it?

You tell us.

I do not know. That is something you can explain. In any event, I state unhesitatingly that the overwhelming volume of evidence given by the majority of witnesses before the commission, White and non-White, is against the abolition of the representation of the Coloured people in Parliament and, further, that such a deprivation would be bitterly resented by them.

I think it is necessary for me to give the House briefly a summary on general lines of the representations that were made to the commission by responsible coloured people. As I saw the position, these leaders have this to say; firstly, they appeal to the commission to regard the position of the coloured people of South Africa as totally different from that of the Bantu; secondly, they emphasize that the Bantu, who have their own homelands, may be able to obtain political satisfaction in their own territories; thirdly, they emphasized that the position of the coloured people was totally different in that the coloured people were part and parcel of the indigenous, western-orientated population of this country; the religion and the language of the coloured people are broadly speaking the same as those of the Whites; they have no homeland other than the homeland which they share with the white people of South Africa, and in their case there can be no question of territorial separation or partition; fourthly, and most important, numerically speaking, the coloured people consist of approximately two million souls and this figure is too high a percentage of the total population of the common homeland for the coloured people to be ignored and not to be given some share in determining the destiny of the general community of which they form a substantial part. That, generally, is a summary of the representations made.

Sir, in all fairness, I feel that I must admit that the Coloured witnesses and Coloured organizations acknowledged the great advances that had been made under the Department of Coloured Affairs in overcoming the social, economic and educational differences between the Coloureds and the Whites of this country. In all fairness I feel that it is necessary to state —-and I do so with a great deal of pleasure— that the responsible Coloured people paid tribute to the effective steps taken by the Department of Coloured Affairs in improving the economic position of the Coloured people. I was very glad to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that it is still his intention to go even further than what has already been achieved in that regard. In fairness I want to say also that they felt that through the establishment of an effective, democratically elected body such as the proposed Coloured Legislative Council, which the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken about, much more could be achieved in dealing with the affairs of the Coloured people. I agree with that statement completely. All the representations supported the establishment of this Coloured Legislative Council with greater powers to initiate and pass laws concerning the Coloured people, and I am certain that the members of the commission were unanimous in making that recommendation. At the same time, Sir, the Coloured leaders realize that such a legislative council could never assume the status of a sovereign parliament, and it is that aspect that I want to impress upon the hon. the Prime Minister. By no stretch of the imagination can this Coloured Legislative Council who are going to have limited powers to deal with routine matters affecting the daily lives of their own people, be regarded as being equivalent to a Parliament. They felt in those circumstances that there should continue to be some form of representation whereby the Coloured people would have some direct say in the sovereign Parliament of their own country. Sir, I personally felt, and I am still of that opinion, that it would take quite a number of years for the proposed Coloured Council to function fully as a legislative body, even in connection with matters concerning their own people. The Coloured leaders themselves acknowledged that it would take several years before they would be able to gain adequate experience in dealing with the administration of public affairs affecting Coloured citizens. Dr. I. D. du Plessis, who is an expert on this matter, said so specifically. There is no doubt in my mind that under proper guidance and with the help of the white people and of the Government of the day this Coloured Council will ultimately be able to play an important part in the daily routine matters affecting the Coloured people, and this council ultimately might be able to participate in talks about their own political destiny. But I am equally sure that by no stretch of the imagination can this Legislative Council ever assume the status of a sovereign parliament, and in those circumstances I am convinced that it would be a retrogressive step to deprive our Coloured people of continued representation in this central Parliament. In my view it is not only fair and just but absolutely essential that our Coloured citizens should have and continue to have some defined form of representation in our sovereign Parliament. A people numbering nearly two million out of a total of million Western people in South Africa cannot be ignored and they are entitled to have some form of representation in the sovereign Parliament of their own country. Sir, to abolish this representation of our Coloured people in Parliament, to my mind, would be a serious breach of the moral obligations which the white people of South Africa have assumed towards the Coloured people over many years. It would be a breach of the pledged word repeatedly given by our Prime Ministers and other Nationalist spokesmen to our Coloured people. I say that we cannot and dare not cast this integral part of the white people of South Africa outside the nation of this country. The hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out that although they had this representation on the Common Roll and thereafter on the separate roll they have not achieved much.

Do you concede that it is only a small minority of the Coloured people who have this right?

Yes, I do, but this is a right which we have given to them and which they have enjoyed now for over 100 years. I think it is morally wrong to take it away from them. Sir, the modern tendency is to extend laws in favour of liberty, and whilst I appreciate what the hon. the Prime Minister intends doing, in enlarging the scope of this council and in giving them more and more powers, I say that until such time as the members of the council themselves, when they are able to deal with their own political affairs, come along and say to the Government that they do not require any more representation in Parliament, the Government should go out of its way to ensure that the Coloured people are represented in this Parliament.

Sir, time does not permit me to-day to deal with the many solemn promises made and the moral obligations undertaken by the white people of South Africa, as voiced by our leaders throughout the years, with regard to the continued representation of our Coloured people in Parliament, in some form or another. I am sure it is not necessary for me to recall all the solemn assurances and undertakings given by the nation’s leaders, now all of revered memory, but I think it is necessary for me to recall, for the purposes of this debate, a unanimous decision taken by this Government and published to the world on the 8th September, 1960. In this declaration it was announced that a Cabinet committee on Coloured Affairs and a committee appointed by the Cape Congress of the Nationalist Party “have furnished a report to the Cabinet who have now had an opportunity of considering the unanimous recommendations which came from these important committees”. The late Dr. Verwoerd had this to say—

The present Minister of Defence—

Because there was no alternative.

Sir, the alternative open to the hon. the Prime Minister is this: Build up your council by all means; we will all help you. But that is no alternative to representation in Parliament. Let that council go ahead; let us build it up to the fullest possible extent and the time may come when that council may come along and say to the Prime Minister, “We do not want any further representation in the House”. In confirmation of this public announcement made by the late Dr. Verwoerd the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party in January, 1961, issued a public statement. I cannot quote the whole statement but, among other things, they said that what Dr. Verwoerd had said in the two recent statements formed an accurate reflection of the Nationalist Party’s policy. They then went on to say—

[Time expired.]

I think that the hon. member for Peninsula did not listen to the hon. the Prime Minister’s important statement, because even he is remaining here; Coloured representation is not being terminated. Even he is remaining here; he is still being given charity, and he will remain here until such time as a link with this House is created in consultation with the Coloured Council to be elected, which will represent the Coloureds in South Africa for the first time. This link will be created by way of consultation, and I think this is a tremendous concession which the hon. the Prime Minister has made. This is what the United Party has quarrelled about all these years. What more does the hon. member for Peninsula want? I think that he can disappear quite happily from this House when his term expires, because I believe, no matter how good he is, that a better link is going to be introduced.

Sir, I cannot agree with the hon. member about what happened on the commission. The hon. member says that they made the proposals contained in this report after deliberation. It is rather odd that the United Party members were so ready as to come forward with their proposal first; they did not even give the Government members a chance to come forward with a proposal. They came forward with their proposal first, and immediately afterwards the hon. member for Peninsula came forward with his. You will see in the minutes too that this is the sequence in which the proposals were made. Sir, I should like to put one question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What image of South Africa does he want in the outside world? What harm can these recommendations of the commission, and even the acceptance of these recommendations by the Government, do to the image of South Africa? I believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to see an image of South Africa in the outside world based on his policy of race federation and integration. But this is surely not the image which we on this side of the House want in the outside world. The image of South Africa which we want to see in the outside world is the image as advocated by this side of the House. What we want to present to the outside world in the display window of South Africa is the policy which has now been followed for two decades here in South Africa, namely the policy of separate development, the policy of justice for all race groups in South Africa. If that image is projected to the outside world, it cannot do South Africa harm, because under this policy of separate development South Africa has developed into the most peaceful country in the world.

Sir, I just want to dwell for a moment on the background to this commission. Why was this commission appointed? There had been improper interference in the politics of the Coloured people in South Africa. This was admitted in this House, also by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Peninsula, when this House unanimously decided, with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton, that a commission should be appointed to investigate the question of improper interference. The hon. member for Houghton opposed it, because her party interfered not only improperly but also indecently—and evidence substantiating my claim was submitted to the commission.

They were nearly as bad as the United Party.

That was the commission’s eventual finding after we had deliberated for almost two years. Virtually everyone felt unhappy about the previous piece of legislation, because interference by one race group in the politics of another race group cannot be combated properly as long as the members of one race group are represented by members of another race group. That is actually why this commission was appointed.

I now want to make the following statement on the basis of this evidence. Of all the witnesses who appeared before the commission, hardly any advocated the current representation, neither did any memorandum. Not one single witness stood by this representation, not even the United Party. On what basis did they take their decision on that commission? Surely it must have been on the basis of the evidence submitted to the commission, but what did they decide? They did not stand by this representation. The decision taken by the members of the United Party on the commission was that we should return to the Common Voters’ Roll. They did not defend this representation, and even the hon. member for Peninsula did not defend it. Here is his proposal in writing. What did he advocate? He advocated that the representatives of the Coloureds should be Whites or Coloureds. He did not stand by the present position. No one stood by the present position and this is clear from the minutes—not the United Party, nor the Coloured representative who was on the commission. I want to invite any member of this House to examine the memoranda that were submitted to the commission, and there were 47 of them. I now want to make this assertion. A memorandum is the considered opinion of people. When people or a body draw up a memorandum, they are committing their considered opinion to writing. With a witness the position is quite different. A clever questioner can lead a witness in any direction he chooses. The man proceeding me leads him in a certain direction, and then I come after him and lead him in the direction I choose.

Now, I have taken a look at these memoranda and I just want to quote a few of them briefly. There is the one submitted by the Conservative Party, on page 11 of the Report. This is a Coloured political party. They want to retain representation in the white Parliament, but the representatives must not be politicians; they must be experts. The Trade Union Council of South Africa (page 26) wants the Common Roll for all adult Coloureds. The Labour Party of South Africa, the party of which Dr. Van der Ross was the leader, and which he represented before the commission at the time, (page 41 paragraphs 16, 23 and 24) would prefer to have the Common Roll, but as an alternative, ten members in the House of Assembly and four in the Senate, but they must be Coloureds. This is a large Coloured political party. It did not advocate the retention of the present position, as the hon. member for Peninsula would have us believe, but an entirely new principle. Instead of white representation here, there must be representation by Coloureds. Then there is the District Six Association, quoted here on page 45. They want the abolition of the present representation in Parliament. On page 50, paragraph 15, we hear from Mr. S. Dollie, and he is not just any Coloured who came to give evidence. Mr. Dollie was at one time a city councillor of Cape Town and a member of the Cape Divisional Council. He is still a member of the Coloured Council at present. He says that the Coloureds would prefer a Coloured representative council to Parliamentary representation. The view of the Federale Kleurlingvolksparty, of which Mr. Tom Schwartz is chairman, on page 60—the hon. the Deputy Minister has already quoted it is briefly and clearly stated, and it boild down to this, that they cannot see of what use the present white representation in the Republican Parliament is to them. They say that it is of no use; it is worth nothing to them. Whereas Dr. Van der Ross’s party has only really established itself in the Cape, this Federale Kleurlingvolksparty has branches throughout the Republic. I think that if there is one Coloured group who spoke representatively on behalf of all Coloureds in South Africa and in all provinces, then it is these people. They said that they would prefer a Commissioner of Coloured Affairs to serve as a link between the Government and the Department, and between the Coloured Representative Council and the Department of Labour, because the present representation in Parliament was of no use to them. What is the essence of what Dr. I. D. du Plessis advocated in his memorandum? [Interjection.] But I have told you that I am purposely not dealing with the evidence because the memorandum represents the considered opinion. On page 79 he says that any political system for the Coloureds in South Africa, at this stage at any rate, is determined by the guardian. Sir, the political situation of the Coloured in South Africa has always been determined by the guardian. The British colonial policy was to give the Coloureds the franchise in 1853—did the Coloureds ask for it? No, the guardian gave it. When the guardian abolished the Indian franchise in Natal in the 1890s had the Indians asked for that to be done? No, the guardian abolished it. The Leader of the Opposition said that we ought to be ashamed of this report, but I say that if I was the Leader of the Opposition, I would be bitterly ashamed of the minority report. The United Party members on that commission are in the position to-day that they cannot advocate in this House what they set down in writing in the commission’s report. Sir, I shall tell you why I think they found a loophole to escape through at Bloemfontein. What they proposed in the report has been rejected repeatedly by the white electorate of South Africa. But what is more, the Common Voters Roll has been rejected by the great majority of Coloureds in South Africa. There are only a few snobs who still want it, but the vast majority of Coloureds do not want it. What I find the most distasteful of all, and of which I say I would be ashamed, is that on the 29th September this report was signed and those three hon. members of the United Party handed in their minority report, yet, if I am correct, about two weeks later, round about the 13th October, the United Party changed its policy.

May I ask the hon. member whether the recommendations of the majority on the commission did in fact represent Nationalist Party policy?

Sir, a Nationalist has only one heart, and he does not have two faces either. It gives expression to my innermost feelings as a Nationalist. [Interjection.] No, it was not my Party’s policy, but this United Party recommendation was not their Party’s policy either, was it? What is even worse, is this. I would rather say that it could be United Party policy, because on the basis of the evidence they could not have presented such a report. Surely the majority of the witnesses did not ask for a return to the Common Voters’ Roll. What have we had in the past? In 1951 we had the Separate Representation of Voters Act, not so? I must go back a little in history. What happened then? The United Party plunged South Africa into a constitutional crisis. They created a furore. They brought all and sundry together in the United Front. The Torch Commando, the Liberal Party, the Communists, the Progressives, the A.N.C., the Springbok Legion, Solly Sacks, Moses Kotane, Michael Scott, the whole lot were brought together in that United Party. They established a fund of R2 million and they spread the most pernicious political propaganda possible in this country and in the outside world. And after two decades, 20 years afterwards, they come along and propose on a responsible commission that this country return to the Common Voters’ Roll. The hostile world opinion with which South Africa is still faced to-day, was born in the days of the United Front and in the dispute about the Coloured franchise on the Common Voters’ Roll. The first clash with the police in South Africa occurred in front of these Parliamentary buildings in connection with the separate representation of Coloureds. Michael Scott, Solly Sachs, Sam Kahn and all those people who belonged to the United Front fled the country to continue the fight from abroad. What has the same United Party now done after two decades? After two decades it leaves the Coloureds in the lurch and decides at its central congress that it no longer stands by the Common Voters’ Roll. After two decades they fall in behind us and say that they too are now in favour of separate representation. Do you know what the result is of the opposition of the United Party to separate representation two decades ago? The result is the terrorism which we are experiencing to-day. This thing comes from outside, from people who fled the country, people who were members of the United Front. They have been the prompters and they have been the supporters.

What did the Coloureds have on the Common Roll in the past? It is only in the past two decades under the National Party Government that the bitterness and hatred which existed between the Whites and the Coloureds before 1948 have disappeared. I would not say that there was hatred as such, but there was indeed bitterness, and if it had continued, it would have turned into blatant hatred, because there was an exceedingly great deal of bitterness. Under that Common Roll the Coloureds were the most frustrated group in South Africa, nor was there any group that was deeper in the mire. On a Common Roll under the United Party they were doomed to povêrty and misery.

Now the question arises, how do we envisage the future? The hon. the Prime Minister has replied in that connection. In 1960 the socio-economic plan for the coloured population was announced, and I believe that with it a light dawned for them. I say here and now that both the Coloureds and the Whites can work on that programme, and also on the Coloured Representative Council which they are now getting, for at least 20 to 25 years. The Coloureds must now accept greater responsibility and they must see to it that their family, social and health services in particular are developed. I say that in that regard there is enough work to be done to occupy the Coloureds and the Whites for at least 20 years. It is not at all necessary for us to quarrel here about the disappearance of these few representatives. It is not necessary. On the contrary. To my mind it is not even relevant. I do not think it is relevant for the Coloureds either. There are too many great things involved for them. To my way of thinking, of seeing, of feeling, the coloured population will not allow themselves to be misled again as they were in 1951 and 1952 by the United Party, the Torch Commando, and the United Front, when they also joined the ranks and marched along. There are going to be no upheavals in the country; there is going to be no quarreling on the part of the Coloureds. I think that the various Ministers of Coloured Affairs and the Department have done wonderful work here in South Africa by bringing about so much goodwill on the part of such a large population group in these few years of the Department’s existence.

I repeat, we on this side have nothing on our consciences in connection with what we are doing here—nothing at all. As Dr. I. D. du Plessis also says, we are the guardians of the Coloured population, and we are of the opinion that what is being done here is in the best interest of the Coloured population. It is in their interest that this representation be terminated. As far as the political aspect is concerned, I want to say that the Coloureds have, until now, been the political bottle-baby of the Whites. This must come to an end now. We cannot expect that Coloured leaders will come forward as the true leaders of the Coloured population, as long as we have white representatives here playing off the Coloured leaders against one another. These hon. representatives, also the hon. member for Karoo, so often say things here which never emanated from the Coloured population. The hon. member for Karoo pins his narrow-visioned (verkrampte) United Party political view onto the Coloured population.

This side of the House maintains that this system of representation has served its purpose over a period of two decades, and now the enemies of separate development—amongst others the hon. member for Houghton and her party—have discovered the loopholes in the system. They want to create a platform for themselves in this Parliament by riding on the backs of the Coloureds, and that is why it is so important that the system be terminated. [Interjections.]

I repeat that what we are introducing now, is not a solution for all time. A solution for all time has never been found for anything. There will be consultations again. We now have a programme to tackle; we have work for 20, 25, yes, perhaps 50 years. In a few decades’ time there will be further consultations. That is my honest opinion. We have to deal with human relations here. Man is not static; there is development. Continual adjustment will have to be made, also in this field. In a few decades’ time the succeeding generation will have to have discussions once more. I feel that the present political generation, those of us sitting here, have a lifelong occupation ahead of us, and have discovered a solution. We have work to do; we have a programme for the Coloured population. In a few decades’ time there will be further consultations. Most probably another commission will be appointed. The relations between people will be discussed again. But I believe that, just as we have gradually found a peaceful solution to our problems, our children—and we have confidence in them—will also find solutions. But every solution arrived at in the future, will be within the framework of the principle of separate development in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, judging from what the hon. member for Malmesbury said just now when he referred to “verkramptes”, I would have thought he considered himself a “verligte”. But judging from the policy he has just expounded in connection with the Coloured people, I must classify him as a “verkrampte”. The hon. member told us that we were the guardians of the Coloured people and, if I understood him correctly, he said that we would be the guardians of the Coloured people for ever and ever.

He never said that.

I say that if I understood him correctly we are to be the guardians of the Coloured people for ever and ever [Interjections.]

Order!

Before I go any further, I should like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the commission for his impartiality, courteousness and for all the opportunities he gave us as members of that commission to put our questions. But I think that I can safely say that the Government must be very sorry that they ever appointed this commission. I say so because the weight of the evidence of this commission certainly does not substantiate the recommendations with which they have come forward. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that they are sorry that they ever appointed this commission. I feel quite certain that they had made up their minds beforehand. The Nationalist Party—I will not say the members of the commission— had made up its mind beforehand namely that they were going to remove or abolish Coloured representation. The findings of this commission therefore do not make their task any easier. This commission certainly collected a lot of information in the form of memoranda and from witnesses who gave oral evidence. I am sorry that more information was not obtained from the Indian community in regard to their views on the matter. For some reason or other they did not come forward. For some reason or other I think they were afraid to come forward to express their views.

Two aspects were investigated. Firstly, there was the question of improper political interference and, secondly, political representation of the Coloureds and Indian peoples. Many of the persons who submitted memoranda or gave oral evidence did not express any views on the question of improper interference, while others did not express views on the aspect of political representation. After a careful examination of the various memoranda and the evidence there is no doubt that the Bill before the commission was not acceptable. I examined the memoranda and evidence very carefully and I find that 23 people were against the introduction of a Bill of this nature; seven expressed no views, while nine expressed the view that white parties should not interfere with Coloured politics. Those that expressed views on the question of improper political interference, included, firstly. Judge Van Wyk de Vries. He thought it would be a good thing if the one group did not interfere into the politics of the other. But he tore the Bill referred to the commission to pieces, and said that it was quite impracticable and should not be proceeded with. Then we had the District Six Association group. Mention has already been made of them. I think they are pretty inexperienced politically. They knew very little about the political set-up.

During their evidence I think the chairman on at least three occasions had to tell them what the Coloured Representative Council was going to be and what its functions were. They knew nothing whatsoever about it. They expressed the opinion that political parties should not interfere in the politics of others. But at the same time they also expressed the view that Coloured parties could not proceed unless they had guidance and assistance from the white people. They said that because they lack the experience they required that assistance. I think they actually went further and said that they were not financially in a position to run their parties and their elections. Mr. Dollie was already referred to. He is one of those who believe that it is undesirable that one party should interfere in the politics of another. He also makes the observation on page 329 that the fighting of elections costs money and that they do not have the means to fight elections. In other words, he expects some assistance from white parties. He goes on to say that white leadership is required. Mr. Manuel—he is also one of the nine—makes no strong issue of the aspect concerning political interference. He has no strong views on it at all. He did not seem to understand the relevant part of the memorandum submitted by him. I should not like to make any further comment in regard to Sabra. We all know what their views are. They do not want Coloured people in Parliament and, consequently, they want no interference at all. I think somebody already mentioned that the hon. member for Sunnyside also wants no political interference, but he visualizes virtally no future for the Coloureds under a Coloured Representative Council. The hon. member for Outeniqua also believes strongly that there should be no political interference whatsoever. Professor Olivier from Natal is another person who believes in more or less complete separation, but confined himself mainly to the Indian community and expressed the hope to see a separate Indian state.

I state unequivocally again that no case was made out in favour of the introduction of a bill to prevent political interference, as it is called. No case was made out. What is more, the commission itself in its majority report could not produce a Bill as they were not in a position to do so. On the other side, again in so far as the question of political interference was concerned, we had Rev. Steenkamp, the moderator of the Nederduits Gereformeerde Sendingkerk. He stated that the appointment of the 20 nominees was in itself interference in the politics of another party. That point was also made by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Tom Schwartz, chairman of the Federal Party and a person who may be looked upon as a supporter of Government policy, to some extent did not like a law which would stop parties assisting other parties. He also stated that if the Coloured people were represented by Coloureds in Parliament no Bill would be necessary; in other words, that there will be no necessity for a Bill of this description. According to page 156 of the commission’s report, Mr. Rayners, of the same party, was not certain as to how this could be stopped. Mr. Schwartz actually went so far as to say that he did not want any Bill, “want hy wil nie hê struikelblokke moet in ons weg gelê word nie”. Rev. Botha, who is a missionary of some standing among the Coloured community, stated that he could not see how the Bill could ever be implemented and how political interference could ever be stopped. He further stated that if a Bill of that sort was necessary and had to be implemented you would have to have a police state in this country.

Who said that?

Rev. Botha. On page 160 of the commission’s report he said this—

There were, of course, other bodies, such as the Christian Institute, the Institute for Race Relations and several churches, referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister as being against these things simply because they were against apartheid. Now, I think they are people who can view this matter objectively and I do not believe for one moment that they expressed views against the Bill simply because they were not in favour of the Government’s apartheid policy.

Debate adjourned.