Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which for the third time extends the life of the existing Coloured representatives in this House for a further term. It is, if one may say so, the last of a series of confidence tricks which relate to …

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said it is the last of a series of confidence tricks …

What does that imply?

I will develop that theme, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. In terms of this provision the term of office of the existing representatives is now to extend until the dissolution of this Parliament, which, unless the hon. the Prime Minister is frightened by the Swellendam by-election result, will probably be in 1971, and that means that the representatives of the Coloured people in this House will have had exactly double the life that they were elected to have. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill was introduced during the time of the Premiership of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and then the tragic death of the late Prime Minister came about. Then in the new order of things the present Prime Minister made an agreement in relation to this rather inglorious Bill to have the Bill sent away to a Select Committee so that some solution could be found which would be better than that ghastly Bill that we had. In all good faith my hon. Leader was agreeable to that, and he agreed that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. He felt—let us find something rather than have this legislation on the Statute Book.

Order! The hon. member is making a second-reading speech now. The principles of the Bill were dealt with during the second-reading debate.

With great respect, Sir, if you look in the rubric you will see I am dealing with “the substitution of section 1 of Act 34 of 1966”. I am dealing now with that, and that is part of what is before us now.

Order! It was dealt with in the second-reading debate as well.

No, Sir. With respect, this Committee is entitled to throw out the whole of this clause. If that is so, with great respect, I am surely entitled to deal with the reasons why we object to it and with the history of it.

I will allow one speaker to deal with the basic reasons why the Opposition object to it, but I am not going to allow a general discussion on the principle now.

I am not dealing with the principle, Sir. I have said already that this is the third time, as will be seen from the rubric, that the life of the Coloured representatives is being extended. What I want to indicate is that the first time it was extended as a result of an agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and my leader.

No, that was the second time.

This is the third time. The first time was in 1966. The Prohibition on Improper Interference Bill was introduced in 1966 before Dr. Verwoerd died. Then after the present hon. the Prime Minister took over from Dr. Verwoerd, the Bill which was introduced under the premiership of Dr. Verwoerd was then sent away as a result of an agreement between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister. Then we had a further extension of it. As a result of that first agreement a Select Committee was appointed and the Bill was sent to the Select Committee. Then the Select Committee did not finish its work by the end of the session and a commission was set up. That commission sat during that year but could not report by the end of the year as a result of which it was continued in 1966. We agreed to an extension of the life of the Coloured representatives so that the Commission could finish its deliberations and submit a report. But what obviously happened was that that commission had already made up its mind as to what it was going to do. The commission had quite obviously decided to abolish the Coloured representatives in this House despite the evidence given before it. No matter what happened the Coloured representatives were going to be abolished. The hon. the Minister can growl in his bench, but that does not make any difference to the facts. The fact of the matter is that if the commission were to have had regard to the evidence, it would not have recommended the abolition of the Coloured representatives. Another fact is that they had made up their minds as to what they were going to recommend without any regard to the evidence. Mr. Chairman, that is why I used the words you told me to withdraw, namely “a confidence trick”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Yes, Mr. Chairman,

I have withdrawn them but I am explaining why I used them.

Order! The hon. member must not use them again.

I shall leave the matter there, but that is why this was done. Now we have a further extension until 1971 at the latest. But this is not good enough. Why are the lives of the Coloured representatives to be extended until 1971? How can they remain here as representatives of the Coloured people if they never have an election? Surely it is basic to our democratic system that where you have representative government you have periodic elections. If you never have elections or if you only have them every ten years, you are so much out of touch with your voters that you cannot represent them properly. Surely this is so. That is why we have elections every five years.

Your own Leader agreed to the extension.

Yes, he did agree to an extension. The hon. and learned member for Prinshof must just have entered the House. We agreed to it in the first place so that this Bill could be shelved.

Do not try to wriggle out of it now.

No, I am not trying to wriggle out of it. I hope that the hon. member will rise and tell us what it was that was agreed to. It was agreed that that Bill be referred to a Select Committee rather than have it placed on the Statute Book. On the second occasion we agreed to it again. My hon. Leader made it very clear as to why we agreed to it. Let me refresh the hon. member’s memory. On the second occasion on the 9th May, 1967 (column 5598), the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this:

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to say something which is very significant:

In other words, it is a pity that we have to have it but it is apparently necessary. The fact that the commission had not finished its work was a good reason for this. In other words, we did agree to the prolongation—if one can get that into the head of the hon. member for Prinshof—because we agreed with the extension of the time of the Commission. We agreed with the extension because a select committee was sitting and after that a commission to investigate the question of improper interference into the rights of the Coloureds, etc. We could not anticipate that. That select committee was appointed by this House. We therefore agreed to this extension pending the decision of the commission but all the time that commission had already made up its mind to abolish the Coloured representatives. That is the fact of the matter. It is very clear from what my hon. Leader has said. And if we had known that at the time we would not have agreed to it.

How can you prove that?

[Time expired.]

Order! before I call upon the next speaker, I want to point out to hon. members that S.O. No. 59 reads as follows—

S.O. No. 58 reads as follows—

The speech I have now permitted the hon. member for Durban (North) to make, dealt with the principles of the Bill; I shall not permit any further such speeches.

Mr. Chairman, this makes matters very difficult in Committee, of course, because there are only four clauses in this Bill, apart from the title, and each one of the clauses contains the principle. Surely, since one is allowed to vote against each clause in Committee, one should be allowed to argue each clause in Committee.

I have given my ruling.

Yes. Well, I am going to do my best to argue on the clauses in spite of your ruling.

I want to say first of all that, unlike the hon. member who has just sat down, I never had the slightest doubt that we would have to come back to this House again and again to extend the life of the sitting Coloured representatives, because the Government was not going to find a solution to its dilemma. To get the historical facts quite correct for the record, this is indeed the fourth time that we have had a prolongation of the life of the sitting Coloured representatives. The first time we did it, was not in 1966, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said, but indeed in 1965. That was when we had the first prolongation. That was immediately after the Provincial Council elections on 10th March. Shortly after that, the Government introduced a Bill in this House to excise the Coloured elections from the ordinary general elections for white representatives, which all of us knew were due to take place in 1966. We were given a lot of reasons then, not one of which approximated to the real reason and was nowhere near the truth behind this whole sordid story. What the real reason of course was, is that the Government had to find a way to stop the Progressive Party from fighting and winning four Coloured seats in this House. So the lives of the sitting representatives had to be prolonged and the election postponed, while the Government was finding a way to do this. When the hon. the Minister came to this House the first time and suggested an extension to the life of the sitting Coloured representatives who have been here since time immemorial, since 1961, without ever having to go back to their electorates to find out whether their electorates still wanted them to represent them here, the reason that we were given was that there were administrative difficulties about having Coloured elections and white elections at the same time, or within a couple of weeks of each other. Then we were also told that it was advisable that we remove the Coloured voters from the national main stream, that the Coloured voters should not be asked …

Order! The hon. member is dealing with the general principles of the clause now and not with the details.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am dealing with the history of this clause. This clause does not come de novo to the House. This clause now comes for the fourth time.

All that has been stated during the second-reading debate and can be restated during the third-reading debate. I have read out what the rules say; the hon. member must abide by the rules.

Well, Sir, am I not entitled to try and persuade the House to change its mind about this clause? [Interjections.] I am not discussing the principles; I am discussing the history.

Order! The hon. member may deal with the details of the clause, but not with the principles embodied in it.

You mean, Sir, that I can suggest that the life of the representatives be prolonged until to-morrow, but not until the end of this Parliament?

The hon. member can move any amendment to prolong the life of these representatives, but that would not change the principle.

Well, if it were not for the second clause, which provides that no vacancies shall be filled, I would certainly move that the life be prolonged until to-morrow, instead of 1971. But there is no point in doing that, because the Government will not allow vacancies to be filled, although, of course, as I pointed out, if hon. members had resigned when the first Bill was passed, the vacancies would have had to be filled. Unfortunately, that bright idea did not occur to them at the time. Since this clause was introduced the first time, we have seen the introduction of two other similar clauses. The Official Opposition was naïve enough—or shall I say “optimistic enough”, although I in fact do not know what to say. But I know it was extremely stupid to agree …

You obviously do not know what to say.

It happens very seldom that I do not know what to say, but it happens very often that the Official Opposition does not know how to act—very often. It made its first mistake in 1966 when it agreed to a further extension under this perfectly ridiculous, as subsequently proved, allegation that it was necessary to clean up the roll, an allegation which the hon. the Prime Minister was quick to rebut when he took part in the debate on this Bill.

Let me say, Sir, that the clause as it is now being presented to us for the fourth time, is no more acceptable to me than the one presented four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, and last year. It still has only one basic reason behind it—to prevent the Coloured voters of South Africa—at least, those who have the vote, attenuated as it is— from exercising a normal democratic practice, i.e. to vote for representatives of their choice. Consequently, I shall vote against this clause.

One of the most important reasons for this clause appearing in the Bill is that it is proposed to extend the term of office of the Coloured representatives until such time as there has been set up a Coloured Representative Council …

Order! Where does the hon. member see that in this clause? The hon. member can deal with the details of the clause, but cannot discuss matters which are not covered by it.

May I, on a point of order, ask you for a ruling on this? Am I not then entitled to discuss, here in Committee, the reason why this clause is here, to state why I am opposed to the clause and to say that the reason being advanced for its presence in this Bill is wrong?

Order! I have given a ruling to the effect that I will allow the hon. member one speech in which to explain why his party is opposed to this clause. But now the hon. member is dealing again with the principle instead of with the details.

Am I not entitled, here in Committee of the whole House, to debate the reason for this clause being here and the reason why I think the clause should not be passed?

Order! The hon. member has done that already. I allowed him ten minutes for that purpose.

No, Sir. The point which I unfortunately …

Order! The hon. member must now abide by my ruling.

But I am doing that, Sir.

Well, it does not seem so.

May I then continue from where I left off when my time expired …

Order! I allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude during his first ten-minute speech.

May I, on a point of order, point out to you, Sir, that this clause contains a principle?

Order! But that principle was accepted at the second reading.

I accept that, Sir. You are helping me, if I may say so. But let me point out too that it is impossible to discuss this clause without discussing the principle contained therein, and if you are not going to allow us some latitude here we shall be unable to put our point of view on this clause.

Order! That point of view has been stated during the second-reading debate and by the hon. member for Durban (North) during his 10-minute speech in committee. Consequently I am not going to allow a further discussion of the principle.

On a point of order, Sir, was the principle of the Bill, as far as the second reading was concerned, not the abolition of the Coloured representatives?

It was the principle contained in this clause.

Will you be kind enough, Sir, to define the principle for us in order to help us to abide by your ruling, especially the principle contained in this clause?

Order! The hon. member should look at the long title of the Bill, where he will find the principle. I am putting the clause now.

One of the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister for introducing this clause …

Order! The hon. the Minister has not spoken in Committee yet.

I know, Sir. I refer to his second-reading speech …

Exactly. And what he said then was dealt with during the second-reading debate.

Well, one of the things the Minister said was that it was proposed to keep these Coloured representatives here until such time as the proposed Coloured Representative Council had been set up and until such time as some form of liaison between that council and this Parliament had been established. This means that until that has come to pass we shall have these Coloured representatives here.

Order! The hon. member is trying to circumvent my ruling. I cannot allow him to do so. The hon. member must now resume his seat as far as this clause is concerned.

On a point of order, Sir, earlier on you referred me to the long title of the Bill. Well, I looked at it and I am somewhat at a loss to see how we can discuss this Bill at all in Committee if your ruling has to be strictly observed. The long title contains more than one principle. The first principle is “to provide for the further extension of the period of office of the sitting members of the House of Assembly elected under the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951”. This is the principle which is contained in the clause we are now discussing.

Order! May I refer the hon. member once more to Standing Order No. 58, which states that “The principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee, but only its details”. The hon. member does not want to observe this rule. I am now putting the clause.

On a point of order, Sir, I submit that one of the details of this clause is that the period of office of the Coloured representatives shall terminate on the date on which Parliament is dissolved. I further submit that it is quite in order, in terms of your ruling, to discuss the question of the extension of their period of office until the date of the dissolution of Parliament.

Order! That has been discussed. I have allowed the hon. member for Durban (North) an opportunity to state the case of his party.

I submit that that is what they are discussing.

Order! Yes, but they are only repeating.

In so far as this clause is concerned, the principle, which has been accepted at the second reading is to provide for the further extension of the period of office of the sitting members of the House of Assembly elected under Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951. I now want to discuss the procedure as to how we can, in conformity with the principle accepted during the second reading, deal with the prolongation of the term of office of these representatives. The existing provisions, which are sought to be repealed in this clause, are contained in Act 34 of 1966, in section 1, which reads as follows—

This date was amended in 1967 to read 1964—

In other words, the procedure of prolongation, which we have had up to the present time, was one whereby a date of an election was presumed and there was an expiry date, which was 1969, that is to say, five years after 1964. The procedure which is suggested under this clause to prolong the term of office of the present members, a procedure to which I feel we can take exception, is now not the existing procedure, i.e. that a member shall be elected as from a certain date and hold office for five years, but that he shall not hold office beyond that certain date—in other words fixing a date of termination of office—this is, I feel, a departure from the procedure that has been adopted in this House in the past in terms of which members hold office for a certain period, and not a blunt termination of office. Although the principle has been accepted, we feel therefore that we must object to this clause. This Bill obviously prolongs the life in Parliament of the present Representatives of the Coloureds to 1971, instead of 1969 in terms of the existing law. We believe that the Act should stay as it is. We will then have an opportunity to see how the Coloured Representative Council works and if necessary another measure can be introduced to say that nobody shall be elected after 1969. It is for that reason I rise to support the statement by the hon. member for Durban (North) that we are opposed to this clause because, by prolonging the term of office of the present members in this manner, the Bill removes the right of Coloureds to further representation in this House.

On a point of order, Sir, there is on the Order Paper at page 267, under “Amendments to Bills”, under the title of this Bill, an amendment in my name to negative this clause. My point of order is that if I am entitled to move the deletion of this clause entirely, then I submit that we are entitled to debate the contents of the clause and the principle involved in the clause, the deletion of which we are entitled to move.

The hon. member should know by now that he cannot move as an amendment that a clause be negatived. He can only move amendments to a clause. That ruling has been given year after year since he has been in this House.

I wish to move as an amendment—

The object of my amendment is to make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the House are convinced that it is quite wrong that the term of office of the representatives of the Coloureds should be prolonged in this fashion and that it should be prolonged again and again until we have no guarantee whatsoever that they still represent the views of the people whom they represent in this House. It is of the essence of the parliamentary system that Members of Parliament should report back to the electorate periodically for a confirmation of their mandate. But this provision has the effect of allowing Parliament to act as the electoral body and not the voters. The present Coloured Representatives were elected for the life of the Parliament in which they originally took sitting. There are precedents in parliamentary history for a temporary prolongation of membership to serve certain purposes, but I think that a third prolongation; extending over the life of two parliaments, of the term of office of individual members, is completely unprecedented in the history of Parliament. It is true that in the time of the Stuarts there were cases where Parliament itself prolonged its life as a Parliament, but it is entirely unprecedented for individual members to have their term of office prolonged in this fashion. It is a complete negation of democracy, and it is an injustice to the particular section of the people whose right to renew their mandate to their representatives is being denied to them. We on this side of the House do not want to go on record as supporting such a negation of the principle of democracy. For that reason I take the liberty of moving this amendment, and I want to make it, perfectly clear that we feel that the Coloured people of South Africa should have representation in this House. Therefore if our amendment is successful—and I trust that it will be; I trust that some hon. members on the other side will have an instinct for democratic procedure and will support us in this amendment—then we shall move a suitable amendment under clause 3 to provide for immediate election by the Coloured people of new representatives until the end of the life of this Parliament. We appreciate that we cannot move an amendment for the retention permanently of the Coloured Representatives in this House because that would be contrary to the principle of the Bill. But it would be within the principle of the Bill to move under clause 3 that there must be a re-election of Coloured Representatives to this House until the end of the life of this Parliament, so that not only will vacancies be filled if members now depart but so that there will also be an election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Mr. Barnett, whose constituents are in any case going to be unrepresented until the end of the life of this Parliament.

Did you not agree to the prolongation?

Yes, they did twice.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I feel that it is quite wrong that representatives who have been elected to this House to represent a section of the people for a limited period should have their lives in this Parliament extended merely on the flimsy evidence submitted to this House by Government speakers in the course of the second-reading debate on this Bill. I support the amendment particularly for the reason that it is my intention to move, when we come to deal with clause 3, that elections should be held to fill casual vacancies. I feel that that is the only democratic way in which you can treat these people. I think the time has come for Parliament to take a stand in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated in any event that in 1971 when this Parliament is dissolved, there will be no further representation in Parliament of the Coloured people of this country. I can see no reason at all why we should wait until then to give effect to what the Government itself desires, namely, that there should be no further representation. I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville. I feel that to deal democratically with the situation which has now arisen, an unprecedented situation, it is only right that we should forthwith terminate the life of the existing members and give the Coloured people an opportunity at least until 1971 to elect whomever they like to represent them in this House. I would like therefore to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville because it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a second time. The principle is to extend the life of those Members of Parliament, and this amendment does just the opposite.

Of course I accept your ruling, Sir. Will it be in order then to move that their term of office will be extended until the end of the current Session of Parliament?

That is also destructive of the principle.

The long title talks about extending their life.

Their life has already been extended to 1969.

Surely the principle is to extend their life and the period is a detail which we can discuss.

There is an existing law extending it to 1969, so the hon. member cannot move that it be extended to an earlier date.

On a point of order, I want to address you on your ruling. Should one not have regard to what is the principle of the Bill, and not what is the principle of this clause? Surely the principle of the Bill is not to extend the lives of the Coloured Representatives, but in fact just the reverse. In those circumstances the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment is, with respect, in order, because it does not detract from the fact that they will go in 1971.

I have given my ruling and I am going to put the clause now.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this clause. In our opinion it is a final admission of defeat by this Government. It is an admission also that they have failed to attract for their policy any support whatsoever from the Coloured people whom this clause affects. In our opinion the effect of this clause will be that one of the principles accepted in this Bill, namely that the Coloured people are entitled to representation in this House at least until the dissolution of this Parliament, whenever that might be, 1971 if it runs its normal course will be adversely affected. In view of the fact that it is accepted they are entitled to representation here, we believe they are entitled to proper representation. Proper representation, in our opinion, consists of those people who were elected under the existing legislation to represent them in this House. But now, because the Government is afraid, because it has no confidence whatsoever in its own policies, it is now going to ensure that any future vacancies in addition to the existing one are not going to be filled. Now, is this a fair deal for the Coloured people? Of course it is not. It is not a fair deal because the alternative form of representation which is going to replace their representation in this House is not functioning. So what in fact is going to happen is that the Coloured representation, already depleted, stands a chance, for one reason or another, of being further depleted by the time the life of this Parliament ends. I think this will be a very bad thing indeed, apart from the fact that it must shake the confidence of the Coloured people in our handling of their affairs, because they are still subject to the laws of this Parliament. They are subject to the legislation which we are in fact discussing at the present moment when it is placed on the Statute Book. Surely, if they are going to be subject to legislation of this kind, they are entitled to the full, effective representation which they are entitled to have, in discussing this very measure which is going to affect their whole future. I want to say quite frankly that I am shocked by the method that has been resorted to here to remove the representation of those people from this House.

Are you discussing the principle now?

I am asked whether I am discussing the principle. I do not know what right the hon. the Deputy Minister has to query whether I am discussing the principle or not. [Interjections.] I do not know if he is anticipating the Chairman’s ruling. I should like to tell the Deputy Minister that by his remark, he is casting a reflection upon the Chair. Apart from that, Sir, you yourself said that we were going to be allowed to put our point of view, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.

Order! I shall allow one Opposition speaker to speak on this aspect, but not more than one.

As I say, we are totally opposed to this clause for the reasons which I have stated. It is reducing the strength of the Coloured representation in this Parliament, for the remainder of its life, representation to which the Coloured people are entitled. They are entitled to that by virtue of existing legislation. So we are completely and utterly opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will permit me to put my point of view as a member of the Opposition but not the Official Opposition, because my view is somewhat different. I am obviously against this clause. I have been against any prolongation and non-filling of vacancies since the Government first started on this zig-zag course of trying to find a way to “save” the Coloured people from the Progressive Party.

The hon. member for Yeoville said he did not want to be on record as voting for prolongation and non-filling of vacancies, and so on. May I point out to him that he is already on record as having done so, and the count is now I think two against and two for. They voted once against the prolongation, right from the beginning, and at that time, I might say, vacancies could be filled. That was at the time of the very first Bill to prolong the life of the Coloured representatives. They voted with the Government on the second prolongation, and there, I might say, vacancies could not be filled. In the event of death or resignation the vacancies could not be filled.

For a limited period whilst their position was being investigated.

Well, never mind, however limited, it is the same principle; it is extending the life of the Coloured representatives without their allowing their electorate to decide in the normal democratic way whether they wished them to continue to represent them over the normal …

I think this matter is much too serious for petty debating.

Oh, no. When it suits the hon. member for Yeoville, principle does not exist. Then he simply delays the matter for a short while so that his party and the Government can get together in order to carry out a political manoeuvre, because that is exactly what it was. The second time is on record as well, and that is the third prolongation. The hon. member for Yeoville and his party are on record for voting once again for the extension of the life of the existing representatives, bringing it to a cool seven years by then, and also they are on record for voting twice for the principle of not filling vacancies. In other words …

Order! The hon. member should not make the same speech on every clause.

No, it is not the same speech; it is a different speech, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about vacancies now.

Exactly.

Unfortunately it is the same ugly history, and therefore very often I find that I am using the same phrases. Anyway, I just want to point out that let us stick to the principle of the thing and let us vote against the principle, and let us not have any pious talk of not toeing on record for this or that. Because people are already on record as having voted for the extension of the life of the representatives and for the non-filling of vacancies. I take exactly the same attitude as I took from 1965 When the first of these four measures came to this House. I voted against the extension of the Coloured representatives’ life and I voted against this highly undemocratic practice of not filling vacancies in the event of death or retirement. And I do so now.

Mr. Speaker, the standpoint which the hon. member for Houghton is adopting here to-day is the same standpoint which she has adopted ever since 1965, and therefore I cannot find fault with her for adopting that standpoint. It is a consistent standpoint which is diametrically opposed to ours, and we respect it. But the hon. the Opposition, on the other hand, has once again performed an egg dance here, as in the past. I want to begin by asking the Opposition whether there is any difference between the present position, in terms of which we are prohibiting the filling of vacancies, and the position when they voted for the prohibition of the filling of vacancies in 1966? The circumstances are precisely the same. At this stage there is as yet no measure to prevent political interference. The voters’ rolls are as they were in 1966. In other words, I cannot understand why they now want to vote against this clause if they voted in favour of it and accepted it along with us in 1966. Only they with their policy can explain it, no one else. It is a question of pure opportunism. In those days it suited them to vote with this side, but now it suits them to vote against the measure. The Opposition’s standpoint is quite inconsistent in this instance, and they can by no means want to pretend that the present circumstances differ from those of 1966, when they voted with this side. Therefore I say that they are not politically honest if they vote against this legislation now, or else they were not politically honest in 1966. On one of the two occasions they were politically dishonest.

The second point is this. We are being asked to fill the existing vacancies. This legislation provides for their not being filled. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what the result would be if a vacancy had to be filled now? Let us be practical. In the first place the voters’ Toll is still in the same state. Secondly, it would be possible for interference to take place as it can take place at present. Thirdly, the member who is elected, whoever he may be, would know in advance that he would remain here until 1971 at the very longest. What would that man’s attitude in this House be? Would he come here to work for the Coloureds or would he take advantage of this platform to further his own personal interests and to kick up a personal row? That is why I think it is highly necessary that this clause should toe accepted exactly as it stands. We have sufficient reason for accepting it as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the hon. member who has just sat down. There is a vast difference between the present situation and what took place in 1966. In 1966 this House was confronted with a commission which had been appointed …

It was prior to that.

I want to deal with the commission first. The House was confronted with a commission which had been appointed by the Government to deal with various aspects including the problem of the future political rights of the Coloured people. At that stage I think it was quite reasonable for the Government to have asked the Opposition to agree to extend the lives of the present Coloured representatives at least until such time as the commission had reported.

Was it a principle or an expediency?

It was a necessity. I do not want to become involved in an argument with the hon. member for Houghton, but we know that at that stage there had been a great deal of interference in the roll itself.

It was 129 out of 20,000.

One hundred and twenty-nine had come to light tout we do not know of the many thousands which had not come to light.

Do you know more than the courts of law?

Mr. Chairman, I have sufficient difficulty arguing with the Government without having to argue with the hon. member for Houghton as well. She is going to miss me in 1971. The situation is now totally different. We are now confronted with a situation where the Government through the Prime Minister himself has indicated that it wishes the Coloured people to voice their opinions through the new Representative Council which the Government wants to establish within the next 12 to 18 months. But the Prime Minister himself went on to say that it would be quite unfair to eliminate Coloured representation in this House before that Coloured Council is functioning. For that reason the hon. the Prime Minister said that he wants the present Coloured representation to remain in this House until the dissolution of this Parliament in 1971. If Coloured representation is going to remain until 1971—and that is the wish of the Prime Minister and the Government—then surely it is not unreasonable for us to say that any casual vacancies in that representation should be filled until 1971. If you are going to give the Coloured people representation, give them proper representation. Here we have a situation where, owing to the untimely death of the late Mr. Barnett, you have a complete constituency unrepresented in this House. What is the value of what the hon. the Prime Minister has urged, namely to give the Coloured people representation in this House until the dissolution of this Parliament in 1971, if he is not prepared to fill vacancies? I suggest that the situation is totally different to that in 1966 and 1967. We are faced with a fait accompli as far as the Government is concerned. They are prepared to allow Coloured representation to remain in this House until 1971. If that is so, I say that they must give the Coloureds full representation. If a casual vacancy does arise during that period until 1971, the Coloured people should have the democratic right to elect whoever they choose.

Order! The hon. member is now dealing with the general principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to reply briefly to the assertions and the questions which the hon. member for Randfontein was allowed to put to us. I want to say at once that it strikes one that a sudden touching unanimity, a real alliance has developed here between the Nationalist Party and the hon. member for Houghton because they have a common motive, namely to misrepresent the Official Opposition.

The difference is that I do not vote with them; you do.

They have a common motive, namely to misrepresent the Official Opposition. The facts are very simple. In 1966 it was quite clear that we were faced with a voters’ roll which was in no way representative and which had in many respects been illegally compiled. Therefore the Opposition agreed that the elections should be postponed for the purpose of clearing up those voters’ rolls. We were strengthened in that view when we saw the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions of persons who had tampered with the voters’ roll. These prosecutions ran into double figures, although the people who had actually committed the corruption, the Whites who had organized it, were never brought before the courts. Secondly, at the end of the 1966 session we agreed to a further extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives because we received the assurance from the Prime Minister, after an agreement with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that a strong commission would be appointed to investigate this matter, partly to see if these malpractices and this corruption could be eliminated, and partly to see if we could place the representation of the Coloureds in Parliament on a better footing. For that purpose alone did we agree to do it. Now the commission has published its report. Two years have elapsed and the Government is still neglecting its duty. The voters’ rolls are still in a corrupt state and it is ridiculous to think that an election could be held. I further want to say that instead of coming forward with a better idea in regard to the way in which the necessary rights of the Coloured population can be exercised, the commission has come forward with a recommendation for the total abolition of all Coloured representation in this House. Mr. Chairman, I think that you will agree with me when I say that one thing is clear, and that is that the Official Opposition’s standpoint is unequivocally that the race groups in our country are entitled to a measure of representation in this sovereign Parliament. If the Government introduces a measure which is in conflict with this basic principle, then the must expect resistance from the Opposition and then they get it. This is the reply to the silly question by the hon. member for Randfontein. I hope he understands this matter now.

Mr. Chairman, since the position is that as the Coloured representative of the Outeniqua constituency I have not on previous occasions in this House officially gone on record as having opposed the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives, I consider it my duty to state my reason for doing so on the occasion of the discussion of this clause. It unfortunately concerns legislation which I am not allowed to discuss here, namely the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Bill, in connection with which I have instructions from the voters in my constituency. I may not discuss it here, but I cannot evade my instructions. These instructions were reconfirmed on a substantial scale in my own home last Sunday morning when a deputation from the Eastern Province came to me at their own expense to discuss certain details.

The second point is that at the time the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives in this House was discussed, the situation which we have to-day did not exist. Reasons were advanced at the time as to why this extension was necessary.

Which clause is the hon. member discussing now?

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing clause 3.

No, the hon. member is discussing clause 2, which has been disposed of.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you please, even though I may seem to be digressing, to give me the opportunity to come to my point, namely the reason why I have to vote against clause 3, that is to say, the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives until 1971.

That has nothing to do with clause 3, which deals with the filling of vacancies.

Yes, that is precisely the point. When the term of: office of the Coloured representatives in this House was extended, there was no vacancy. Now there is a vacancy. The seat of the former member for Boland, who has passed away and who tried to do his duty as he saw it in the time that he was here, is vacant. We were given no indication as to how a vacancy would be filled if such circumstances were to arise. Now the circumstances have arisen.

Order! The existing Act provides that vacancies shall not be filled.

This clause provides that vacancies shall not be filled for the period up to 1971. That is the difference. Seeing that I did not oppose the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives when there was no vacancy, but am doing so now that there is a vacancy, I want to give my reasons for doing so. One of the reasons is that the entire Boland constituency will descend upon me, if they can get hold of me, when they want their needs stated in this House or attended to by a member of the House of Assembly, which they will now not be able to do after 1971. If they cannot get hold of me, they will come to the hon. member for Peninsula, as his constituency is also in the Boland area. The other reason why I am opposing this clause is that at the time of the extension of the term of office of Coloured representatives, there was no question of the Coloureds being deprived of their representation in the Central Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 per cent with what the hon. member for Outeniqua has said. It is absolutely impossible, reprehensible in fact, that we should sit in this House and consider the possibility of extending the term of office of members and at the same time of leaving a vacancy which has occurred in this House unfilled, thereby leaving the voters in that constituency unrepresented for up to four years.

Does the hon. member know that that is existing law?

I am merely agreeing with the last member who spoke, Sir.

I ask the hon. member whether he knows that this is existing law?

It is not existing Law, Sir—not until 1971.

That is existing law up to 1969.

This Bill has the effect of extending the term of office of the three sitting members and, at the same time, of prolonging the existence of the vacancy until 1971.

You can discuss that next year.

I must disagree with the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Why should we only discuss it next year? However, I have made my point, which is that it is reprehensible that we should even consider such a thing. The hon. member for Randfontein made certain allegations against the Official Opposition, inter alia that we had changed our attitude since 1966. He asserted that the same conditions as applied in 1966 still apply to-day. But this is the fallacy in his argument, as was pointed out to him by the hon. member for Yeoville and by the hon. member for Peninsula. But he said something else. What he said was, in effect, that in 1966 when the hon. the Prime Minister was negotiating with the Leader of the Opposition on the question of … [Interjections.] How can you say that? You have not even heard what I am going to say. Hon. members on the other side know what is coming and they are afraid before I have even said it.

What I am saying is that what that hon. member said, in effect, was that in 1966 when the hon. the Prime Minister was negotiating with the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the question of the extension of the lives of hon. members representing the Coloureds in this House for a period of 12 months, he had already made up his mind that he was going to introduce into this House the legislation that we have before us now. For all his assertions that this was on account of a voters’ roll which was not supposed to be in order, for all the evidence that he brought, the hon. member for Randfontein now alleges that the Prime Minister knew, at that time, that he intended introducing this legislation. This smacks a little bit more of the type of association referred to by the hon. the Minister for Defence between himself and the late Dr. Verwoerd. I reject this Bill categorically.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to say that I shall allow no further discussion on the principle.

I just want to reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think it is necessary that it should be stated that in the agreement entered into between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister in 1966 provision was already made, on that occasion, for no vacancy to be filled. It is necessary to know that this was already said there, because the impression is now arising that this principle was not accepted then, and is only now being introduced as a new principle. It is necessary for the record to say that this principle was accepted at that time already, and that precisely the same situation still exists. I repeat that a commission of inquiry was appointed, which found that there was in fact interference, and that all the witnesses asked that the interference be stopped.

Order! The hon. member is repeating second-reading ideas now.

I am not dealing with second-reading ideas, Sir, but am arguing why vacancies cannot and must not be filled. Precisely the same conditions exist at present as existed at that time, and as a result of the fact that a commission of inquiry was appointed, our suspicions of 1966 have been confirmed to the letter. This decision is therefore more necessary now than it was in 1966. At that time the Opposition agreed with us; now they do not agree with us. They have made the somersault, not we.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Randfontein, occupying a senior position, made the statement that he did make. I want to read to the Committee, if I may, what the hon. Minister of the Interior said in 1966 regarding vacancies. I think this is important. It is the direct opposite of what this hon. member has now said. This is what the hon. the Minister said:

Where is the undertaking of the hon. the Minister that vacancies will never be filled? I think the Committee should take note of that.

Clause put.

Mr. Chairman, as a matter of comment on this clause, is not the hon. the Minister …

Order! I put the clause.

Clause 3 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Before I put Clause 4, I wish to point out that this clause, read with the Schedule, embodies the main principle of the Bill, as read a second time. I would also draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 58, which provides that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee, but only its details. In accordance with practice, however, I shall allow not more than two members briefly to state their objection to this Clause. I cannot allow a general discussion of the principles of the Bill in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for the ruling that I may state the grounds of our objection to this clause. Sir, the laws specified in the Schedule, the 12 enactments dating from 1951 to 1967, record on one sheet before us the relentless erosion of the political rights of the Coloured people in this country. I will concede that the history which is recorded here is consistent with the Government’s policy founded on its concept of separate representation; it is consistent up until the introduction of this Bill which we have before us and this clause in particular. The adoption of this clause will, I submit, be the end of the Government’s consistent legislation, legislation consistent with its policy. By the repeal of these laws we will now reach the position where separation will be complete, in the political sense, as between the white and Coloured people of South Africa. Meaningful representation will be non-existent so far as the Coloured people are concerned. Sir, I say that meaningful representation will be nonexistent, because we believe that for political representation to be meaningful, albeit linked with the aspect of separate development, which is the policy of this Government, must be representation in the sovereign Parliament of the country, the Parliament which governs the lives of the people concerned, which dictates what taxes they should pay and which determines the methods of using the moneys which are collected. With the passing of this particular clause, that particular right, that meaningful representation, will now for all time be taken from the Coloured people. For those reasons we oppose this clause. We oppose it because of the effect it will have on the right to participation by the Coloured people in the political life of this country.

I just want to say one or two things in addition to the points made by the hon. member for Green Point and with which I heartily concur. I think there are two points which were not made during the second-reading debate concerning the principle of removing the Coloured Representatives from this House. The first point that I want to make is that it was not only the intention of the Government to retain the Coloured Representatives in Parliament and in the Provincial Council, but when the original Separate Representation of Voters Act, which is now being repealed in the Schedule, was passed, the principle was actually adopted that their representation should be extended in this House; that it was not pegged to four representatives. That is a point which nobody has mentioned in this debate. We are not only removing the four representatives by repealing the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but we are also removing another right which was given to the Coloured people in the 1951 Act and that is the principle of further extension of Coloured representation in this House. Sir, the then Minister of the Interior, in introducing that Bill, said—

That is to say, the principle that Coloured representation can grow—

The original Act which removed the Coloured voters from the common roll and which instead gave them separate representation in this House, did not peg the number of representatives in this House to four. The principle that that representation could be increased as the number of Coloured voters on the roll increased, was adopted at the time, so Parliament is taking a very far-reaching step indeed to-day. They are not only affecting the rights of all the present Coloured voters in the Cape, but they are also affecting the rights of future voters in the Cape who would have been entitled in the course of time to an extra seat or more in this House. Sir, there is another point which has hardly been raised at all, because the Official Opposition is in agreement with the Government in this regard. I may find myself agreeing about logical arguments with the Government now and then, on my logic and on the logic of their policy, but I seldom find myself voting with the Government on essential issues, as the Official Opposition has done. The latter has already announced its intention of supporting the principle of removing the two Provincial Councillors by virtue of this legislation. The reason given for that step by, I think, the Leader of the Opposition, was that that was in keeping with the Official Opposition’s policy of race federation and of giving authority to the Coloured Council. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did state that he was in agreement with the disappearance of the two Provincial Councillors. [Interjections.] Whether it is under your policy or not, you stated that you agreed with this.

That does not mean that we accepted it outside of our policy.

Anyway, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that he was in agreement with the Government because it conformed with the United Party’s own policy that the two M.P.C.s representing the Coloureds would go because of their race federation policy. [Interjections.] I say then that at this stage the United Party made the statement that it is in agreement with the disappearance of the two M.P.C.s representing the Coloureds, and that statement was made by their Leader during the second-reading debate on this Bill. I am sure hon. members will remember it; I certainly remember it.

They are already running away from what they said.

In any case, I will look it up again. My point is that equally reprehensible is the removal of these two Provincial Councillors. They do a tremendous job in the Provincial Council. I said at the time that if Messrs. Friedlander and Break of the United Party had been sitting in the Provincial Council instead of Dr. Wollheim and Mr. Van Heerden of the Progressive Party, maybe the United Party would not have been in agreement with the removal of the two M.P.C.s. Sir, these people do a tremendous job. I can produce the record of these two particular M.P.C.s, Mr. Van Heerden and Dr. Wollheim. They have a magnificent record since they were elected in 1965. I have paeans of praise from no less a person than the Administrator of the Cape in the Provincial Council; I have words of praise from two Nationalist Exco members about the actual work that these two members have done on behalf of the people they represent, but over and above that one must think of the functions performed by the Provincial Council, functions which do not fall within the ambit of the new Coloured Council and certainly do not fall within the ambit of this House.

It is not only the five portfolios that are going to be handed over to the new Coloured Council that are discussed by the Provincial Council in relation to the Coloured people. All sorts of things are discussed beyond that. The hon. member for Green Point correctly pointed out, and obviously one will enlarge on this when discussing a different measure, that this House deals with matters very pertinent to the Coloured people which the Council will not be touching, matters like job reservation and group areas. But may I point out that the Provincial Council also deals with subjects which the new Coloured Council will not be given a mandate to deal with. I will go into greater detail in that regard when we deal with the other Bill, but one cannot simply accept the disappearance of the two Provincial Councillors representing the Coloured people with an easy wave of the hand, saying: Oh, well, we accept that because it is in conformity with the policy of race federation. Sir, this is a tragedy for the Coloured people. They are losing not only their four representatives in this House, who should be, as I said, the representatives of their choice and not of the Government’s choice, but they are also going to lose the services of two extremely able and conscientious M.P.C.s who have done a magnificent job in the Provincial Council and whose record is there for anybody to read. I oppose not only the removal of the four representatives from this House, but with exactly the same vehemence do I oppose the loss to the Coloured people in the Cape of their two representatives in the Provincial Council.

I shall be very brief. I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to this clause. I regard this clause as the most retrogressive one and I propose to vote against it. I regard it as a debasement of our national honour in this country and as a breach of the pledged word given repeatedly by the white leaders of our nation to our Coloured citizens. It is sad indeed that Parliament should see fit to introduce such a clause, and I propose to vote against it.

I must disagree with the hon. member for Peninsula in regard to a small matter, namely that he associates himself with the hon. member for Green Point when the latter says that clause 4 and this Schedule are an erosion of the political rights of the Coloured people. What I understand by “erosion” is erosion by the elements, by wind or by water. But this is corrosion. These were additives added all along and we did not realize it. If one looks at this Schedule, and thinks back to what happened over the years, from Act 46 of 1946 to Act 66 of 1967, then this Commission on Improper Interference— not on the abolition of Coloured representation in this House—and then this subsequent legislation, this process cannot be construed as other than contemplated corrosion, with the necessary additives from time to time. I leave it at that. I am in honour bound in regard to my constituents, who want to retain their representation in this House, but I want to express my regret about one thing. Let us be honest about it. As originally the Natives’ representation in this House was brought to the point where those people started electing communists, so Coloured representation was highlighted when they started electing representatives from certain political parties. What I cannot associate myself with is the ambiguity of the United Party now saying that the Coloured Representatives here must remain, but in the Provincial Council they must be abolished. I should like to know what they base that on. I certainly cannot accept that. We cannot be as ambiguous as all that. We must either eat all our cake, or leave the whole lot. I do feel that I am in honour bound to my constituents to carry out my mandate from them, which I tested out time and again, namely that they do not want to lose their representation in this House or in the Provincial Council, but it is up to the Government to find ways and means of preventing improper interference, which I am in agreement with. But if we consider improper interference and if we find improper interference, why must the Coloured people suffer as the result of what certain white people are alleged to be doing?

It is a great pity that the hon. member for Houghton has sought so often during this debate to have a left and a right at the United Party. [Interjections.] I know the hon. member perhaps cannot control herself in these matters, but it is a great pity. Let me put the hon. member for Houghton right, and the hon. member for Outeniqua, too. The hon. member for Houghton should have listened when the hon. member for Green Point spoke. He said that we would oppose this clause, not that we would move an amendment to it so as to agree with the repeal of just that part of the Schedule which deals with the Provincial Council in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton must realize what lack of control she appears to have, talking all the time. Does the hon. member not want to listen to me?

Not particularly.

I hope the hon. member for Houghton will be as courteous while I am talking as we had to be while listening to her. What I want to say to the hon. member is, that obviously we adopted at our last Congress a policy …

Order! The hon. member is once again discussing principles. I gave a ruling before putting the clause that I would allow two speeches on the principles involved, and I am not going to allow any more. The hon. member must get back to the details of this clause.

On a point of order, Sir, may I not answer the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton, where she attacks us in regard to our attitude to this clause? Surely I am entitled to answer the hon. member?

I think the hon. member has done so. I will allow him to say a few more words about that.

The position is that we adopted the policy in terms of which we decided that it would not be necessary to have representation for the Coloureds in the Provincial Council when our policy was implemented, and when the communal Coloured Council that we envisaged was set up. What is more, we envisaged more members in this House. But that obviously will only happen when we have set up the Communal council, and that is clear enough. You will notice, Sir, that we are voting against the whole of the Schedule. There is in the Schedule a portion— if the hon. member for Houghton has looked at it—dealing with the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, para. (5) deals with the deletion in subsection (1) of section 68 of the words “subject to the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951”. In other words, that is the reference to the provincial councillors. We at this stage are voting against the whole of the Schedule. If the hon. member was right, we would have moved an amendment so as to provide that we were opposed to the laws in the Schedule being repealed, save to that particular one.

One other point was not made and I would like to do so briefly. It is that this is not just a tragedy for the Coloured people; it is a tragedy for this Parliament. The hon. members are depriving themselves deliberately of having the benefit of hearing what representatives of the Coloured people think. When they form their judgment on Bills we debate concerning the Coloured people—and every single Bill before us will concern them—they are depriving themselves of that opportunity.

Order! That point was made very adequately during the second reading debate.

Clause 4 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and J. H. van Wyk

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and J. H. van Wyk.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sketched the historical development of interference and showed how proper interference deteriorated into improper interference—to such an extent that even the representatives of the Coloureds supported the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I said that with the removal of the European representatives from this House the whole basis of interference would fall away.

Now. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a few examples of what the position could be should we allow this interference to continue. We must remember that we will now be dealing with a position where the elections will be confined to the racial group concerned. If we should allow, for example in the case of an election for the Coloured Representative Council, this interference to continue, we shall find that a candidate in that election might be supported by, for example, the Progressive Party with its capital resources and with its whole organization, whereas the other candidate—and we know that these people are not the most privileged section—will not have the support of one of the European parties, and will thus be placed at a distinct disadvantage. I think it will be most unfair to allow such a position to develop. Further, we will revert to the position as it was when the Coloured representatives here agreed to a commission of inquiry on account of the malpractices by certain European parties in elections.

But I come to my main reason for supporting this measure. If this Bill is not passed, the United Party and the Progressive Party will appoint agents to act for candidates whose policy is antagonistic towards the Government. Even if they do not appoint agents, they could still give their wholehearted support to those candidates who support the party which in turn is antagonistic towards the Government. If this position arises, the National Party in turn would be obliged to support those candidates who support parties which favour the Government. In other words, having joined issue in this respect, there will be a full-scale election fought by the European parties instead of by the Coloureds themselves. We can imagine what this could lead to. It is of the utmost importance and vital to the future of the white man in South Africa that we retain the goodwill and the necessary co-operation of all races in this country. Can one imagine a more fertile field for sowing discord than an election of the kind that I have just mentioned? The matter becomes even more serious if we face up fully to the consequences. Let us be honest in this respect. The National Party is associated with the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. The other parties, the Progressive Party and the United Party, are associated with the English-speaking section. [Interjections.] That is the position, whether we wish to admit it or not. If these parties enter the field in these Coloured elections, one section of the Coloureds would be embittered towards the Afrikaans-speaking European section. The other section would become embittered towards the English-speaking European section. In other words, a feeling of bitterness will be engendered towards the whole European population. [Interjections.]

Let us further bear in mind that we intend giving this vote, not to 20,000 or 30,000, but to about 800,000 voters, mostly as yet not properly developed, thousands still illiterate. Such animosity once aroused, lingers on, leaving a fertile field for hostile propaganda. When one considers the present situation in the U.S.A., one shudders at the thought of what might happen here. We have a grave responsibility in the field of human relations. If we should ever lose our country, it will be due to our failure in this respect. I have dealt now with the position of the Coloured Representative Council. What I have said, applies even more, on account of the numbers, to the Bantu. We must ask the question: For what reason must we interfere in their politics? To what good is it? We all concede that they have reached a stage of civilization where they are entitled and capable of exercising certain political rights. The Government will give the necessary protection, so that law and order is maintained and elections fairly and properly conducted. Leave them to it. Why cause bitterness between the races, and not only between the races, but amongst the Europeans as well, because if the European parties interfere, the one will accuse the other of using the other races to bolster their own position.

It is only because they do not vote for you.

Mr. Speaker, in the creation of this Coloured Council, the Indian Council, the separate Bantu homelands, it is the earnest desire of the Government to create a situation in our country where every nation can develop to its fullest capacity on its own without interference—I stress “without interference”—by other nations, and so to create separate communities which will co-operate in peace and prosperity and all of which can be relied on in times of stress, strain and peril, to stand by our country.

Have the Coloureds not always done that in the past?

This objective which I have just mentioned can only be achieved by peaceful coexistence and this in turn can only be attained if the principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter is strictly adhered to, namely non-interference in the internal affairs of others. This principle is applicable not only in the strict international sphere but, as I have analysed the position, also in a political scheme for promoting the orderly advancement of different races occupying one territory.

Mr. Speaker, the first question I ask myself is why the hon. member for Omaruru took part in this debate. He is a member for South West Africa. Is it the intention of the Government that these provisions should be extended to South West Africa as well? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the position is.

He has just as much right to take part in this debate as you have.

That was not my question. My question was whether the provisions of this Bill are to be extended to South West Africa as well. If that is to be the case, then I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to let us know and to explain why the hon. member for Omaruru took part in this debate. The hon. member for Omaruru used an argument which has been used before by other members on that side of the House, namely that all representatives of the Coloured people, whether they gave evidence before the commission or whether they were members of the Coloured Council, were against improper political interference. Everybody is against improper interference. I am also against improper interference. But what does this Bill have to say in this regard? What kind of so-called improper interference is mentioned in this Bill? It is called improper interference if a white person explains his political policy to a group of Coloured people. It is called improper political interference when a member of one racial group assists at the elections of another group. What the hon. member for Omaruru should do is to go to the Coloured people and ask them questions such as the following: Firstly, do you want to have the right to have a European address you on important political matters affecting you? Their reply will be yes. If he asked the Coloured people whether they want the right to have either a Coloured man or a white man to sit in councils, whether is this council or a city council or a provincial council, to represent them; would they say yes or no? The answer would again be yes. That is what we are asked to regard as improper interference.

I regard this Bill as a cynical piece of political opportunism. I believe it to be the frustrated cry of a desperately cornered political group. This Bill is an admission to the world, to the country and to everyone that their policy has failed. Let us not forget that for 20 years they have been wooing the Coloured vote, the Bantu vote and the Indian vote. They had a lot on their side, such as money, jobs, houses, cars and status. But with all these factors on their side they still failed to win the support of the majority of the non-Europeans in this country. Surely we as members of Parliament, we who believe in different policies, have the right to try to persuade, for the sake of racial peace in South Africa, the different race groups to accept our policies. If we propound the United Party’s policy to the Coloured or the Bantu, we are not trying to incite them to racialism. We are working for racial peace. We are trying to get them to understand the policy of the Opposition and the policy of the possible future government of this country. Why should we be denied that right?

They have rejected your policy.

No, it has been a case of the truth fighting against the Nationalist Party policy. Since it seemed that the truth might have won, they have introduced the Bill which we have before us to-day, which is an admission of failure. Persuasion is one of the basic rights of democracy. It is one of the basic rights of democracy to persuade your opponents and people of other colours or of your own colour to accept your point of view. What has this Government done? For persuasion they are now substituting brain-washing.

They next ask: “What about the irregularities that took place at elections in the past?” There have been irregularities in Coloured elections and White elections. There have been as many in one as in the other. Can the hon. the Minister mention any irregularities which took place in a Coloured election which could not also take place in a white election? Possibly he could, possibly he could not. I can think of one such irregularity. I can think of irregularities in regard to the registration of voters which could take place under the law in regard to Coloured elections but which probably would not take place under the Electoral Act governing white elections. But who is responsible for the laws which provide an environment which makes it possible for corrupt practices to take place in regard to registration? After all, if corrupt practices took place —and I am very much against those corrupt practices—they took place as a result of the laws passed by this Government.

This Government has wooed the Coloured and the Bantu vote over 20 years and they have failed to win that vote and that support. They are the frustrated suitors. I suggest that the hon. the Minister takes this Bill of his and frames it with a photograph of himself on the cover and entitles it “Love’s Labour’s Lost”. All the flowers and bouquets of separate development and all the orchids and perfumes of Coloured councils have been in vain. The Nationalist Party, the greatest wooer of the Coloured vote this country has ever seen, has become the rejected political suitor. As is the case with a rejected suitor, their action has been that of frustration. It is almost a case of a politically demented reaction. That is why we have this Bill here to-day. They are determined to continue to work among the non-Whites, but they want to deny that democratic right to us of the United Party. This Bill is entirely misnamed. It is called the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill, but it could for instance be called the Bill to Reserve Proper and Improper Interference to the Government. It would perhaps be even better if it were called the Manipulation of Non-Whites Votes Monopoly Bill. The monopoly is to be in the hands of this Government.

Do not let us bluff ourselves. If this Bill is passed the Nationalist Government will continue to interfere as much as it does at present in Coloured and Bantu affairs and in persuading the Coloured and the Bantu voters to vote on their side. Perhaps they will not do it as members of the Nationalist Party. As the hon. member for Parow suggested, they might do it as the Government, but it will be very much the same thing. They will woo the non-white voters in the disguise of officialdom or in the wig of being the Government and not the Nationalist Party. They will still go to the Coloured elections and still interfere with the elections for the Coloured Representative Council. I would not be surprised if they will see to it that there is one or other party amongst the Coloureds, and perhaps even one amongst the Natives, which supports their policies. They would go into the Transkei elections. They would have their report-back meetings too. The hon. member for Karoo will not be allowed to hold a report-back meeting, but I am quite sure that for the Bantu in the Transkei there will be a report-back meeting by that sturdy model of independence and political rectitude, the Commissioner-General Mr. Hans Abraham. Sir, may I ask the Government this in all sincerity: If they say, as the hon. member for Parow said, that the Government can go and address meetings on Government policy, would they also allow the Opposition to do so? If my Leader wanted to explain our policy to the Coloured people in the same way as the hon. the Prime Minister, for example, explained the Government’s policy to the Coloured Council last year, and if he went there as Leader of the Opposition and not as a member of the United Party, would he be allowed to do so, or would it be said that that too was unfair interference in politics?

Why should he have to get permission?

Exactly; why should he have to get permission? Why should this Bill be here at all? Sir, I think of the Bantu Advisory Councils that we have in the cities. There has to be contact with these councils and there must be regular explanation of policy to these councils.

But they are not included under the Bill.

The Bill says—

It does not talk about “public” meetings. Obviously, if the hon. the Prime Minister addresses a meeting of the Coloured Council he is furthering the interests of his political party or the principles of his party. In the Johannesburg City Council we have the right and we should have the right to address the Bantu Advisory Council on policy, even if they do represent a meeting of non-Whites. It might be in the interests of a political party. We too have our principles that we would like to put to these people. We are not there to defend the Government’s policy.

What are they going to do about the radio?

I am coming to that. I do not think there has ever been a more muddle-headed, obtuse, insensate Bill than this one. It seeks to prohibit meetings where members of one group are addressed by members of another group. Sir, have you looked at some of the groups who are prevented from addressing each other? According to this Bill a person of Asiatic origin who believes in Che Muslim religion and who is a Cape Malay, may not address a meeting of people of Asiatic origin who support the Muslim religion but who belong to the Indian group. Members of one group may not address members of the other group. The hon. member for Parow defended the provisions of this clause about meetings, which says that the majority of the members must belong to one group. He said that the words “majority of a group” were inserted on purpose so as to make it possible for a few Whites—officials or professors or lecturers or interested people—also to be in the audience. The point is that if the majority is, say, Coloured, then the speaker must be Coloured and if the majority is Bantu then the speaker must be a Bantu.

At political meetings?

Sir, I see Chat meetings are included in the Bill. May I ask why broadcasts over the radio are not included? If it is such a sin for a member of one race to address members of another race, would it also be a sin for the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to go on Bantu Radio with its Bantu listeners and to talk politics or Government policy? Those of us who have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year’s message, have seen how politics can be introduced over Bantu Radio. What about books; what about pamphlets; what about newspapers written by Whites for non-Whites? I am glad that these are not included in this Bill, but if the Government sees nothing wrong with the distribution of books and pamphlets written by Whites and giving their point of view, amongst the Bantu people, why come along and make an exception in the case of meetings? Or might this not be the thin end of the wedge in order to make a Bill of this nature applicable at some time in future to, say, Native newspapers which are edited at the moment by Europeans? Sir, the Government has been challenged more than once to define what it means in this Bill by a “political party”.

Don’t you know what a political party is?

I am glad that the hon. member asked that question. I know what a political party is, but I want to ask him as a Transvaal member whether he knows what it is. In a recent by-election there were two political parties; one was called the Democratic National Party, which I have never seen described by them as a party—it is called the Du Preez group—and the other was the Republican Party, which is called the Van der Merwe group. It seems to me that the hon. member over there does not know what a party is—not that I defend those parties in any circumstances, but the hon. member put that question to me and I think I have given him a clear reply.

Sir, one fundamental problem in this Bill is the question of interference by “agents” of a political party. We asked the hon. the Minister what was meant by the word “agent”. I have his unrevised Hansard here. I said—

The hon. the Minister replied—

The hon. the Minister’s reply shows how confused he is about the Electoral Act. because people sitting at a table are not necessarily agents.

The Minister changed that and your Leader accepted it.

What change did he bring about?

Surely you were here.

It is quite possible he did, but, Sir, let us see what an agent can be. Agents need not be helpers on an election committee. They can be people who write out canvass cards. They can be people who insert pamphlets in envelopes. Are they agents under this Bill or are they not?

Of course.

The hon. the Minister seems to be quite sure; when he replies will he tell us whether they are agents or not? The hon. member for Prinshof said that I had had a clear reply: I am getting a very clear reply now. Mr. Speaker, let me give one instance of what happened in my own constituency in the last election. All my pamphlets were distributed by European youths, but I discovered that in a certain street, by some omission or other, the pamphlets had not been distributed. So I went along and got my old garden boy and I said to him: “Bring along the pamphlets and get into the car”, and I went along to Third Avenue, Highlands North, and he put all these pamphlets in the different post boxes in that street. Was he an agent under those circumstances? Will I be transgressing the law in future? We have an organization in Johannesburg—and I am sure that they have it in other cities too—which is called Express Messengers and which employs Bantu to distribute pamphlets, amongst other things. This is an organization which is used by all parties, by the United Party, the Nationalist Party and the Progressive Party, and they do a good job.

When this Bill is accepted, you will have to have it done by Whites.

There you are, the hon. the Minister is admitting it. Let me put another point to the hon. the Minister: Under the rules and regulations of the Post Office I can send my political pamphlets in envelopes addressed to “The Householder”. Very well, suppose I addressed 10,000 of those pamphlets to my constituents and they are distributed, in many cases, by Bantu postmen. Will they in future have to be distributed by European postmen only? The situation is becoming more and more confused. [Interjections.] I am quite prepared to make use of the services of that organization, Express Messengers, and I do not mind if some of my pamphlets are distributed by Bantu as well as European postmen.

Mr. Speaker, then there is this other clause in the Bill dealing with the giving of money by a person in one country to a party or organization in another country. As we have already stated, we on this side of the House are in favour of prohibiting people from outside sending money to a political party in South Africa. We have stated that that is our attitude and we shall also show it in future speeches on this Bill, but I wonder if the hon. the Minister is quite clear as to what principle is involved in this Bill. Perhaps he should explain it to us. To me it seems that here again there might be a great deal of muddled thinking. Is the principle that it is wrong, that it may be criminal, for people in one country to send money to another country for political purposes in that country?

Yes.

Very well, the hon. the Minister says “yes”. If I send a cheque for R100 to a friend in Rhodesia and I ask him to use that money to fight communism and terrorism or to give it to the Rhodesia Fund or to spend it on comforts for the troops, would that be wrong? The hon. the Minister has said “yes”. I realize that this Bill only refers to moneys coming in from other countries to South Africa. I am speaking, however, of the principle. I am trying to discover what the principle is behind this. The hon. the Minister says he is against the sending of money by any one country to another country for political purposes. This Government would be only too glad to get a loan from the World Bank to develop the Bantustans, and those Bantustans will be developed according to the policy of that party. Surely they are not going to prevent that money from coming into the country. An organization like Sabra or the Institute of Race Relations might get a grant from a Carnegie Foundation or from the Ford Foundation, and at the present moment they would be entitled to use that money, and Sabra could bring out articles and write against the policy of the United Party.

Order The hon. member is going too far now.

Well, I will not pursue that matter further, and I only hope that the hon. the Minister will give us replies on matters such as these.

Sir, I think this is really a sorry little Bill; it is a little subterfuge Bill. The saddest part is not that the Nationalist Party will suffer under it—I could bear that—but the real victims will be freedom of speech in our country, free discussion, honest consultation, racial harmony and, finally, our country’s good name.

The House will pardon me if I do not deal with the hon. member for Orange Grove at any great length, because these flights of the imagination which we have just had from him in connection with the Bill are of such a nature that one simply cannot discover what he would like to know and what he would like to say and what he would like to have in this Bill. This cavilling is simply a gnashing of teeth on the part of the United Party, because the party now finds that the policy of separate development is continuing in spite of the United Party’s gnashing of teeth. I can appreciate why hon. members opposite are opposed to this Bill. It is because they stand for integration. That is the United Party’s real problem.

Nonsense.

The United Party is a party of integration and this is legislation of segregation. This is really apartheid legislation —I grant that—and that is actually what the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot swallow, because he remains a member of an integration party, a party which wants motley, hotch-potch politicking in South Africa, something which can simply no longer be tolerated at this stage of our development.

Does integration not mean co-operation?

Not in the United Party sense. The integration the United Party advocates, is integration of Black people in this Parliament which will eventually lead to the Whites in South Africa being swamped completely, That is where the United Party’s policy would land us. With this Bill the Government is, as it were, completing an essential trilogy of legislation which places the Coloureds on a road leading to their own political future, a political future which will to a large extent be in their own hands from now on. If the Coloureds seize this opportunity and act in a responsible way, I foresee a very fine future for the Coloured population of South Africa. This legislation will enable the Coloured population to make a special contribution on their own behalf and to the country as a whole. This Bill places the Coloured population in the position where they can develop themselves politically, and administratively, too, it affords them opportunities they have never had before. The Bill is, in the first instance, the outcome of the findings of a proper commission of inquiry. The majority report suggested that this Bill should be submitted to Parliament.

For the past week I have been sitting here listening to hon. members of the Opposition, who kept on talking about the weight of evidence and the assessment of evidence and who said that this was allegedly contrary to the evidence submitted to the commission, and nonsense of that sort. It would seem to me as though the Opposition has been confusing evidence led before a court of law and evidence led before a commission. Evidence submitted to a court of law, is considered for a certain purpose, to prove a certain point, and then the Judge has to consider the evidence to see the extent to which that point has been proved and the extent to which the onus of proof is being discharged. But a commission of inquiry is in a quite different position. A commission summons its witnesses in the light of certain knowledge it has already gained. A commission is quite entitled to say: I have at my disposal this knowledge which I am not going to disclose but which I am in fact going to use when I give my ruling. Then it calls for evidence and the commission sifts it and considers it and tries to see what is the best of what flowed from everything it has heard, as well as that which it knew itself. If we were to follow up the nonsensical arguments advanced by the Opposition, it would have been possible to have this position before a commission, namely that one could have had a host of communists giving evidence before the commission and that the commission would then have been obliged to say: “We had 20 communists here, all of whom said the same thing and therefore we now have to make such a recommendation.” This is foolishness of the worst degree. I say that this Bill is the result of a proper inquiry by a commission appointed by this Parliament.

But further, speaking as a member of the National Party as such and not merely as a person supporting the commission, I say that these three Bills we have been dealing with this week give effect to the policy of separate development, and let us have no more doubt about that.

Ha!

The hon. member says, “Ha”! I concede that this is apartheid legislation. He might as well put it in his pipe and smoke it. We are moving in the direction of separate development for the four groups in South Africa which are going to try to maintain themselves in this country. Let us look at the cornerstones of this separate development. In the first place, as far as the National Party is concerned, its most important cornerstone—something which the United Party does not accept—is that the Republic of South Africa will only be governed by white persons in this Parliament. As against that, the United Party, as an integration party, has already told us that they want Coloureds in this Parliament, and I predict that if they were ever to come to power, which will never happen, they would also have black people in this Parliament in the course of time. For on what basis can one discriminate against the black man if one is going to allow Coloureds here? I say that this is the first cornerstone of separate development. The second is the retention of its own identity by every population group, and the third is that since we are living together within the borders of the Republic, there should be practical regulation of our social community in order that the separate groups may live here in peace. As far as this Bill is concerned, it complies with the statement I have just made. It is a Bill which is regulative in order that the groups may live together in peace. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Omaruru who said that all sorts of difficulties could arise here if this Bill were not piloted through.

Let me make it very clear to the United Party so that they may not have any illusions as to what is envisaged with this legislation. For the proper functioning of this enlarged Coloured Council, with its extended franchise and the extensive powers it will be granted and the R50 million it will have at its disposal, it is imperative that there should not be any interference by any other population group. I say it is imperative if we want this Coloured Council to function properly. Then there is the question of whether there is any danger of interference, and I immediately want to say that there is. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill we have prohibited such interference, and I want to say right now that I do not have the slightest doubt that if this Bill is not enacted, the Progressive Party will be guilty of continuously interfering in Coloured affairs in order that it may control the Coloured Council. This I say because the Progressive Party has discovered that it does in point of fact make no impression on white South Africa. It does not make any impression whatsoever on the average white voter in South Africa. That is why the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party have been concentrating on trying to influence the Coloureds. It was an attempt to gain for themselves a niche in the political firmament of South Africa. I say that in that attempt of theirs to gain the support of the Coloureds, they have been abusing the Coloureds disgracefully, and I am going to prove it. That is why it is essential to have this Bill before the House to-day. I should like to prove this by using the hon. member for Houghton’s own words.

A day or so ago the hon. member for Houghton delivered a tirade here—it may have been last week—aimed at the Government and the National Party, and then she said the following. She said the real reason why we were removing the representatives of the Coloureds from the House of Assembly was that we knew that four members of the Progressive Party would now be elected. She made it very clear, and it is quite clear from the context of her words that she did not at all have the interests of the Coloureds in mind when she said that. She was only thinking to herself that she would be getting four members of the Progressive Party into the House of Assembly. In other words, she wanted to abuse the Coloureds completely so that she might get four Progressives into this House. That is why I say that all this influencing of the Coloureds by the Progressive Party really amounts to taking advantage of the Coloureds.

But they are not the only people who would have done so. The Liberal Party has already intimated that if this Bill is enacted, they would no longer have any right of existence. The Liberal Party was honest enough, unlike the Progressive Party, to admit frankly that they had to rely on the Coloureds; otherwise they would no longer have any right of existence. There are clear indications that these groups would definitely have tried at least to influence and take over the new Coloured Council if this legislation should not be adopted.

But that is not all. There are also other people in South Africa who will try to do so. Nusas, for instance, will want to do so. It is an organization which is also under suspicion, and I shall prove that as well. Nusas does not hesitate to arouse anti-apartheid feelings in South Africa at any time, and I want to tell you, Sir, that Nusas has representation on the National Committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. For instance, in 1965 Martin Legassick was the representative of Nusas on the National Committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. [Interjections.] I shall also prove something else which the hon. member for Houghton will dislike. I know I am beginning to tread on the hon. member’s corns, but let me just tell her that this very same Anti-Apartheid Movement also has representation on the Defence and Aid Fund, and Defence and Aid has its origins in Christian Action. Just let us see what Christian Action is, and who the members of Christian Action and of the Anti-Apartheid Movement are. Amongst them one finds people such as Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Leon Levy, Ruth Finkelstein, Dadoo, etc.—i.e. in Christian Action. The names of certain people have been mentioned here, and I know for a fact that they are not Christians. I do not know whether they are followers of other religions, but from their names one can hear that they are not Christians. In all probability they do not have any religion at all, but now they belong to Christian Action. The word “Christian” is simply slapped on in order to obscure its communistic basis.

What does that have to do with the Bill?

It has a great deal to do with it. Defence and Aid is being supported by the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the latter organization has members, people who come from South Africa, who are serving on its National Committee. But that is not all. We are familiar with the fact, and the hon. member for Houghton knows it very well, that the Suzmans and people of their ilk in South Africa, i.e. those liberalists, are working night and day to undermine this Government and its policy, and they will not hesitate, if they can gain control of the Coloured Council, to influence the Coloureds to stir up unrest in South Africa. That is why this legislation has become imperative.

In regard to clause 3 I just want to ask whether it is essential to prohibit financial assistance from abroad. Sir, the danger exists that the population groups may be abused. In England alone one has the following people who are working against our policy of apartheid night and day. I have admitted frankly that this is apartheid legislation. It is a fact; it is a completion of separate development. In England one finds people such as the following: The Anti-Apartheid Movement, Christian Action, Movement for Colonial Freedom and Africa Bureau. I see that some of the hon. members cannot swallow this pill either, Mr. Speaker. Then one has the South African Freedom Group, the Union of Democratic Control, the National Peace Council, the African National Congress, the P.A.C., the South African Communist Party and the S.A. Indian Congress.

May I ask a question? Is the hon. member quoting from a pamphlet called “The Puppeteers”? Because they have just lost an action in the British courts.

I am quoting from my own notes. Nor does it matter in the least whether any actions have been lost; here we have the facts. Those organizations do exist. The hon. member should not try to draw a red herring across the trail. Just let us see what the objects of the Anti-Apartheid Movement are.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too far. He must confine himself to the Bill.

I am only trying to indicate, Sir, in respect of clause 3, that there are in fact people outside our borders who will put money to use in South Africa to stir up unrest amongst the population groups here. The objects of the A.A.M. are as follows—

Not for a single moment will they hesitate to make money available for the purpose of gaining a hold on this new Coloured Council. Let us also see what the objects are of the so-called Christian Action. They are as follows—

At the beginning of my speech I said that the problem which was being created here for the Opposition by means of this Bill, was the fact that this was indeed segregation legislation, and that is something hon. members of the Opposition cannot swallow. To the hon. member for Houghton this is nothing but poison. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is imperative for the implementation of this Government’s policy, which is a policy of separate development. Whether the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. Opposition kick against it or not, this separate development will be carried through to its ultimate conclusion by hon. members on this side of the House, and nothing will stop us. If hon. members look at the Bill, they will see that the National Party is quite prepared to put itself on a par with the Opposition. The National Party realizes that it is essential for each group to be afforded the opportunity to realize itself.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who made the reprehensible statement that this Government would be in a better position since it would be able to use its officials to propagate its policy amongst the Coloured people.

Not only officials.

Who else could the hon. member have meant?

You yourselves.

The hon. member clearly said that we would use the machinery the Government was going to create here in order to explain our policy to the people. Implementing a policy is something quite different from explaining a policy and making propaganda for a party.

In the time I have left, I want to mention just a few of the points the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to the House yesterday. He said that this Bill was incompatible with white leadership in South Africa. He said, “It is incompatible with white leadership”. In my modest opinion it is this very Bill and this sort of legislation that guarantees white leadership in South Africa, because if we were to do anything else, we would disappear from South Africa in the course of time. There is no doubt about that. He also said that clause 2 (b) prevented the United Party from stating its policy to the Coloureds. This clause does not prevent Coloured people from doing so at all.

How are they to hear of it?

The United Party is quite entitled to inform certain Coloured persons about their policy, and those persons can then go to the Coloureds and, in turn, inform them about the policy of the United Party. But, if we want to preserve racial peace in South Africa, we cannot permit white people to get up and make political speeches where there is a difference of opinion amongst non-White groups.

Then it was very sneeringly asked here whether the Coloured Representatives might report back. But, of course, they may do so. However, they must report back in the same way they came here. They must go out and tell the Coloureds what they have done for the Coloureds. They must not make party-political propaganda, as I suspect the hon. member for Karoo will do. They are here for the purpose of representing Coloured interests and they must state here in what way they are representing those specific interests. That is not being affected by this legislation at all.

Then I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban (North) had to say. He said that in terms of the Constitution four senators were nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs. His objection was that the National Party would in point of fact have the advantage now, because Nationalists were being nominated to represent the Coloureds in the Senate and therefore they were escaping the net cast by this measure. That is correct. I want to concede that the persons who are going to be nominated, will most probably be Nationalists. They need not necessarily be Nationalists, but they will in all probability be Nationalists. But, in terms of the relevant section in the Constitution, they are being nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs. They will not represent the Coloureds; they are being nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs, and that is entirely a horse of another colour.

Now the hon. member for Durban (North) says that the dialogue between the population groups is being discontinued. That is not true. However, the exploitation of the population groups is being discontinued. But the dialogue is not being discontinued at all. This political exploitation which has been taking place all these years, which has made such a disgraceful football out of the Coloureds, and which has actually made one feel so ashamed that one did not want to participate in Coloured elections, owing to all the irregularities, this political exploitation will now be eliminated entirely. This measure will ensure that the Coloured Council will be exclusively Coloured-based. The Coloureds will say what they please, the Coloured will be able to elect whom they please, but the hon. member for Houghton will not be afforded the opportunity to expand her Party on the back of the Coloured community of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of vicious speeches in this House, but I think one of the most vicious that I have listened to has just come from the hon. member for Prinshof. That hon. member has dragged into this debate a lot of extraneous factors, like the composition of bodies such as the Christian Institute and the Anti-Apartheid League …

No, I said Christian Action.

Yes, Christian Action …

Not the Christian Institute.

Well, I would not put it past the hon. member to try and “beswad-der” them as well. He referred to Christian Action and, of course, he managed to get in a few anti-Semitic digs while he was at it. But let us leave that to one side. I do not even know whether those persons are in fact members of Christian Action, because the hon. member does not tell us what he quotes from; he does not tell us where he gets his information from. I would not be at all surprised if the hon. member for Kensington did not hit the nail right on the head when he said that the hon. member for Prinshof was quoting from a book called The Puppeteers, over which a very expensive court action has recently been fought, and lost, I might say, by the authors. That happened quite recently. Anyway, the hon. member said a lot of other things too.

I want to tell him first of all that the Coloured people are not the half-witted creatures that he appears to imagine them to be. The Coloured people are fully aware when they are being exploited and when they are being used by the white people for their own ends. There are a large number of highly educated Coloured people in South Africa, and those Coloured people have great influence with their own people. There are Coloured teachers, Coloured nurses, professional men. They are not the half-wits the hon. member thinks they are.

I never said they were.

They know perfectly well when they are being used by political parties. They chose to vote for the Progressive Party, not because we are exploiting them but because the Progressive Party offers a policy that they happen to agree with, a policy of recognizing them as full citizens in the country of their birth, a policy which will allow them to use their potentialities to the fullest, and not hive them off into some little mythical Cape Coloured homeland which is never coming into existence any way. That is the reason why the Coloured people voted for the Progressive Party, because it most nearly approximated to what they wanted. Now, it may well be they wanted more than we were prepared to offer, but we were the nearest approximation to a full realization of citizenship for them in this country. That is why they voted Progressive, not because they are half-wits who can be readily exploited.

The hon. member for Prinshof says we should disappear from the scene with the same honesty as the Liberal Party once this Bill becomes law. Nonsense, Sir. We have not the slightest intention of doing that. Let me tell the hon. member, and tell other hon. members of this House, that we have not the slightest intention of disappearing. We have got a following among all the people of South Africa who believe in the removal of racial discrimination, and that means not only non-Whites but white people in South Africa as well. We represent a very decided point of view in this country and it will grow. That point of view will grow because it is in keeping with the rest of the civilized world. Let me remind the sneering hon. member for Prinshof that it was not very long ago in the history of this country— because political history is a long history— that the Nationalist Party had only one Transvaal member sitting in this House. Let him put that into his pipe and let him smoke it. The day will come when the white people of South Africa will understand that for lasting peace and for lasting prosperity and for lasting security in South Africa, there is only one path to be followed and that is the path that does not make colour the testing ground of a man’s ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Like the “peace” in America.

The hon. member says it is like the riots in America. He is so ignorant that I …

No, I said the “peace” in America.

Yes, but you used the word in inverted commas, of course. What you were referring to are the riots. [Interjections.] Oh, come, do not be so stupid. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is so ignorant that I am going to spend two minutes of my valuable time telling him a little something about the “peace” in America. He assumes that the “peace” in America …

Order! The hon. member should not waste her time to answer every interjection …

Mr. Speaker, I think you have got a very good point there, I will not waste my precious time. There will be another opportunity, I am quite sure, when I will be able to tell the hon. member that peace in America has not been broken because civil rights have been given; peace in America has been broken because civil rights have not been fully implemented.

Order! The hon. member is not taking my advice. She says it is good advice but she does not take it.

That was an aside, Sir, and I now leave that. I could have given him much more, but I do not have time to do it.

They have “peace” in America because they follow the way you want us to follow here.

There you see, Sir, there I am again being misled by a very provocative and noisy member, the hon. the Deputy Minister.

That is where you will land South Africa.

There we are, there is another one! Anyway, Sir, I will continue and come back to this Bill.

The hon. member for Omaruru who has for the moment disappeared, into the wastes of South West Africa, no doubt, made some interesting observations earlier this afternoon. He said it was all right to nominate the persons to the Coloured Council. The point was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he stated, correctly to my way of thinking, that the Government was interfering in non-white politics because it would nominate members to the Coloured Council that was going to come into existence. The hon. member for Omaruru replied to that by saying, “Oh, no. As long as you do not enter elections, it is not interference.” Well, now really, this is an argument! One can therefore circumvent the whole democratic process whereby persons ought to be elected to the Council, and that is all right; that is not interference! One simply says, “These 20 members will belong to the Coloured Council”, and one does not interfere.

Surely, that is much more direct interference than going into an election? Then at least one gives the voters the choice of whom they are going to have in their Coloured Council. I say the Government is interfering in politics in the Transkei, because more than half the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei consists of chiefs who hold their post by virtue of the goodwill of this Government. So that too is direct interference in colour politics in this country. What hon. members really mean by the word “interference”, by “improper interference”—the hon. member for Omaruru tried to distinguish between “proper” and “improper” interference—is anything the Nationalist Party cares to do in the field of non-white politics, such as removing the Coloureds from the common roll, such as taking Coloured representation out of this House, such as removing the Africans from the Common Roll and taking African representatives out of this House, and setting up councils in which there will be a very large proportion, and certainly the case of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly a majority, of members directly beholden to this Government for their position—that is “proper” interference. But “improper” interference is if any party opposes the Government’s policy of apartheid, as if apartheid has been handed down from the Mount. This is a policy which must not be touched.

Well, let me tell hon. members that the whole process of democracy presumes the right of argument against official policy, if one wants to. That is my democratic right, elected by a white electorate. But it is irrelevant whether I am elected by a white electorate or a non-white electorate, because I draw no distinction between riding into Parliament on the backs of the white voters of Houghton, or the hon. member for Prinshof riding into Parliament on the backs of the white voters of Pretoria, or the hon. member for Karoo riding into Parliament on the backs of the Coloured voters of the Karoo. I do not think that it matters at all. They were all voters and they those these particular members. The sin comes when it is a party propounding the direct opposite of apartheid, when it is a party propounding the removal of race discrimination and the granting to non-white people the right, not based on colour, but based on individual merit, of playing their full part in this country. Then it becomes improper interference. Because let us not be diverted by the nonsense talked by the hon. member for Parow about the irregular practices that he claims went on. We know perfectly well what went on in that election. We know what the courts have said. The courts told us that there were cases where some registration cards were irregularly signed, and that is all. Oh, ask hon. members, who knows what else went on?

Your Party bribed them.

The hon. member would not dare to say that outside this House.

It has been proved in the courts.

The hon. member knows I will take him into the courts of law right away. He makes libellous statements under the protection of this House. If he says that outside, I will take him to court. It was not proved for one moment. My party had nothing to do with any such thing. One member of my party was charged, and he was found not guilty by the courts of law. The hon. member has no business to make libellous statements like that. I object strongly to that. There were no irregular practices that could in any way justify this Improper Interference Bill. Irregularities at registration were minute in proportion to the total number. They had nothing whatever to do with the election itself. Practically all of those people were put back on the voter’s roll and were able to vote. There is no justification for this talk about the “unclean roll”, the roll being in a mess. There is nothing in the report of this commission that bears that out. The hon. member for Yeoville himself said that when the report was being discussed. That is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The Bill is aimed at one thing only, and that is to prevent what hon. members on the other side define as improper interference, which is any political party taking part, across the colour line, in politics, with a policy that is against apartheid. That is the simple explanation of this whole Bill. We could not get much out of the hon. the Minister’s definition, and we did not get very much out of his explanation. But there is not the slightest doubt from all the speeches that have been delivered in the House so far, that that is the aim and object of this Bill.

It is a much simpler Bill than its ugly predecessor. It only needs to be simple, because it does not have to do what the other Bill attempted to do, namely to find every possible devious way whereby the Progressive Party, or any other white party for that matter, that is anti-apartheid, could take part in elections for the Coloured representatives in this House. That is why this is such a simple little Bill. The fact that there is this clause to say that no meeting may be addressed is simply embroidering the main objective of the Bill. The main objective has been achieved, which is in fact the removal of the Coloured representatives. This Bill was not even necessary any more, because who really cares whether one addresses a meeting of Coloured people or not, as long as they are not going to be able to outvote white voters on a Common Roll, or to sit in this House, expounding a policy that is not pro-apartheid.

There are lots of odd little provisions dotted around, but I am going to wait till the Committee Stage to see whether I can get any clarification from the hon. the Minister. I might say this with regard to this question of interference—If any party is guilty of improper interference, it is the Nationalist Party. They have done nothing, as I say, but interfere in non-white politics in South Africa since they came into power 20 years ago. The biggest spreaders of racial hostility were members on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister of Defence, when he was the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

I am against this Bill, not only because it is part and parcel of the three Bills, which really go together, namely the abolition of the Coloured representatives, the setting up of the Coloured Council and now this Bill, but I am against it, because it infringes a basic democratic right, namely freedom of association. That is the actual nub of this Bill. It grossly infringes freedom of association, and thereby freedom of speech. Furthermore, it is a manifestation of the whole basic assumption which underlies the apartheid philosophy. Colour is the important criterion whereby a person should be judged, irrespective of how clever he is. Irrespective of what he has achieved; his colour sets him apart. That decides where and how he shall live his life in South Africa. The Government is so obsessed with this colour idea, that it completely negates any scale which might be used in valuing our ordinary, common humanity. It admits in fact no common humanity between White and non-White in this country.

It is true that my party is fundamentally opposed to that policy. We believe that a man should be judged on individual merits, not on colour. The Indians never had any rights, anyway, but having deprived the Coloured people, and the African people of all their meaningful political rights, the Government now wants to deprive the different sections of the population of this fundamental right of free association, of political and other association across the colour line. As I say, this is a fundamental concept. Every single country in the world that is democratic, realizes that freedom of association is a basic concept. When the hon. the Minister of Planning, who is looking at me with such a quizzical look, was wearing his striped pants and top hat and was attending diplomatic functions as an Ambassador and being so moderate on colour policy, he made a speech in London not so long ago in which he told his audience that there was complete political freedom in South Africa. He might remember his deathless words. He said there was complete political freedom in South Africa, and that even the Liberal Party has every opportunity to work out its own destiny. [Interjections.] This was in London when the hon. the Minister was a diplomat.

It was banned.

Well, they banned every leader of the Liberal Party. They leave the rest of them to work out their political destiny, to such an extent that they may no longer have non-white members. [Interjections.] No, of course not. Why did the hon. the Minister not tell the London audience that they can work out their political destiny provided they do it the way the Government tells them to do it? That is the sort of freedom this Government gives. Of course that is a totalitarian idea. As long as everybody does what the Government wants them to do, they are free to do what they like. That is a marvellous definition of political freedom, I must say. I would like the hon. the Minister when he trots overseas next time, to have another meeting in London of the South Africa Association, or one of these other bodies that will be delighted to provide him with a platform—maybe he could even ask Christian Action to give him a platform. He can then tell everybody again in London that there is political freedom and every party has the right to work out its own destiny.

What I shall tell them, is that instead of 27,000, 300,000 can now vote.

What hypocrisy! My word! Hon. members have been at pains to tell us that this Bill does not prevent multiracial meetings. One can go to a multi-racial meeting as long as one does not advance the aims of one’s own party. The hon. member for Karoo can go back to his constituency and talk to an audience, with the greater majority being Coloureds. We still do not know what that means. The hon. the Minister no doubt, in his own inimitable, clear way, is going to tell us what he means by “greater majority”, when we get to the Committee Stage. But one can address such a meeting, providing …

You are not really so ignorant as you are pretending to be.

I am very confused about this clause. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will enlighten me. I will listen to his speech when he enlightens me. [Interjections.] There is a very interesting definitions clause in this Bill, too. I want to give the hon. the Minister los of time to tell me what I want to know in the Committee Stage. The very first part of this clause says—

1. (i) “population group” means the persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups:
   1. (a) the Bantu population group;
   2. (b) the white population group;
   3. (c) the Coloured population group;
   4. (d) the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population group;

This conjures up all sorts of interesting possibilities of people hopping around from one population group to the other all the time. It is a sort of classification hopscotch. One is a chameleon in this country. From time to time one apparently changes one’s colour classification. I know that we have lots of classifications under different Acts, but it will be very interesting for the hon. the Minister to tell us what he means by “persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups”.

Have you never heard of objections against classifications?

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is doing his best to stop them. When the last Bill was passed in this regard I thought that he told us that it was intended to stop all this hopping around from one population group to another. Is that what he was thinking of? I do not think it was what his advisers were thinking about. They were thinking about something quite different when they put that extraordinary little phrase in this Bill.

You had better ask them then.

No. It is the hon. the Minister’s job, not mine.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister of the opinion that he will advance his case by continually making interjections?

Finally I want to say that I have had the privilege of belonging to a multi-racial political party for nine years. I want to make it absolutely clear that it has been a privilege to belong to a multi-racial party for nearly nine years. The majority of hon. members never come into contact with a non-white person other than in a master-servant relationship. That is the only relationship they know, because they have never met and discussed across a table, politics or any other of the important things that affect this country with a non-white person.

I want to tell them that it is a very enlightening experience. They will find that non-white people are politically very moderate and that all they want are the opportunities that white people have, namely to have compulsory education for their children and to use their potentialities to the greatest extent. They do not want this protection from competition which the hon. the Minister mentioned. In his second-reading speech he told us that one of the things that was being done for the Coloured people was that they were being protected against competition with white people. They do not want such protection. All they want is an opportunity to start off on the same basis as the white people in this country, to have education and to use their potentialities to their best advantage. They do not want protection against competition. They are quite able to hold their own. The Minister need not be so protective towards them. I suppose the reason why we have job reservation is to protect the Coloured man against competition from the white man. I want to say that it is a very rewarding experience to have belonged to a multi-racial party.

I am grateful for the contacts I was able to make with my fellow non-white citizens because I learnt a great deal from them. One thing I learnt is that they are far more moderate in their outlook than the members of the Nationalist Party. I say that it is a dangerous thing that the House is doing to-day, namely to deny moderate non-Whites the opportunity of talking politics and of participating in the formation of policies in multi-racial parties and of meeting to discuss politics with other moderate white citizens such as myself. I have news for our well-travelled Ministers. Overseas I am considered a conservative but in terms of South-African policies I am indeed a moderate white South African. I say that to deny fellow non-white citizens of this country the right of discussing politics with moderate white fellow-citizens is a dangerous thing. It is a danger that was pointed out by two persons who gave evidence before this commission. Ds. Botha and Professor N. J. J. Olivier also pointed out the dangers of not allowing non-white people to discuss politics with moderate white South Africans. We want to drive the non-Whites away from us. As everyone knows I do not subscribe to this argument of ganging up. I do not want the Coloureds to gang up with us against the African people but this whole system of separating people into political compartments on a racial basis is a dangerous thing. It is going to drive the non-white people into bitterness, frustration and hostility. It is something for which this country is going to pay. What is happening in America at the moment is a transition period. When the Civil Rights Legislation is fully implemented that bitterness will disappear. What we are building in South Africa to-day, with our divisions into racial groups and our compartmentalizing every aspect of life, with the frustrations and the hostilities that we are building up, are all things for which we may not have to pay, or for which that hon. member may not have to pay, but his children and his grandchildren will pay for it. They will pay dearly for it.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore wish to move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend pursuing the argument of the hon. member for Houghton, as we are poles apart. We shall never find common ground on which to argue. In between her private altercations with the hon. the Minister of Mines, the hon. the Minister of the Interior and other members, she touched upon a few matters which really belong in the Committee Stage, and which will be discussed there. However, at the end of her speech she referred to the Rev. Botha’s evidence before the Committee, and I shall quote to her later on in my speech what the Rev. Botha said about the Progressive Party.

The Bill now before the House is the result of the National Party’s desire to seek the best for the Coloured people and the non-Whites in South Africa and to ensure greater active political rights for the non-Whites; greater rights than those they have had until now. This legislation is based on and is a result of our policy of separate development. It is based, in particular, on two of the pillars of the policy of the National Party. The first is that every group be afforded the opportunity of developing to its full potential. We therefore believe that the non-Whites must develop politically at a rate that suits them and not at a rate recommended by certain Whites and white parties. The bitter experience of African states which received political rights before they were ripe for it is still fresh in our memories and is a warning to us to hasten slowly in this connection. The second pillar of our policy which is applicable here, is our wish to minimize as far as possible all possible friction between the various race groups. The black clouds of smoke hanging over many cities in America to-day, bear witness to the fact that the granting of rights on paper, rights which therefore cannot be exercised in practice, provides no solution to a race problem. On the contrary, it can only lead to enormous friction and frustration. The hon. member for Houghton will of course welcome friction and frustrations of this nature in South Africa. Everyone who has sincere intentions as regards the Coloured people, will admit that it is in their own interests that they should stand on their own feet, that they should think for themselves and that they should exercise their own political rights. Every right-thinking hon. member in this House must admit that it is in the interests of the non-Whites that they should be able to develop their own national pride with the least possible interference from outside and that they should produce and choose their own political leaders from amongst their own ranks. If situations occur that frustrate this ideal, which we envisage for the Coloured people as well, it is our task and duty to take action to remedy the position. We must then intervene, because it is generally recognized that the Whites of South Africa are the guardians of the non-Whites of South Africa. A guardian who is worth his salt seeks only the best for his ward, irrespective of whether he may embarrass other persons in the process. And the National Party, as becomes a guardian who views, exercises and fulfils his duty in an honest way, has always seen to the interests and needs of the non-Whites. In this respect the record of the National Party is much better than that of the United Party. Here I want to read an extract from The Star, Johannesburg, of 31st March, 1968, just to illustrate the typical difference in approach between the two parties. This extract is taken from a summary of the book “Benoni, Son of my Sorrow”. It reads—

Further on in this article the following paragraph occurs—

This, Sir, is the record of the National Party in so far as its guardianship towards the non-Whites is concerned. A good guardian must at all times be a good paterfamilias; he must guard against exploitation of the immaturity and inexperience of his ward to the detriment of that ward. Unfortunately it has now happened that malpractices have developed in our political setup, malpractices which are to the detriment of the non-Whites and which may create serious points of friction among the various race groups in the country. If this were to happen, it would be the non-Whites who would suffer most. And the existence of those malpractices are not only admitted by us on this side of the House. It has also been admitted by the Leader of the Opposition. Reference has already been made to what he said in this connection, and therefore I do not want to repeat it. The hon. member for Peninsula also said (Hansard, volume 18, column 2982)—

We in this House remember the unpleasant fight that day between the hon. member for Peninsula and the hon. member for Houghton when he pointed out what the Progressive Party had in fact done. The present hon. Minister of Defence challenged the hon. member for Houghton as follows in 1965—

The hon. member for Houghton was not prepared to do this. This can mean only one thing, and that is that the hands of the Progressive Party were so dirty that they could not dare appear before a commission. The report of the commission of inquiry which has been submitted to the House abounds with proof of improper interference. I shall content myself with quoting only two proofs. On page 136 of the report one of the members of the Conservative Party says—

And then it is still being said that there is no evidence to support this legislation. I quote further what was said by the witness on page 137 in reply to a question—

In his memorandum to the committee the Rev. Botha, who has been quoted several times on that side in support of their case, says on page 35 of the report that—

This was said by the person who was quoted a moment ago by the hon. member for Houghton in support of her case. This is what he has to say in regard to interference by the Progressive Party.

The good guardian wants his ward to have good friends, because good and well-meaning friends are necessary for the sound development of the ward. At the same time it is also the duty of the guardian to protect his ward against had friends, friends who seek the friendship of the ward only for their own profit and advantage. Since this side of the House now has concrete proof of the existence of such malpractices and of their adverse effects on the non-Whites, we shall be neglecting our duty as guardian if we do not take positive action to put an end to these abuses. In practice we find that when the guardian takes strong action against these so-called friends, these “friends” do not seek the fault with themselves, hut with the guardian. This is what we are experiencing in this House to-day. This, however, will not cause us to abandon what we are envisaging for the non-Whites. What real benefits do the non-Whites enjoy under the present political dispensation? What benefits do the non-Whites enjoy by being members of White political parties? Any right-thinking person will agree with me that it holds few or no benefits for the non-Whites. It will place the non-Whites in a subservient position for all time, in so far as realizing their political ideals is concerned. It will keep the non-Whites in a subservient position for ever and make them an appendix to white political parties. Under the proposed legislation the non-Whites will have to come forward themselves to undertake the organization of parties and election campaigns. This is part of the development we envisage for the non-Whites. It will create positive opportunities for the development of political leaders amongst the non-Whites, leaders who are lacking at present. It will enable the non-Whites to choose their own people as political leaders. These will be people who understand them, who speak their language and who will be able to present their case. It will prevent the non-Whites from being thrown about like a ball among political parties. Legislation to this end is supported by the same Rev. Botha in the memorandum which he submitted to the commission. On page 34 of the report he said—

This is how the Rev. Botha puts the case and this is also the approach of this side of the House as far as this legislation is concerned. Since we have always been honest towards the non-Whites, we believe that we must enable them to stand on their own feet in politics.

Lastly I should like to refer you to the report of the Native Affairs Commission of 1905, when the political rights of non-Whites were also involved. The commission said—

This is what the Native Affairs Commission of 1903-’05 said. As far back as 1905 this commission saw the dangers of interference, but they felt that the Coloured people would perhaps be able to develop in order to resist that danger on their own. This has not happened in practice, and this is why this legislation is necessary. This side of the House will be neglecting its duty if we do not introduce this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down spent some time in a private argument with the hon. member for Houghton and the Progressive Party. I would not like to interfere in this argument in case the hon. the Minister brand that interference as improper. I will leave the hon. member and his argument with the Progressives and pass on to two things that he said which were also said by the hon. the Minister in his introduction of this Bill. Both these hon. members said that the Whites are the guardians of the non-white people. I have no argument with that at all; in fact I agree with this concept. They both went on to say that “the Nationalist Party has always, and will continue to, exercise this guardianship in a responsible manner”. This I deny. It has not happened in the past. It has stooped to such measures as the High Court of Parliament and the packing of the Senate. It has stooped to all sorts of measures to try in some way to hit at these people whose “guardians” they claim to be and to deny them rights to which they are entitled, entitled in this House. This Bill is the utter negation of the statements made by both those two hon. gentlemen.

Sir, when I started to think about what I would say to the House the first thought which I wrote down was that this Bill was a natural extension of the stupid and vain attempt of the Nationalist Party Government to force apartheid on South Africa.

Fortunately nobody is listening to you.

This first thought of mine was borne out completely and utterly by the hon. member for Prinshof who in his speech this afternoon said that the object of this Bill was to implement what he called “aparte ontwikkeling” or separate development or apartheid, or call it what you will. He went on to say that notwithstanding the opposition of the Official Opposition, the Nationalists would carry out their policy. Sir, I want once again to pose this question to the other side of the House: How far have they got with separate development? Where is the separation? There is no development.

You are blind.

They are prepared, as the hon. member for Prinshof has said, to carry out this policy notwithstanding any opposition, and they are prepared to do this even if it does mean, as they have done before, the rape of the rights of the Bantu, the rape of the rights of the Coloureds and, I would go so far as to say, the rape of the rights of any person who stands between them and the goal which they seem to have in the dim and distant future; this pipe-dream of theirs. As I said, this Bill is a natural extension of their policy of apartheid. To achieve this, in terms of this Bill, it is the intention of the Minister to compartmentalize the people of South Africa into four groups, into four watertight compartments, into four neo-political groups. I am satisfied—and I am sure that there are many others who are satisfied—that the vast majority of the people of South Africa do not want this compartmentalization. Sir, the non-Whites of this country already feel rejected by the white people. Under this Nationalist Government they already feel relegated to the status of under-privileged serfdom. Under this Nationalist Party Government they have no say in the Central Government. They also have no hope of a country of their own. Sir, this legislation is being introduced because of the pathological fear of that side of the House of the non-white people in this country, and because of their inherent inferiority complex. It is time that they overcame this; it is time that hon. members on that side grew up and faced up to the responsibilities and realities of life in this country. On the other hand we, the members of the United Party, recognize the inter-dependence of all the people in this country, and we recognize the right of all the peoples in this country to some representation in this House, which is the centre of government.

All the peoples?

The hon. member heard me quite clearly. He must just listen instead of making a noise and then he might understand, if he is capable of understanding. All the peoples of South Africa are entitled to some representation in this House.

Why “some”?

The United Party will give all the population groups representation here.

By people of their own colour?

Under our policy, which I submit is the right policy, this Bill would be completely and utterly unnecessary. Not only would it be unnecessary but it would also be morally wrong, and therefore I reject this Bill. Sir, one cannot truly speak of independent racial or population groups in the country. As I said a few days ago in this House, this is a unitary State. Our history and the nature of our administration make independence for the various groups impossible, even if that independence were desirable. Sir, we are all common citizens of one land. Even the intense will of hon. members on that side of the House for separation has not resulted in one scrap of separation in this country.

That is nonsense.

If such independent development as they talk about had in fact been the traditional way of life in this country, we would have had one group less to deal with to-day in this Bill; we would not have had the Coloured group with which we are dealing here to-day. Therefore the real problem that we have to face is the one of interdependence upon one another and how to discharge our responsibility one towards the other. Such responsibilities—I want to make this quite clear—cannot be determined, as the Nationalist Government wants to do, unilaterally; it must be done by consultation, and therefore we ought to be concerned with the means of contact between these various groups and not the means of separation as planned in this Bill. We will have to learn how to share with the other groups in this country and how to lead and assist them rather than how to isolate and separate them. The primary testimony, when it comes to defining, as we are trying to do in this Bill, what constitutes interference, whether it is improper or otherwise, must come from those whose lives and rights are being interfered with. That is why I say that it cannot be decided unilaterally by this Nationalist Government acting on their own without consultation with those people whose rights they claim are being interfered with. In fact, this Bill provides neither for independent development nor for apartheid, nor for mutual co-operation. As I have said, it seeks to divide the peoples of South Africa; it seeks to cut off all communication; it prohibits any contact and discussion between them. It denies the more privileged people of this country the opportunity to lead and to guide and to assist the less privileged people in this country, and as such it constitutes a threat to the security of the country. Those less privileged people need the assistance and guidance of the white man who represents Western civilization in this country. They need that guidance if the peoples of South Africa are ultimately to attain their ordained fulfilment in this country as inhabitants of one happy country.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof had the temerity to say that this Bill would not cut off the dialogue between the non-Whites and the Whites. I deny that categorically. This Bill —and I say this advisedly— denies those privileges to all except the Nationalist Party. We heard the hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban (North) here on this point. I want to carry a little further the argument raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Prinshof accused him of reflecting upon civil servants. He alleged that the hon. member for Orange Grove had said that it would be the officials who would be interfering. But, Sir, this applies to every person. I submit that if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration addresses a group of Bantu and suggests that they must establish tribal and territorial authorities, he is acting in the furtherance of the aims of the Nationalist Party and technically, in terms of clause 2 (c), he perpetrates an offence. Sir, I wonder why the provisions of clause 4 (2) were included in this Bill. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate will tell us. The hon. member for Durban (North) has suggested a possible reason. I sincerely hope that that is not the reason and that there is some legitimate reason for the inclusion of this clause, but if the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) is correct, then it places a very bad imputation on the intentions of the Minister and of the Government. The long title of the Bill talks about prohibiting interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group. [Interjection.] I wonder whether the hon. member who has just interjected can give us a definition of “politics”.

It is something you know nothing about.

It is not as well known as hon. members here would like to make out. The Oxford Concise Dictionary goes so far as to say that it is so wide of application that it is not worth discussing. Politics is everything; politics pertains to the life and the everyday existence of people, and not to the narrow, bigoted ideas that the party opposite has. How do we decide what is politics and what is interference in politics? Nowhere in this Bill is the word “politics” used, and I am certain that is because we have here a deliberate and blatant attempt by that Nationalist Government to mislead the people outside, as they have done before, by introducing a short title which says: “Prohibition of Improper Interference,” whereas in the long title it talks about the “Prohibition of Interference in the Politics”. These are all high-sounding ideals which everybody agrees with. This side of the House is not in favour of improper interference with anything by anybody else. But nowhere in this Bill is there any definition of “improper” or of “interference” or of “politics”, and nowhere in the Bill does it go so far as to say that interference is prohibited. And this word “interference” has a bad connotation. But what the Bill says is that the assistance of one person or one group to a person of another group is prohibited, and “assistance” is a word which has a good connotation and not a bad one like “interference”. I repeat that that was introduced by this Government with the deliberate intent of misleading the people so that when they knew we would oppose it they could then go to the “volk daarbuite”, to quote the hon. member for South Coast, and say that the United Party is in favour of improper interference in the affairs of one racial group by members of another group.

There is another point about this Bill. It places in the hands of that Minister gargantuan powers which no one man should ever have, and if I were in his shoes I would be scared. This Bill empowers him by proclamation under section 5 of the Population Registration Act to decide who, or which population groups shall take part in the affairs of which groups, as defined in the Act. We already have an anomaly existing in this country. In the Cape Province to-day Indians and other Asiatics, as defined in paragraph (iv) of clause 1 of the Bill, are presently enrolled and will take part in the election of members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. But this Council is to represent the Coloured people as defined in paragraph (iii). This is what the hon. member for Houghton referred to just now when she referred to paragraph (i) line 6, where it says “from time to time”, because the Minister has the power to change it. If he finds that these Indians and Asiatics are “interfering”, as he calls it, or are influencing the elections of representatives of this Council, he can remove them by proclamation on his own and without reference to this House; he shall make the decision on his own and he can with a stroke of the pen change them, as the hon. member for Houghton said, from one group to another. That is what I meant when I said that we have here a Bill which gives the Minister gargantuan powers, and I say to the Minister: Beware. Such powers should not be in the hands of one man.

I want to conclude by paraphrasing Rousseau, when he said: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in ‘legislative’ bonds.”

Before I come to the positive aspects of this legislation, which is what I really want to discuss, I would just like to reply to a few matters which have been touched upon here and in regard to which I think a little clarity ought to be obtained so that they do not stand recorded from the point of view of one side only.

I was not a member of this Commission of Inquiry, but I have had the privilege of reading the Commission’s report. I was also present in this House when the desirability of appointing the Commission of Inquiry was being discussed, and I listened to what was said here. Then, too, I have never had anything to do with the election of Coloured Representatives, but I did have the privilege of listening to people who did have something to do with it. Now one can say it is the word of one person against that of another, and I do not want to form a judgment about that, but I do think it is necessary to obtain clarity in regard to one matter mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton as an accusation against the hon. member for Parow, who was a member of this Commission.

Perhaps the hon. member issued an unladylike challenge, but it is probably her duty and her right to try and defend a poor case in that way. She said that she challenged the hon. member for Parow to prove that the Progressive Party had ever had anything to do with those irregularities to which reference was made. I do not want to take the hon. member for Parow’s word against that of the hon. member for Houghton, but I do want to tell her what a certain Mr. Brink said when he was giving evidence before this Commission.

He is a completely discredited man.

I am only saying that this witness was heard by the entire Commission, and now I want to add, since accusations have been leveled against the National Party, and because the hon. member for Parow is a respected member of the National Party, that I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the member that these questions were not put by a member of the National Party on the Commission, but by a representative of the Coloureds themselves, who probably knows more about the Coloured elections than even the wise hon. member for Houghton, who represents a white constituency and who did not fight an election amongst the Coloureds here. This is what the hon. member for Peninsula elicited from Mr. Brink under cross-examination. He asked—

And he mentioned a name but I do not want to mention the name he mentioned. I shall read further—

Those are lies.

I should just like to read further. I just want to say that I can refute what the hon. member for Houghton has said here from the evidence of a Commission of Inquiry which was appointed. Here it stands on page 137—

[Interjections.] Sir, the truth of this can probably be ascertained—

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not necessary for me to read any further.

Lies!

The only reason why I am reading it out, is because the hon. member for Houghton has recently made a habit of labelling any arguments from this side of the House, in the way she has just done, as “lies”. If anyone disagrees, if anyone does not subscribe to her opinions, it is all lies, and this includes evidence which was given before a Commission of Inquiry. [Interjections.] But if the hon. member for Houghton is making this objection on behalf of her party I want to agree with one thing hon. members have said about her, but otherwise not, and that is that in part she has stated the standpoint of her party honestly. But I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, who is now opposing this Bill, to take this honesty a step further than merely making this fuss here in the House which enables her to get into the newspapers. I want to ask her simply to go and inform the voters, who are at present voters, of the consequences of her standpoint. I listened to her again this afternoon while she was hurling accusations across the floor of this House. She maintains that we want to determine the future of this country solely on the basis of colour. She added that in the beautiful utopia which her party wants to create, the colour bar is in any case going to be eliminated. May I now ask the hon. member for Houghton, on behalf of white South Africa, and also on behalf of that White-Christian South Africa which she ridiculed here the other day when she spoke of an “unholy trinity” when she ridiculed the dogma of Christians and the Christian faith in this House with her reference to this legislation as an “unholy trinity”, whether she will go and inform the English-speaking Christian South Africa what the consequences of her stand point are, and what her views are in regard to the future of South Africa. She said it was the National Party Government which wanted to form judgments on the basis of colour alone, and stated that she wanted to eliminate those colour bars.

Now I would like to ask the hon. member for Houghton the following: Would she kindly go and inform the voting public that she is going to display fairness towards every member of the Coloured population and towards every member of the Bantu population, whom she has stated she is serving, and who ought, so she believes to enjoy the same rights. I am asking her to go and tell them that a council is not being appointed here to decide arbitrarily on a horizontal division of voters with a high intelligence, income or training, but that she will go and tell them the following: On the grounds of what the Whites are enjoying here, I demand that all non-white population groups should enjoy the same things. Let her go and tell this to the voters; this is what I want now, and, if I do not get it now, this is what I am going to get to-morrow. All non-Whites above the age of 18 years as in the case of the Whites; Bantu, Coloured, everyone is to have the franchise. Let her go and say this to white South Africa. Let her also go and say this to people who belong to the United Party and who at least still want qualified franchise. Let her go and say this to those people, and see whether she will make the grade on that platform, even in Houghton. Let her go and talk in Houghton about an “unholy trinity” to Christians living there, and then we shall see whether she returns to realize her ideals in regard to the devastation of a white civilization and of Christianity here.

For these reasons the hon. member for Houghton is opposing this legislation. With the best will in the world, I cannot comprehend the honesty of that standpoint even if there were other hon. members, even on this side of the House, who comprehend it. I maintain that the honesty of a political party should at least be tested in this way, i.e. that it should not only be prepared to accept the consequences of its policy to itself, but that it should also be prepared to explain the consequences of its standpoint to its voters. It has been stated of this side of the House that we have never explained the full consequences of our policy to our people. If we have never explained the consequences of the costs in connection with the apartheid policy of the Government, I am very certain that the United Party has not only explained it, but has also clouded the issue with the explanation they gave of it. The Governing party has explained those consequences to its voters, and has urged its people, and it is still doing so, to accept the responsibility for that. I am asking the Progressive Party to evince the same honesty, to inform the people of South Africa that they will implement this policy of theirs in all its consequences.

I want to go even further. I can really understand the concern felt by the hon. member for Houghton. It is a well-known fact that, if one wants to encumber another person’s case, one must cast suspicion on that person. If one cannot win a case on its own merits, disparage the other man’s case and ascribe ulterior motives to him. That is what has been done here, and unfortunately not only by the representative of the Progressive Party, but also by hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Houghton has not only done so to-day. When this legislation was before this House, she sought, in conflict with what the Coloured Representatives and others had stated, another reason for the legislation. She found one to her own satisfaction and announced to the world with great acclaim that the only reason why this legislation was being introduced was because the Government was afraid that there would be four Progressive Party representatives here.

Is it true or untrue?

I do not know whether the hon. member wants to know from me whether the assertion which I have just made is true or not, because I would be able to read out to her from Hansard what she stated. She stated that this was the reason why the Government was continuing with the legislation.

Yes.

The hon. member continues to say so. Let me tell the hon. member this. If the Coloured Representatives of the Progressive Party look after the interests of that party in South Africa in the way the hon. member for Houghton does, then I would welcome it even if there were 12 representatives of that party here. They would do that party untold harm. They would in any case so destroy the Progressive Party amongst the White public of South Africa that it would never rise again. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Houghton would in any case have succeeded in doing this on her own. Sometime or other before the next election we will have to take official leave of her, if she would only have the honesty to go and put her standpoint to the voters.

If it were true that the Government were afraid that there would be four Coloured Representatives of the Progressive Party here, then I can only suggest to the hon. member for Houghton that the Government most certainly has the right to protect the non-White population and the Coloureds from people who have been rejected by the rest of the electorate of South Africa, people whose only recourse now is to a sector of the population where they do not even belong. Has the hon. member for Houghton and the leaders of her party lost their self-confidence so completely and absolutely, as well as their confidence in the case which they would probably want to put to the Whites as well—because she does after all talk about the welfare of the entire South Africa—that they no longer see their way clear to letting those other hon. members who are looking for seats, stand in other constituencies? I am thinking here of Pretoria (West) or, if it is necessary, Witbank. Why do they not go and stand in White constituencies and subsequently come here to argue this case on its merits?

Why do you not put up a candidate in Houghton?

There will probably be opportunities for doing so in future, and I am certain the hon. member must say as much as possible of what she can say during this session and during the lifetime of this Parliament.

I want to come to the standpoint of the official Opposition. At the outset I want to say that I really cannot understand why such a great deal should be said this afternoon in regard to matters which do not appear in this measure at all. I do not want to go into all the details because I am convinced, as has been stated by other speakers, particularly by the hon. members who served on the Commission, that we are dealing here with positive legislation which has to serve to further the development and stabilize the autogenous, independent development of our various population groups, as laid down in our policy. Now I will be the first to admit, and I want to say this in my personal capacity, that probably not even this legislation is a perfect piece of legislation. No legislation is. I should just like to remind hon. members of the numerous laws which have been passed over the years and in regard to which it is still continually necessary to effect changes owing to the demands of the times. Not only the demands of the times, but also because incorrect provisions are sometimes written into such laws, and because the test of time has proved that certain aspects are wrong. But the principles contained in this measure is what should be implement according to the views of the voting public of South Africa. Firstly I should like to say a few things to the hon. member for Orange Grove, and also I think, to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) who has just resumed his seat. According to them a prohibition is being imposed in clause 2 (c) and “any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons”, and they have had a great deal to say about the words “of whom all or the greater majority” then belong to another population group. The hon. member for Orange Grove punned beautifully. In his usual manner he tried to make the legislation appear ridiculous.

We are simply asking what “the greater majority” means; is it 80 per cent or 90 per cent?

I shall explain it to the hon. member, if he would exercise a little patience. Before I dwell on one word, I just want to tell him that he should read further. The hon. member often puts me in mind—and I say this with respect for the Bible—of the man who is supposed to have said that one may not smoke; “it stands in the Bible”. Will we not find a prohibition of this nature in the Bible, that the word “it” does occur in the Bible. This is precisely the way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove always reads a thing. He misunderstands something completely because he refuses to read it to the end. In clause 2 we find the following words—“address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election referred to in paragraph (b) …” That is the main point. A person may not address any meeting which has been convened for the purpose of furthering the interests of a candidature of a specific person belonging to another population group. If this definition could be improved on, and if the hon. Opposition wishes to help improve the wording of this legislation, clause for clause, then we can discuss the question of improved wording in the Committee Stage. We can then discuss the merits of this. [Interjections.]

I do not know why the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg is becoming excited now. I can say precisely the same thing to him as I have just said to the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. he did not read further than what was stated here either. I should like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they still adhere to-day to the attitude they adopted at the time of the debate between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Peninsula? The standpoint was, inter alia, subscribed to by means of interjections from the hon. member for Yeoville when he tried to justify his Party’s standpoint. I want to make the assertion that the standpoint of the United Party in regard to this legislation is solely based on the fact that the Coloured representatives will leave Parliament after the next election, and that they do not want to discuss this Bill on its merits. They do not want to discuss the merits of the principles, and the merits of the clauses of this legislation. Otherwise it is inconceivable that, during the disclosure of certain information here by the hon. member for Peninsula and others, they should have adopted the attitude they did adopt in regard to the appointment of a commission. Then it is inconceivable that the United Party should have testified to its consent to the fact that elections could not be held at that stage and that a commission of enquiry into improper interference had to be appointed. Then it is inconceivable that the United Party should oppose this legislation since they did actually admit, by word and deed, as it appeared from the cross-questioning by their members on the Commission, that there was “improper interference”, regardless of what definition they wished to attach to that word.

Give an example of the improper interference, and state where it is mentioned here.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Orange Grove was here when I was furnishing examples. More than that I cannot say. But there was improper interference here and if he refers to the evidence, he would probably find more examples. If we must quarrel over words, I now want to ask the Opposition what their intention was when they gave their consent to the appointment of a commission to consider the Bill on “improper interference”. Surely one does not say one is going to discuss “improper interference” without even knowing what you are going to discuss or for what purpose you are going to serve on the commission? Surely they have to accept that there was interference of such a nature that it could be termed improper.

But this Bill prohibits all contact.

That is not true. I want to deny categorically that this measure eliminates all contact between the various population groups. That is why it is being defined in this way in the title of the Bill, namely a, “Bill to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics …” The hon. member can tell me what the Oxford Dictionary, the Concise Dictionary, or other dictionaries say about that. But we do know what we are talking about. Why should we split hairs now? Surely we know what is involved here. By “interference” we mean that one political party is interfering in the politics of another population group. Hon. members can ask me for definitions in regard to that as well now, and my reply is as follows: Definitions will develop in the course of time and acquire the right nuance, the right connotation, to the satisfaction of the Opposition as well.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is not the negative measure the Opposition want to pretend it is. It has been stated by other speakers as well that this is a further implementation of the policy for which a mandate has time and again been obtained by the Government from the voting public of South Africa.

When?

I shall tell the hon. member for Transkei when. I cannot remember the precise date on which this took place, but the mandate was given during various general elections and again recently during the latest by-election. In that election —and hon. members are welcome to ask the new hon. member—a great deal was said about the policy of the Government. The mandate was recently reaffirmed in Pretoria (West). At that election members of opposition parties made all kinds of misrepresentations in respect of the National Party’s policy, but the Government received its mandate once again, and it has to carry out this task.

I would just like to furnish the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Opposition with a reply in regard to what they have said about contact now being broken. They have reproached this side of the House with having no feeling for the non-White groups. As an Afrikaans-speaking South African, and as someone who belongs to the Afrikaans church, I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton the following question. I should like to ask her to inform me and the country what church has done more, through their contact with non-Whites, for the upliftment of non-Whites than the Afrikaans churches? The English Christian churches have also contributed their share. Since derogatory remarks are now being made in regard to these people on this side of the House who belong to those churches which are to-day working for the upliftment, for the welfare, for many other privileges which the non-Whites are enjoying, then I want to ask, before the accusation is leveled against this side of the House that we have no feeling for these people of other colour groups, that thought should be given to the history of South Africa. I see the hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head. I ask her to examine her own conscience and to ask herself: “I who have such a lot to say about the Coloureds, how much am I and my people doing personally for the social and other upliftment of the non-Whites?” I am not only talking about the individuals, the learned people, the top layer. In the general sense, what are they doing for the upliftment of the non-Whites? I am not only talking about holding political meetings where non-Whites are told how they are being wronged. I am talking about the duty to lead them along the road to independence, and teaching them that only along the road of obedience to a government, and of pride in what is their own, and development of what is their own, will they be able to have a far greater share in this South Africa and its future, and that it is in that way that they will be able to obtain a share with the government, in the best interests of Whites and non-Whites, for themselves. Before hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Houghton, form judgments in regard to the motives of other people, it would be a good thing if they examined their own consciences and their own motives.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the hon. member for Witbank this afternoon a remarkable speech in many respects. First of all it was remarkable in that he spoke for 25 minutes and of that time he spent one quarter of an hour—I timed him—telling this House what he thought about the Progressive Party, none of which had anything to do with this Bill, except that he quoted from the Commission’s Report. It was also … [Interjections.]

Another Progressive.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with these hon. members who are accusing me now, or who are suggesting that because I made this statement I am “another Progressive”. This is typical of these hon. members. They will sit there and listen to vicious attacks on an hon. member who has already spoken …

It was not a vicious attack.

… and they do not have the courage to realize and to accept that the hon. member for Witbank went much further than was reasonably justified. One can only describe his speech as a vicious attack, an attack which, in many respects, was quite scandalous.

Order! The hon. member is going much too far. He must withdraw the word “scandalous”.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am allowed to say that the hon. member has made a scandalous attack on another hon. member.

Order! No, the hon. member is going too far now.

I will also say this of the hon. member for Witbank …

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am …

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word then. But I will say this about the hon. member for Witbank, and I did not want to say it. For a former dominee I think his attitude in the House this afternoon is, I cannot say “scandalous”, but I will say it is certainly reprehensible and it is certainly quite uncharitable.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.