Mr. Speaker, two days have elapsed since the first part of the debate on this Bill. We have probably reached the halfway stage in this debate and I believe it is an appropriate point at which to reassess some of the things which have been said in this debate. I want to begin by drawing attention to two misrepresentations of the effects of this Bill which have come from speakers on the Government side. Firstly, all Nationalist members who have spoken in this debate, from the Minister downwards, have spoken as if this Bill affects the Coloured group only. They have based their arguments, to justify this Bill, on what has or has not happened to the Coloured group in the past or what should or should not happen to the Coloured group in the future. This is a serious misrepresentation. The Bill, if it is passed by this House, will affect every non-white group in this country. I propose to deal with that aspect more fully, but I wish firstly to mention the second misrepresentation before doing so.

The second misrepresentation emanated from the hon. member for Parow, who was of course the Government’s leading speaker on this Bill after the Minister. The hon. member for Parow stated that this was a fairly straightforward little Bill which simply dealt with political activity in connection with election campaigns. Sir, this Bill has far-reaching implications which go much beyond pure electioneering. In fact, if this Bill becomes law I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that it would be a sad day for South Africa, because on that day this Nationalist Government will be withdrawing after over 300 years the influence, the leadership and the guidance of the white man over the non-white groups in this country, and I will explain why I say this. But let me point out first that we, the Whites, have for over 300 years in this country provided leadership, guidance and influence to the non-white groups in every sphere—and I want to emphasize this—in the economic sphere, in the cultural sphere, in the spiritual sphere, and particularly in the political sphere. This, of course, does not imply any domination. The non-white groups have throughout this period had the opportunity of developing in these particular spheres in the particular ways in which they have wished to do so, subject of course to the various restrictions imposed by the Nationalist Government. But in the main, for over 300 years we, the Whites, have provided this leadership, influence and guidance, and I emphasize particularly in the political sphere, which is perhaps the most and certainly one of the most important of the spheres I have mentioned.

After this long period the Government now proposes to withdraw this influence, and it is important that the people of South Africa, “die volk daarbuite”, which this Government is so fond of referring to in the debates, should realize the way in which the policy of separate development of the Government is beginning to develop, because this Bill emphasizes a fundamental difference in outlook and in principle and, I might add, in policy, between the Nationalist Government and ourselves.

The hon. member for Parow, and I think also the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Witbank and several other speakers on the Nationalist side have all emphasized that this Bill is necessary in order to carry out the policy of separate development. They have emphasized that this is one of the main objects of this legislation, and in view of this it is necessary for the people of South Africa to study what in fact is happening under this Bill under the name of the development of the policy of separate development of the Government. It is necessary for the people to realize that under the present Prime Minister it seems to be becoming increasingly clear that the development of this policy is necessarily having the implication of the withdrawal of the influence of the white man over the non-white groups more and more. In other words, they are being told: “These are your areas, you get on, you do what you like there, and we do not care what you do in these areas.” In fact, I think the Prime Minister said that in relation to the Transkei. A representative of a very extensively read overseas magazine interviewed the Prime Minister and asked him if he was not afraid of the possibility of communist influence in these areas, and, according to this article, the Prime Minister said that what happens in their own areas is a matter for them and is not the concern of the South African Government. This Bill which is before the House is in line with that thinking, and I suggest that this is not only an undesirable development which is now taking place, but a very dangerous development.

In view of the fact that some speakers on the Nationalist side have suggested that this Bill has only to do with political activity during election campaigns, I should like to refer to some of its clauses.

Who said that?

Who said that? The hon. member for Parow said that.

Show us that in Hansard.

It was pointed out by my hon. Leader that under clause 2 (b) and possibly clause 2 (c) it would not be possible for the United Party to put into effect its policy of having the non-white groups of South Africa represented in this House through Whites, in the case of the Bantu and of the Indians. It was conceded by the hon. member for Omaruru that this is indeed the case. Well, now, this in itself shows one of the serious implications, the far-reaching implications, of this legislation, but it is not the complete story. This goes even further. If you will look at clause 2 (c), Sir, you will see it is in two parts.

The second part which is contained in line 13 and the following lines relates to the candidature of a person which naturally means candidature in connection with an election campaign. I can see that part of the clause is related to elections. But the first part has nothing to do with election campaigns. It is not confined to elections. It is a general clause which prohibits the addressing of meetings, gatherings or assemblies of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to another population group for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party. It has been suggested by some of the members on the other side that because of these words “for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party”, this clause is somewhat confined. But let us test this. In fact, it has already been tested but we are still waiting for a satisfactory answer to that question. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put this very pertinent question to the Government. When this Bill is passed, will or will not the United Party be able to address gatherings of non-white groups for the purpose of explaining the dangers of Nationalist Party policy and why we believe that the implementation of those policies is not in the interests of either the white population group or the non-white population group in certain respects and for the purpose of explaining our own policies in answer to those that we may wish to criticize? I would suggest that surely there is not one hon. member on the other side of the House who will deny that it is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable right under a democratic form of Government for the Official Opposition to put its policies to the various groups which happen to inhabit South Africa. They must surely concede that that is a perfectly legitimate democratic right. They must also concede that it is a perfectly reasonable and democratic right to explain to the various non-white groups in South Africa why we believe that certain of the Nationalist Party policies are a danger to the country and to the respective non-white groups. It is therefore very important indeed that we should have a very clear answer to this question. Will this, or will it not, be permitted once this Bill is passed? We suggest that it is so widely worded that this could be prevented. If that is the case then we have further clear proof of the extremely far-reaching implications of this legislation. I would emphasize that we do not wish to have to go cap in hand to some Minister to ask permission to do this. We claim that this is a right which we have and that we should be able to exercise responsibly that right without having to obtain permission from some Minister or Government Department.

Now let us examine the reasons which have been given us for introducing this far-reaching legislation. It amounts to this only, namely that there have been malpractices in certain elections, particularly in the Coloured elections for the Cape Provincial Council. We have heard a lot in this House from various Nationalist Party speakers about the extent of these malpractices. But one of the things we have not been given is some concrete proof that this is so extensive that it cannot be controlled under the Electoral Act as it reads at the moment. That is not so. The kind of malpractices which have been referred to in this House and which were raised before the commission of enquiry, were malpractices which could be described as bribery relating to the registration of voters. That was the main complaint. It is interesting to note that that complaint will not be controlled by this Bill. Not one of the sections in this Bill relate to registration of voters, so that it will not control that malpractice. That malpractice I would point out, if it is rife, as some of the hon. members have suggested, can easily continue whether there is so-called interference by other population groups or not. But this is not really the main point that I wish to make in relation to these malpractices.

The point that I wish to make is this. The electoral officer gave evidence before the commission and he did not suggest that malpractices were so bad that they could not be controlled under the legislation as it exists. But I go further. If in fact it is difficult to be able to find the evidence which will enable a conviction in the courts, there is a simple solution. The electoral law can be amended to tighten it up so that it will be possible to charge and convict those who are responsible.

Your own leader was worried about improper interference.

Yes. I now come to this very interesting point. We have heard something else during the course of this debate. We have been told that another reason to justify this Bill, is that there has been improper interference by the white group in the elections of the Coloureds. Let us look at this. First of all, not one example of improper interference has been mentioned. The nearest that the Nationalists have come to giving us any cases, has been to quote cases of malpractices. That is all. There has not been one example of improper interference.

What did your Leader say about it?

Now just you wait a minute. I shall explain that. I am coming to that.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Prinshof would just stop interjecting for five minutes, I will come to his very point. I am leading to that. The first point I make in this regard, is that no evidence has been given of any improper interference, nor has it been explained to the House what the Government would regard as interference, let alone improper interference.

Why did they not do anything about it when it happened?

Yes, exactly. It has been pointed out that they had it in their power, if there was improper interference that they knew about, to lay charges.

The hon. member for Prinshof, certainly, and I think the hon. members for Parow, Witbank and others have said that my hon. Leader admitted that there was improper interference, and that is why he agreed to a commission of enquiry. This is quite wrong. It has been emphasized by the Leader of the Opposition on several occasions that this is wrong. The reason why he agreed to refer this matter to a commission of enquiry was that he conceded that there were malpractices in so far as the electoral roll was concerned. This was the reason, and this has been emphasized by … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof is continually interjecting …

Order! That is improper interference!

He has asked me to deal with this point and now when I do it he is keeping up a running commentary. However, this is the point I wanted to emphasize, because several hon. members on the other side of the House suggested that we on this side had admitted that there was improper interference. At no stage did we do such a thing. I should like to know from hon. members opposite what improper interference— apart from these malpractices in regard to registrations—has been taking place, and they claim it has. I should also like to know from them why that cannot be dealt with under the Electoral Act. And please let them tell us what they mean by “improper interference” and by “proper interference”. In this connection let me say, that we had a most curious speech from the hon. member for Omaruru. You, Sir, are aware of what he said. He said there had all along been interference in the political affairs of the Coloureds on account of the fact that they had all along been represented by Whites. In other words, the fact that they, have been represented by Whites, and that in terms of legislation introduced by the other side of the House and passed by this Parliament, constitutes interference. Well, if that is what they regard as “improper interference”, it is all the more reason why we should clearly what they mean by “interference”. In our opinion this cannot possibly! constitute interference, improper or otherwise. The hon. member for Omaruru described this as “proper interference”. So, let us hear from the Nationalists what their definition of “improper interference” is, because if they are trying to justify this legislation on the grounds of what they regard as “improper interference”, surely they must tell us what that “improper interference” is.

Mr. Speaker, we have had other curious things happening in this debate. But we are getting used to that. During the present session of Parliament particularly we are getting used to the situation where the Nationalist Government says what it does not mean and then again means something else than what it says. Let us have a look at this Bill. They say this Bill is to deal with interference. With that I have already dealt. I have said, as other hon. members have said, that there is nowhere a definition of “interference”. But there is something even more curious—not only is there no definition of “interference”, but nowhere in the text of the Bill is the word “interference” mentioned. The word appears only in the long and short titles. I am sure the hon. member for Prinshof will be the first to concede that the long and short titles of a bill do not constitute the Act. It is the clauses which constitute the Act. But if one looks at the clauses of the Bill, from clause 1 to clause 4, you will find the word “interference” nowhere. But there are certain other curious things. It has already been pointed out that there are no definitions of certain important words either —for instance, what is meant by a “political party”, by “an agent”, by “improper interference”? We have been told that it is not necessary to define these things. We have been told by the hon. member for Omaruru and I think also by the hon. member for Witbank that everybody knows what these things mean. But if that is the reason for not including things in an Act of Parliament then it is surprising to find definitions at all in any Act of Parliament.

How otherwise would they know what a Coloured man is?

There is a definition in this Bill of the various population groups. Well, if we have to draw an analogy between the argument in favour of the absence of a definition of, for instance, “improper interference”, and this then one might as well say that everybody in this country knows what is meant by the “Bantu group”, by the “Coloured group’, etc. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad Bill indeed. I want to conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning— that if this Bill is passed it will be a sad day for South Africa because the effect of it will not be that suggested by hon. members on the other side of the House. In truth, the effect is—whether they like to concede it or not—the withdrawal after more than 300 years of the influence, the guidance and the leadership of the white man over the non-white groups in this country.

The hon. member for Musgrave suggested that this side of the House had been guilty of a misrepresentation in that, strictly speaking, mention had only been made of the Coloured people. He went on to ask why the Bantu had not been mentioned as well. But surely the Bantu have made much more progress with their own political institutions along the road of separate development. For this reason we are already further removed from the Bantu and from interference in their politics than in the case of the Coloured people. But it strikes one that the hon. member went on from there and himself dealt exclusively with the Coloured people. He furthermore suggested that the non-white community was now going to be deprived of White influence and leadership after 300 years. But this is not true. That influence will continue to operate. At the same time however, we should allow the non-Whites to exercise their own influence to an increasing extent and to decide for themselves to what extent they still want to be led. In addition the hon. member complained that the Government were now making it impossible for the United Party to implement their policy. He asked, for example, whether the United Party would be allowed under this legislation to address non-Whites on the dangers it sees in the policy of the Government. I presume the hon. member also wants an opportunity of informing the non-Whites about the good things done by this Government for the non-white race groups. But the non-white race groups are being emancipated—to a much larger extent than was the case in the past. As they make further progress along this road, they may decide for themselves what is good for them and what is bad. It is not necessary for the United Party to tell them this. They are most certainly no longer tied to apron-strings to-day to the same extent that they were during the past 300 years. We have made progress and we have made a very great deal of progress.

However, I want to return to an argument used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and several members on the Opposition side, namely that this legislation will make it impossible for the United Party to implement its policy. They said that this was an undemocratic measure, and in The Cape Times newspaper commentators wrote that it was a totalitarian measure. Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. All the United Party need do is to convince the white electorate of the wisdom and the desirability of their policy, and then they will be able, if they get into power, to pass all the measures required to implement their policy. As a matter of fact, it is not necessary for them to convince the non-Whites of the wisdom of their policy. They need do much less; they need only convince the white electorate. But what is happening? In the by-election at Worcester the United Party never propagated its policy, not even to the white electorate. In fact, they kept quiet about their candidate being a member of the United Party, and now in Swellendam we are finding this to a superlative degree. I have the privilege of going to address a meeting there to-night and I am looking forward to it. But do you know, Mr. Sneaker, that inquiries clearly show that the United Party speakers are not even putting their policy to the white electorate in Swellendam, and if they do not have the courage to put it to the white electorate, why do they still want to put it to the non-Whites? The fact of the matter is simply that the Whites have tired long ago of their policy and that the non-Whites have also begun to tire of their policy, but that the United Party have not noticed it yet; they do not realize yet that it is not necessary to put their policy to the non-Whites. But, Mr. Speaker, surely all the mass media remain; there is the Press, for example. The non-Whites are developing; almost all of them are literate to-day. All the mass media remain at the disposal of the Opposition; there are the newspapers. They may state the bad aspects of Government policy—if there are bad aspects; I have never been aware of any —and the good aspects of Government policy and all the non-Whites may read it. The object of this Bill is evident from the clauses, and there is no need to quibble over legal niceties here, as the hon. member for Musgrave did, and to ask what a political party is. He knows what a political party is and the courts will know this even better than he does. The object is crystal clear from all the clauses. What is involved here is, that there must be no party-political interference by one race group in the political activities of another race group. This is the single, clear object that clearly shines forth from this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side are shying away from what is happening in the U.S.A. I should like to bring it to their attention again. It has often been said in the past that the Coloured people is a population group which occupies about the same position in our society as the Negroes in the U.S.A. I do not agree with that statement, but I leave it at that for the moment. The fact of the matter is that there is total integration of the Negro into white American society in the political sphere to-day. There is maximum reciprocal interference in each other’s political activities to-day. No one will deny this. It has, in fact, gone so far that the Presidents of the U.S.A., particularly since the late President Kennedy, have had to woo the Negro vote on a large scale in order to get into power, and anybody who fails to appreciate this hard fact in the American political society, does not understand what it is all about in American politics to-day. What we in South Africa, and I think people in large parts of the world, cannot understand, is this: Just about at the time when every integration measure had been placed on the Statute Book in the U.S.A., when the integration heaven had to descend upon the U.S.A., what happened then? It was everything but a heaven; it was one “long, hot summer of discontent” after another. And what is the position to-day? After the death of Martin Luther King, we read a striking report on the front page of one of our daily newspapers this morning to the effect that 37 people have been killed, that 110 cities have suffered racial violence, that 4,000 people have been injured, that 16,000 have been arrested and that damage to an amount of 27 million dollars has been caused. And this in a community where there is total integration and maximum interference by one race group in the politics of another race group.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is not here to-day, but many kindred spirits of hers are. What is the position? The hon. member told us not to judge the events occurring in the U.S.A. too harshly. She said it was only a transitional stage. Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this and nobody will accept it. How do the hon. member for Houghton and her associates explain the rise of the Black Power movement in the U.S.A. which is demanding five states for the Negroes? This is not a transitional stage; it is seeking a new solution for an old problem on quite a different basis. I should like to hear how the hon. member for Houghton and her liberal associates in the United Party as well explain this phenomenon. I want to make it very clear that we on this side are not rejoicing at what is happening in the U.S.A., but we and the rest of South Africa would be foolish not to learn the lessons to be learnt from this state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it appeared time and again from this debate, and also from the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave, that they take the view that South Africa is “a nation of 18 to 19 million people”. The Cape Times speaks of a “nation of 20 million” these days. They say that there are in fact cultural and racial differences, but they emphasize the “fact” that we, as they put it, are “a nation of 20 million people”. We on this side of the House reject that view completely. We say that South Africa is a multi-racial country. There are various races living in South Africa; it is also a multi-national country and we cause the accent to fall on nationhood for the various nations and national groups. This is our point of departure, and it is therefore absolutely essential that one should act accordingly when dealing with political institutions and political life. If we want our various nations and national groups to develop separately, then they must also be separated politically. Total separation is out of the question for the time being. In a country where we are still living among one another, where we come into contact with one another, where we try to influence each other reciprocally in a fruitful way, total separation is out of the question for the moment, and what is of primary importance is that individual political institutions will only be able to develop to the extent to which each nation or national group is allowed to develop them itself and to seek its own political salvation in its own group.

If one looks a bit further north in Africa, what does one find? We see independent Black nations in Africa, and they are unfortunately not allowed to develop their own political institutions as they would like to do it. They are being harassed; there is unprecedented interference in their affairs, not only by communist countries, but also by Western European countries and America. Their political life and their economic and other activities are being interfered with. In this connection it is in the interests of our foreign relationships that we demonstrate to the rest of Africa that we are going to apply the principle of non-interference in one another’s political life, also in respect of our own nations and national groups, in Africa, and to that end the Bill now before the House is a brilliant measure.

Are the Coloured people South Africans or not?

Yes, they live in South Africa; they are South African citizens.

Are you so stupid as not to know that?

The United Party, through its Leader and several other speakers, also said that this legislation was incompatible with white leadership. Sir, this is totally untrue. It is only incompatible with the type of white leadership that hon. members on the other side want to give the non-Whites in South Africa. It is not incompatible with the type of white leadership that comes from our side. This is in fact evident from the history of that side. Their concept of white leadership in the political sphere used to be that the most well-to-do and best-educated non-Whites were to be skimmed off the top and placed on a common voters’ roll; then you enlist their support and in doing so you tell the non-Whites how bad the other Whites are and that they should not vote for them, and you impute various evil motives to the other Whites with their good intentions towards the non-white national groups in South Africa. Then many of the non-Whites vote for you and you have exercised white leadership. If, in spite of that, you do not fare very well at elections, you set up night-schools and once again exercise white leadership in the political sphere. This is the kind of thing which this Bill wants to stop. When that dispensation had passed, a new dispensation arrived. Hon.-members on the other side are now stating that it is necessary for the various non-white national groups to be represented by Whites in this Parliament. In respect of the Coloured people they make an exception, and in respect of the Bantu the hon. member for Yeoville made a striking exception overseas, and the possibility is not excluded that the Indians may also be represented in this Parliament by Indians. That all this is to be done in a completely undemocratic way with no reference whatsoever to the size of the various national groups, is of course not very important to hon. members on the other side. No, that state of affairs, that picture presented to South Africa by hon. members on the other side, that integrated political world where they want to take us presently, we on this side totally reject, because this evil practice, which has been confined mainly to the Western Cape up to now, will be extended to the whole of South Africa under their dispensation. Then large-scale malpractices will no longer be committed in respect of the Coloured people alone, but will be extended to all the race groups throughout South Africa, and how much damage will not be done then? Who is to say that a second U.S.A. might not possibly be created in South Africa by that? No, people who do not appreciate the fact that cultural differences, differences in descent, background, ideals, the preservation of what is good and noble in the life of every nation, all the so-called spiritual possessions, play a decisive role in the politics of every nation, are not only naïve, they are stupid, because it is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of God. And in a country such as South Africa, with its own particular problem, this legislation is an absolute prerequisite for peace among our various races, nations and national groups.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has urged this House time and again not to deal with each of the Bills which the Government has introduced in regard to our Coloured people in isolation. He has maintained that the Bills should be considered as a comprehensive whole, as a Government blueprint of the plans the Government has in mind for our Coloured citizens. Now, this afternoon I propose to take the hon. the Minister’s advice, and I propose examining this Bill as part of the pattern of the blueprint which the Government has in mind for the future development of our Coloured people and their political rights.

Having done that, and having examined this measure in the light of what has already been accomplished by the Government in relation to our Coloured people, I have come unhesitatingly to the conclusion that there is really no necessity for this Bill. I repeat that if this Bill is not viewed in isolation, as some of the previous speakers have done, but is examined in conjunction with the other measures which have already been introduced by the Government, as the Minister has urged us to do, then I say that this Bill is wholly unnecessary, and I hope to show the Minister why I have come to that conclusion.

Let us for a moment pause to examine what the Government’s intentions are in regard to the Coloured people and what they have already accomplished in that regard. In the first instance the Government has introduced legislation abolishing all Coloured representation in Parliament from the date of the dissolution of this House of Assembly. It has, in addition, prohibited the filling of any vacancy in the present Coloured representation in this House. In other words, the Government has effectively closed the door to any future election by the Coloured people of any white persons, or indeed, of any person to represent them in Parliament or in the Provincial Council. That door has already been effectively closed by legislation which the Government has already introduced, some of which has already been passed by this House. The Government has thus succeeded in effectively separating the Coloured people politically from the white people of this country. No further mixed elections, in the sense of Coloureds electing Whites to represent them in this Parliament, can now take place. They will certainly not take place after 1971, when by effluxion of time the life of this Parliament ends, and they certainly will not take place, in view of the decision of the Government in regard to any casual filling of vacancies. So, to all intents and purposes, the door has been closed to any future elections by the Coloured people of white representatives either here or in the Provincial Council. In the light of what has already been accomplished, one really asks oneself what is the necessity for proceeding with a Bill of this nature which seeks to prohibit one population group interfering with the politics of another group. As I say, the Whites are already separated from the Coloureds in the sense that there are no joint elections and they cannot be elected by the Coloureds in future.

I want to say immediately that I could understand the Government proceeding with this Bill if there were still to be elections in South Africa amongst the Coloureds for their representation by Whites, or Coloureds, if you like, to Parliament or to the Provincial Council, but even then I suggest that basically it is wrong for the Coloured people not to have the utmost freedom in their discussions and their selection of the representatives of their own choice. But there might at least have been something to be said for the Government introducing a Bill of this nature if these elections were still to take place. But these elections are no longer going to take place. In the light of the abolition of the future representation of Coloureds in Parliament and in the Provincial Council, I am at a loss to understand the necessity for this Bill. I think it is wholly unnecessary.

What about the Coloured Council elections?

I shall come to the Coloured Council in a moment. What are you afraid of? That the Coloured Council may elect people who do not support the Government’s policy? What are you afraid of? Why should they not have the benefit of advice? [Interjections.] Do not put a stranglehold on them. Let them have a free choice. If they want to get advice, why should they not have the opportunity of getting that advice? This shows the extent to which the Government is going. I have already pointed out that in regard to representation in this House and the Provincial Council, there can be no interference because there will be no more elections. But my hon. friend over there, who seems to take an extraordinary interest in this matter, is now afraid of interference in the Coloured Council. I say he can well afford to allow the Coloured people to take care of themselves in regard to their Council. Just as much as they do not want interference from members of the Nationalist Party, so they will not want interference from anybody else.

That is exactly what you want.

Order!

Sir, I am prepared to sit down and allow these hon. gentlemen to make a speech. I say the Coloureds can be left to take care of themselves. Why should they be prohibited from seeking the advice or the assistance of a political party whose members are of another population group? What harm can there be if genuinely the Coloureds wish to get the advice of a member of the Nationalist Party in regard to a political issue?

They can still get it.

The hon. member says they can still get it. They cannot still get it. The hon. member has not looked at the Bill. Clause 2 starts off with the words, “No person who belongs to one population group, may …”, and then sub-section (c)—

I ask, what harm can come of it if the Coloured people genuinely want to get the advice of a member of the Government party or the United Party or the Progressive Party, or an Independent for that matter? What harm can come of it? Why should they be denied the privilege of hearing the political views of a public person who happens to be a member of another population group and who may be a member of another political party?

There is nothing that stops them from doing that.

Will the hon. the Minister look at clause 2 (c)? Clause 2 starts off with the following words, namely, “No person who belongs to one population group, may …”, and then sub-section (c)—

You must stress the words, “For the purpose of …”

…“… or the candidature of any person who has been nominated …”

If he does not do it with that purpose then he can address them.

Assume I am invited to address a Coloured gathering. I have served and I claim that I have loyally served the Coloured people for many years, long before 1958, when I was nominated as their representative under the Separate Representation of Voters Act. I represented them in a constituency going back to 1945 when I came into Parliament, and prior to that, from 1930 onwards in a constituency where there was a tremendous number of Coloured people. I have established bursaries for them, I have given them scholarships which are still maintained on an equal basis to all the European scholarships and bursaries that I have established. Why then, if they ask me to come and address them on a matter which may be of political significance, or on an educational matter on the basis of the Government’s education policy, and I happen to be a member of the Progressive Party, am I prohibited from doing so?

No, you are not.

If the hon. the Minister gets the law advisers to look at his Bill he will see that I am not permitted to speak to that gathering for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party. I may even want to support the Government, but I cannot do that.

No, you cannot do that.

I may want to support the Opposition, but I cannot do that.

You cannot do that.

I may want to support a candidate, and I cannot do that.

You cannot do that, that is interference.

Suppose I wish to address a gathering to tell them that Mr. Tom Swartz is a worthy and excellent candidate; that he is an ardent supporter of the Government; that he wholeheartedly supports the Government policy of apartheid, and that I urge them to vote for Mr. Tom Swartz …

Then you are interfering with their political affairs.

Why should I not address them? If they invite me to address them and they believe I can give them the benefit of my advice and my experience, and I genuinely want them to support Mr. Tom Swartz, who is a supporter of the Government, why should I be precluded from doing so? Why should I be committing an offence—and that is what I am doing—if I urge them to vote for Mr. Tom Swartz?

Then you must not accept the invitation.

I say they should not be denied the privilege of hearing the political views of any public person who happens to be a member of the other population group and who happens to be a member of a political party. Is it right that they should be prohibited from receiving the advice and the guidance of any white political party or person if they wish to obtain that advice? If they ask for it, why should they be hamstrung and be denied the opportunity? Is it right that they should only be allowed to hear the political views of the Government of the day, because that is really what the hon. the Minister is saying. Through the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs they will only have the opportunity of hearing the Government point of view in that regard.

Surely the Government realizes that the future progress and the future prosperity of South Africa is dependent upon all sections of our multi-racial population playing their respective roles in the national life of our country. We are dependent upon all sections. These sections of the people comprise, as we know, the white members of our population, the Bantu, the Coloureds, and the South African Indians. Is it not fundamentally wrong for us to close the dialogue between all these sections of our South African nation? That is what this Bill is seeking to do. It closes the dialogue between every section, the different sections, of our South African nation. Does the Government not realize that for the future peace and progress of our country every section of our nation must make its contribution? Our industrial and economic progress depends upon the contribution that every section of our nation is prepared to make for the common good of our country. It is quite obvious that there will have to be extended by the white people of South Africa over the years to our non-white people every assistance, every encouragement, every guidance and help that we are able to give them so as to enable them to take their full place in the economic and industrial development of this country. This assistance and guidance and encouragement can only be given by responsible white leaders giving their honest opinions on important day to day issues which arise to their fellow-citizens, otherwise this country can never progress. It can only progress if the white leaders—and when I talk of white leaders I do not refer to the Government leaders only, but white leaders of all political shades in this country—give the benefit of their honest opinion to their fellow-citizens, the non-Europeans. The future prosperity of our country demands that we, the white people of South Africa, should give the non-white people the benefit of our advice and our guidance and our leadership in the public affairs of our country. I say that is the only way to racial peace in South Africa.

As I see it, this Bill in effect will prohibit any such action. It will prohibit all white political parties or indeed any member of any political party from addressing any meeting or gathering or assembly for the purpose of furthering a political party’s point of view or criticizing the Government, or doing anything of that nature. Because that will fall foul of the provisions of this Bill. As I see it, this Bill will prohibit white leaders from advising or influencing non-white people in regard to any political issue, or even from explaining any of those political issues. He will not even be allowed to explain any political issues. He will not have the opportunity of helping the Coloured people in their many difficulties which will confront them now when these new measures are passed. It must be remembered that the Bill does not provide a definition of “a political party” or “political affairs”. To my mind the provisions of the Bill are all-embracing and are wide enough to embrace all aspects of the economic, industrial, commercial, as well as the social and political life of our citizens. It is all-embracing. In effect, therefore, this Bill will prohibit what has been regarded as a traditional right in this country, a right which I suggest is fundamental to any democratic country, and that is the democratic right to allow all citizens to interchange their individual opinions and to become part of the body corporate. That democratic right envisages that all citizens should have a voice in the political affairs and the body politic of their country. They should have a voice in it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I know of no civilized country, other than communist countries, where this free dialogue between all sections of the population is denied them.

The proposal in this Bill is violent change from the democratic rights which our citizens have hitherto enjoyed. It is a change which I suggest will find abhorrence and opposition throughout the civilized world because it is contrary to every concept of democracy as we know it. It is contrary to every concept of democracy. I repeat that one of the strongest cements of democracy is that there should be freedom of discussion on all issues between all sections of the nation, rich or poor, and irrespective of colour, creed or religion. This right should not be lightly surrendered. A wise Government should look to it that this inherent and basic conviction should not be compulsorily surrendered. That is what the Government is doing in this Bill. They are forcing the citizens of this country to comply compulsorily with a new outlook which is entirely foreign to the old traditions of this country. I would remind the hon. the Minister and the Government generally that enforced discipline can never have the moral value of self-discipline. Leave it to the Coloured people to decide for themselves if they want advice or guidance or if they wish to hear the point of view of any particular party or individual. Leave it to them to decide this. Do not discipline them in this connection. That is what this Bill is seeking to do. I feel that the Government should pause and consider whether the benefits which are likely to result to our country from an interference of this nature in the basic rights of our people are sufficiently important to warrant the adverse criticism that we are bound to receive for attempting to break a universal and basic principle of democratic law. Any attempt to curtail the opportunities of our citizens and their political independence is undoubtedly likely to do more harm to our country than good.

I see this Bill in that light. It will produce a strong feeling of injustice. It will greatly lessen the respect and reverence of our citizens for our laws. Above all this is a law which cannot successfully be enforced. I suggest that it might impinge upon the national work of bodies which have been in existence for generations and which have been engaged in work concerning the welfare of our South African nation. It might affect the work of I these national bodies. The Muller Commission of which I happened to be a member actually gave the most careful consideration to the principles contained in the original Improper Interference Bill. We sat on this matter and argued it out almost ad nauseam. All of us unanimously came to the conclusion that the Bill in its form then should not be proceeded with. Why did we feel this way? We all felt that it was not a practical measure and that it would be almost impossible to give effect to the basic principles contained in that Bill. I see very little change between the basic principle of that Bill and the measure at present before this House.

Much time was taken by us in discussing amendments to that Bill but in every instance we felt that the suggested amendments were also impracticable. They were certainly not suitable for legislation. We felt that you cannot regiment our people on the lines that the Government is seeking to regiment them in terms of this Bill. To my mind this present Bill is likewise not suitable for legislation. The very basic principle envisaged in this Bill of prohibiting a member of one population group from taking part in the politics of another population group is repugnant to everything we have stood for in this country for generations. It is repugnant to every tradition we have known in this country. In South Africa it is essential for the progress of our country that there should be a continued dialogue between every section of our multiracial population. When one speaks of politics, I repeat that the term is wide enough to embrace practically every aspect of our lives in this country. The basic principle of this Bill is to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of another population group. What is politics? The term politics could be interpreted in the widest possible sense.

It could embrace every aspect of the good and common welfare of the South African community as a whole for which this Parliament legislates. It could include every social, economic and moral code for which Parliament legislates. That is how widely the term politics could be interpreted. It could include practically every problem involving every social and economic aspect of our daily lives. In all conscience I ask whether it is right that we should legislate to prohibit the right of free discussion and free dialogue between our different population groups in this country. If this Bill becomes law it would mean that not only the Whites could not converse with the Coloureds on any of these matters which affect the good and common welfare of our South African community, but it would also mean that the Coloureds could not converse with the Whites or the Indians nor could they converse with the Bantu. None of those sections of the community could on the other hand converse with us. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine anything more ridiculous than what is envisaged in this Bill? This attempt by the Government to separate politically every population group in this country into watertight compartments—and that only can be the result of this Bill—is so ridiculous that it can only bring ridicule and contumely upon our country.

We must remember that every group in South Africa is economically inter-dependent. At this point my remarks apply particularly to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Worcester, when he spoke about the different sections of the South African population. In South Africa every section of our people is economically interdependent upon the other. If that is so, and the Government has acknowledged this, then I ask how is it possible for us to relegate a section of the people to and keep them in a watertight compartment politically? How is that possible? It is something that I suggest is impractical and something which is going to cause a great deal of unnecessary disturbance in this country.

What happens if you pursue that logically to its end?

What are you afraid of? As I have already pointed out, the Government has passed laws prohibiting the Coloured people from sending representatives to the highest forum of the land. What therefore are we afraid of?

[Inaudible.]

But you can never stop the economic integration. It is something that simply cannot be stopped. It is something which exists and will exist for all times. [Interjections.] Every sensible man in this country whatever his political views realizes that every group in South Africa is economically interdependent. I, therefore, ask how it is possible to relegate them and keep them in watertight compartments. Surely for the common welfare of our country it is necessary that we should encourage free discussion on all matters between our different population groups. It is only by these means that the white people of South Africa will be able to give help, guidance and leadership to our non-white citizens. If the non-white citizens of this country wish to obtain advice from some of our white leaders, irrespective of the political party these white leaders belong to, they should have the free opportunity of obtaining that advice. Over the years we have had outstanding work done by many institutions in South Africa for the common good of our country. Time does not permit me to mention the names of these many institutions which have done such excellent work. These institutions are not party-political bodies. None the less it has been necessary for them in carrying out their good work to discuss and to take notice of and to criticize, if necessary, in many instances political issues, whether they came from that side of the House or this side of the House, in order to give the benefit of the best advice to the different racial groups in our country. There is a grave danger under this present Bill that these established institutions which have earned for themselves over the years outstanding distinction in our country, will no longer be able to function properly. Is it wise for us to hamper them, by this impracticable law, in the good work which they have done for generations for the common good of South Africa?

In view of what the Government has already done to emasculate the future political rights of our Coloured citizens which, after all, was the original intention of this Bill, is there any real necessity for the Government to proceed with this measure? I feel that this is a principle which cannot really be given effect to and that it is not suitable for legislation. I am therefore strongly of the opinion that this Bill should not find its way on to our Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the argument of the hon. member for Peninsula and it struck me that he began and ended with the same hypothesis, namely that he saw no necessity whatsoever for this Bill. He pointed out that an end is being made to the old dispensation of white representatives for the Coloured population in this Parliament. If one calls to mind the testimony which the hon. member has on occasion given here about persons in the Progressive Party going out of their way, and doing things which were quite scandalous, to canvass support amongst the Coloured population, it is surprising that he is so calmly pointing out to-day that there is no necessity to continue with this legislation.

That refers to the electoral laws and you know that.

The hon. member wants to imply by that that where in the future we shall have a new political dispensation for the Coloureds, in terms of which the Coloureds will have their own representative council and their own elections, they will be spared these kinds of activities and safeguarded from this kind of inundation and onslaught. It is impossible for us to say at present who it will be. The past has shown, also in the Transkeian elections, that there are always Whites who will try in all kinds of ways to sow discord and political unrest wherever such an election takes place in a underdeveloped population group. It happened in the Transkei. In the past we saw that it also became a very real question in the development of Coloured politics. We are thus convinced of the necessity of continuing with this legislation. It is clear from the argument of the hon. member for Peninsula that he views the future of South Africa and its various population groups along the lines of integration, economic and political integration.

Co-operation.

As far as that hon. member is concerned, it is definitely not only co-operation. As far as he is concerned, it is integration on all possible levels. Since we take a different view of this matter, and since we would rather see the development of a policy of separate development—a four-stream policy for our various population groups—it is essential therefore that we afford the various population groups an opportunity to develop their own political thought and to find their own orientation. It is very easy for us, as Whites, who have a political past and who have political experience, to say that we should allow them a “free choice” as the hon. member said. We read the various newspapers with the various divergent political views; we hear radio reports; and we listen to people who represent and put forward various viewpoints. However, we are capable of arriving at our own conclusions, making our own deductions, putting forward our own standpoints in opposition to that. However, where one has an underdeveloped population group—in our case an underdeveloped Bantu population group, Coloured population group or Indian population group—it is quite a different matter.

There it is no longer a free dialogue across the colour boundary. There it is no longer a free exchange of ideas. In practice it amounts to a political onslaught of the more developed and more capital powerful population group upon the lesser developed and poorer population group. This is the lesson history has taught us time and again. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that we must leave the way clear for free discussion and free exchange of opinion. In our country we see no future for the development of a sound political opinion amongst our underdeveloped population groups if we were to allow this so-called free exchange of opinion. The underdeveloped population group in South Africa actually has no message for the Whites and he has no desire to influence the Whites in any direction. But it is unfortunately the case that there are many white persons, and that there are from time to time white political parties whose ideal and whose aim it is to woo and rope in certain non-white groups, not for the purposes of non-white development or to achieve non-white objectives, but for their own objectives and political ideals. That is why the result of that type of activity always leads to unpleasantness, and creates a measure of political disorder and the corruption which usually goes hand in hand with that, as well as a measure of political unrest and tension.

In recent years, in recent decades, it was stated time and again that South Africa was sitting on a powder keg. The Opposition has asserted time and again that the policy which we are developing, is leading up to a tremendous explosion one day. If we take stock of the world situation to-day, we shall see that a country such as the U.S.A., as was rightly stated here, still has free exchange of opinion, that free transfer of people’s opinions and thoughts. If we look at America to-day, we must admit that it seems much more likely that the most powerful nation in the Western world to-day is sitting on a powder keg, because that free exchange of opinion, that free influencing of people, even on the highest level, has not really widened the political scope for that underdeveloped population group. It has not really led him along the road to self-realization, but rather along the road to frustration. Let hon. members who express these ideas here this afternoon, give us an intelligent explanation as to why that situation is prevailing in the United States of America to-day. Why did this nation with all its goodwill towards its Negro population as well, with everything they could make available, not succeed in creating peace and order in the United States?

But there is another side to the matter. Let us now discuss this matter with reference to South Africa. How is it possible that this policy, which has always been belittled, the prospects of which have always been presented as gloomy and dangerous, has resulted in our having this measure of peace and order and even good relations between the various population groups in South Africa to-day? We need attribute it to the achievements of one or other political party. But let us try to account for this fact for which, surely, we are all grateful. How is it possible that in a country such as South Africa, with a white minority, there is peace and order and even good relationships between the Bantu and Whites, and Bantu and Coloureds to-day? Will one of the hon. members on that side not get up and try to explain these two opposites to us? There must be an explanation somewhere.

We must surely be able to account for this fact in an intelligent manner. Therefore we say to them that there are other approaches to this matter which could possibly yield better results than the approach of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. We see in this Bill the evolution of separate development, in the political spheres of activity of the underdeveloped non-white population groups. We see in this Bill a proper adjustment of a political relationship which must contribute to creating order and peace in the political sphere as well. It thereby creates an opportunity for each specific population group to undertake its own political development. Why is one population group so eager to convey its opinions, its views and its ratiocination to another population group? That is why we must make provision for that. The past has taught us that it is not as innocent as the hon. member for Peninsula has stated it to be here, but that it can have extremely prejudicial results, and that it can even result in practices which are not only prejudicial but also disgraceful.

You make me laugh.

This Bill makes provision for the protection of the underdeveloped group against the political domination of the more developed group, the rich, the well-organized group, the group well provided with capital. Since the hon. member for Houghton finds this so amusing, I can tell her for her information that it is none other than her Party which demonstrated this practice and which demonstrated why restrictions should be imposed on the rights of political parties to intervene in one another’s affairs, because all underdeveloped population groups are defenceless on the political level against such practices. From the Commission’s report it becomes quite apparent that Coloured political leaders inform you that they are powerless when certain politicians or agents, representatives of certain political parties, move among them, because they can make one person a present of a shiny motor car and pay the travelling expenses of another; they can make people and material available to further their own interests. The Coloured leaders inform one that they are powerless against this kind of activity. They say to you: “We are poor; we do not have those means at our disposal.”

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the main reasons why one encounters this type of political activity and why there is this constant anxiety to convey one’s opinions in a so-called free exchange of ideas; this is one of the reasons why it should rather be restricted, it is not so much in the interests of the Whites. Our white population is quite capable of furnishing a reply to that free exchange of opinion and ideas of the United Party and the ideas of the Progressive Party. They have been furnished with that reply time and again and they know what it is. But they fasten onto the situation of the underdeveloped population groups—in this case the Coloured population group—and they carry these people along with them. Since we have now broadened the political sphere of the Coloured population group, since we have now extended the Coloured electorate from 30,000 or 40,000 to 700,000, one can imagine how these people will now use means of mass communication and their monetary power to carry the whole population along in a specific direction. Because these people can be influenced. They can be persuaded. They are inclined to listen to the opinions of these people. Therefore we adhere to the view that this free exchange of opinion is completely unnecessary, but, on the contrary, that we should keep an eye on it because it embodies so many results prejudicial to good race relationships in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue by indicating that the Coloured political leaders are requesting protection in this specific field. They are faced with the problem that their own people are slow in affording them recognition. It is often said amongst Coloureds: “I do not readily listen to him because he is also just another Coloured like myself.” This is one of the problems of the Coloured leader, to be acknowledged and respected and accepted by his own people, and we must help these people to develop leadership. We need not decide who the leaders are to be; the Coloured population itself will decide about that. But we should at least prepare the way for them by saying to the Coloured population, “The people who in future must guide you politically, are not the Government or any white political party; but your own people”. They can make enquiries; they read newspapers; they read about what is happening in this House. The Coloured leaders must be granted to the Coloured population as leaders who will lead their own people. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that it is our duty to protect those Coloured leaders, who must struggle for recognition by their own people, against forces which they find are too much for them. We have had a demonstration of what monetary power can entail and how effective it can be. Those people also have the problem of apathy amongst their own people. Their people are not yet politically conscious as the Whites are. They have difficulty in winning the interest and co-operation of their people. Through the years they have become so accustomed to the Whites doing things for them. Therefore we must in this respect, because of the apathy of many Coloureds, protect their own leaders and in time place them in a position to develop that leadership and to extend their influence. Another thing, these people are inexperienced as politicians; they are actually in a pioneering stage, and they acknowledge it in so many words. I should like to quote a few sentences from what Fortuin, a recognized Coloured leader, has said. He states—

And then he says—

The hon. member for Houghton and her supporters are all of them well-disposed white guardians of those people; we must accept it as being so. But this man expresses a thought and a desire they have to stop a while and take stock of the political world round them. They would like to find and adopt their own course. He states—

Then he says further on—

He refers here to the people who previously repeatedly interfered and evinced interest, never to return to them again.

Such as the hon. member for Karoo and others.

He says—

In this article Fortuin puts it clearly that they look forward to a little calm and peace entering Coloured politics; that they will have an opportunity to adopt their own course, to organize their own people, because there is a tremendous field lying fallow for them. If we call to mind the great extension to the Coloured voters’ roll as a result of legislation at present before the House, we see that tremendous possibilities lie ahead for these people, and we can imagine what chaos and disorder would result if white politicians with their organizations and their money were to enter this political field. [Quorum.] I say that we can imagine what chaos would result in circumstances where we are now opening a wider political field for the Coloureds and are extending the Coloured voters’ roll from 30,000 or 40,000 to 700,000, if these people who in the past showed so much interest in the voices of the Coloured population, should enter that sphere and if, with a view to the election of Coloureds to the representative council they begin to move heaven and earth to implant and have propagated some or other political viewpoint there; then such a representative council can only be a council which sows unrest instead of planning for progress for the Coloured population. In the last instance it is for us a question of sound personal relationships. We see it very clearly in this Bill; one of the essential objects of this Bill is the creation and the preservation of sound personal relationships. If we see what it is costing the United States to-day by way of arson, destruction of property, unrest, discord and violence, we cannot be thankful enough that a measure of peace and order has been created in our country. The policy of the National Party and the National Party Government has made a tremendous contribution to this. The Coloured population has developed a great deal in the social, economic and professional fields and we must guard against their being plunged into an era of political strife fanned by white interest groups which in the first place do not have the development and the progress of the Coloured population of South Africa in view, but who do envisage the inculcation of certain ideas. As it has always been throughout history, conflict has led to destruction; war has destroyed and devastated, but peace creates an opportunity to develop. We in South Africa must exert all our strength to create and promote peace, and it is along the road of peace that notable progress will be made not only by the Whites but also by our Coloured and Bantu populations.

I was astonished this afternoon to notice how little interest the Government side is showing in this debate. A few moments ago we had to call for a quorum. This legislation is the golden apple, the future for the Coloured people, and the hon. gentlemen who are responsible for the legislation cannot even find the time or the inclination to listen to what has to be said about this Bill.

The bulk of the arguments advanced by Government speakers has been based on the evidence and the statements of four people, of whom three, Swartz, Dollie and Fortum, are executive members of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs. But in every case they had to speak in their private capacity because they had no mandate of any kind at all from the Coloured community, nor from their Council, to put forward any suggestions or ideas affecting the Coloured people in regard to the Bills this House has been discussing during the past few days. Therefore one must look into the question and find out why the Union Council of Coloured Affairs does not support the legislation, or even the idea that this legislation should be introduced.

They support it. They do not want interference.

They do not support it. I have gone to considerable trouble to ascertain what the position is. This Council is being quoted and I think the time has come for us to look into the bona fides of the people who have been quoted by the Government and the reasons and the arguments they have advanced for this attitude and their actions towards the Coloured people.

The hon. member for Piketberg spoke about conditions in the U.S.A. It is not the first occasion on which the tragic events taking place in that country have been mentioned. I would just like to say that all hon. members must know that a tremendous amount of good has been done in the United States over many years, and that they are attempting something which this Government would never attempt. The result is that we find the Government side more or less happy about the tragic events taking place in the U.S.A.

We are not happy about that.

If the Government side is not happy about these events they would say so and we would not have the matter thrown across the floor when we are dealing with this section of our community which has done nothing throughout their long history to deserve the legislation being thrust upon them. They have not asked for it; they have not been consulted in any shape or form, and they are entirely the innocent parties in regard to the actions of the Government over many years. The hon. member for Piketberg says he would like to know why the Coloured community are so happy here. The reason is that they are law-abiding people. The Coloured people in this country have never been involved in serious strikes or lockouts or revolution. They have always been on the side of law and order throughout the history of this country and in every aspect of their daily lives.

Several Government speakers have quoted from as far back as 1915 to show what they had in mind to do with the Coloured people. We had quotations from various congresses they held, in 1921 and in 1932, until we got to 1948, when we heard about the enforced agreement with the late Mr. Havenga. Up to that stage we had the Nationalist Party interfering quite regularly and steadily in all fields and on all fronts in regard to the Coloured people, having in mind this one ultimate objective, which was to get the Coloured community out of the way, because they realized that the Coloureds, being an intelligent and civilized group and a politically conscious group, were politically dangerous to them. Events over the years have shown that the Coloured people’s assessment was correct. They did not support the Government, do not support the Government, and will not support the Government. Elections have been fought on that score, and while we had the late Mr. Havenga in the Nationalist Party, the Government was kept in moral harness and could not do anything. So we had these assertions in regard to the future of the Coloured people in Parliament, and there was no mention at all of anything proper or improper. Then we had the position arising that the police were notified of certain irregularities in terms of the Electoral Act, and certain prosecutions followed. The innocent parties in all those cases were the voters themselves, but that has been grasped at by the Government as a reason once again to victimize these innocent people who only want to live with us in peace and harmony as they have always done, to do their jobs and to be loyal citizens of South Africa as they have always been. The other day we heard the disclosure of what I call the great deception which has been going on for years and culminated the other day when we had the statement which is at variance with the beliefs of everybody who knew the late Prime Minister in any way at all. Strangely enough, the Coloured community themselves do not accept any stories that Dr. Verwoerd was anything else but honourable and upright and a friend of theirs. No Coloured man whom I have met, and I have met many, will accept anything contrary to that belief. So one must only think that now that the man is dead it is easy to deal with the matter. Because you know, Sir, there is a method which is quite popular in certain countries. I recall the time when Josef Stalin built himself up into a figure of such high international and domestic repute that when he died his successor had difficulty in filling his shoes. We had the spectacle of those who had been around the late Stalin steadily talking him down. They went further and even did away with statues and pictures of him. I would hesitate to make comparisons with that particular nation, but when one looks at the proposition which has been put before this House in the form of these three Bills, which constitute the great deception, one must realize that the Nationalist Party has done exactly the same as was done in Russia. They have brought a man of tremendous stature into disrepute by dragging his name into a debate here and calling, as I said before, a dead man to witness. It is something which will take many a long day for the people concerned to live down.

The members of this Commission found that there were no grounds whatsoever for this type of legislation; there was nothing which could not have been handled in terms of the Electoral Laws and still could be, if anything of that kind happens. When the report was published I was very interested to see what the electoral officer had to say. He said that he had had no complaints. When one examines the Electoral Laws in terms of the so-called improper interference, one must realize that the case made out was a flimsy one, because action was taken, correctly, and the responsible persons were punished. It is the great weakness of this Bill, that we are seeking to deal with groups of persons as a political party when we should deal with individuals as individuals. If an individual breaks the law he must be prosecuted, and he is prosecuted. So, as I see it, I must join with those who oppose this Bill. It is not necessary and seeks only to do the impossible. It seeks to compartmentalize thought, suggesting that the Coloured person is a separate type of individual with a different attitude and a different political ambition. But that is not so. The Coloured people are the same as you and I, Sir. These people are capable; they are educated. Many of them are backward, but there are also many backward people among the Whites. As was said by the hon. member for Randfontein, we now want to unscramble the egg. That is like the man looking for the philosopher’s stone. Nobody can unscramble an egg. The hon. member for Randfontein can say that we are a multi-racial country for the time being, but he is now setting us on a road of which he does not know the ending. Not a single speaker opposite has given any indication of where this is going to end. They do not enlighten ns because they do not know themselves. The hon. the Minister seems to be listening with the back of his head.

That is just as well.

The hon. the Minister has been saying across the floor by way of interjection during the whole of this debate that this will not apply and that will not apply, but the Bill talks about a meeting or a gathering or an assembly of persons. The definitions of these things are quite clear in the statutes. I would like the hon. the Minister to know that a gathering, which is prohibited here, consists of three or more people, which means that a man like myself representing a political party and representing Coloured persons in that political party who think as that party does, is prohibited in terms of this Bill from talking to his own constituents. Sir, it is a fantastic state of affairs that an elected member of Parliament is not permitted by law to talk to his own constituents.

I want to give a few examples. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that a group of Coloured men decide that they would like to form a political party, and being energetic, they decide to put up candidates. So they, approach persons of the calibre of the hon. member for Peninsula and other knowledgeable men, and ask advice. This is illegal in terms of the law as it stands. It is no use the Minister saying that nothing will happen. One has only got to have one informer—and there are plenty of them about—for a charge to be laid, and if no charge is laid the matter may be pursued in other quarters. I should never like to place myself in the position where I depend upon the goodwill of an official of whatever capacity and where he will decide whether what I have done warrants a prosecution or not. This is an untenable position. No man of any consequence or worth his salt can accept that a provision like that in this legislation is a reasonable one. Say, for instance, a legal man has discussions with a group of, say, ten Coloured people with the object of writing a constitution for a political party they want to form. Well, if there is a person amongst those ten who is going to be the candidate for that political party that legal man will be breaking the law. We have had the position before that officials had taken part in the discussions in the Council for Coloured Affairs and have influenced the council to take a certain course of action.

That is proper interference.

Yes—the proper stuff, the real MacKay. Or a group of Coloured people may get together on the invitation of the Government. As a matter of fact, this happened in January in the Karoo where there was a get-together—the Coloured people call it a “saamtrek”. The Minister himself was present and made a speech, a good one. Three or four officials too made speeches putting forward the case for the Nationalist Party under the Group Areas Act, vis-à-vis the Coloured Investment Corporation and a multiplicity of other matters as well. Let it be said that these conversations were conducted on a high level. The discussions were sound and well reasoned. But let me put it to you that here there was a group of people of one race being addressed by members of another race, although in the case I have mentioned they did everything else but “saamtrek”. Yesterday I met an Indian whom I know well but whom I have not seen for a number of years. He wanted to know from me what was going on in Parliament. Could he come up and listen, he asked. I said to him I hoped he would find the time for that. Unfortunately he could not as he had to leave shortly afterwards. In any event, he wanted to know what was happening in Parliament with this Bill about improper interference. I explained if to him in this way— that if he should become a member of the proposed Indian Council and as such try to promote the interests of an Indian political party not with the Whites but with the other Coloured groups, he would be committing an offence. This Indian responded by saying, “But surely that is something which cannot happen in a civilized society?”. Well, I told him that that was happening—right now as a matter of fact. Such is the stupidity of this legislation. It is all good and well to talk in terms of a white political party influencing a group of Coloured people.

Can he speak Chinese?

I am leaving the Chinese out for the moment. He also asked me a question about them and I had to tell him that whatever he does he should not go and talk to a Chinese political organization, for instance about what is happening to them under the Group Areas Act. Were he to do that, he would find himself in serious trouble. So he asked, “But what is going to happen?”. I said, “Of course, I may be able to persuade the Attorney-General not to take any action against you. That is what you must expect”. He then said, “You know, this is ridiculous”, and I said, “Of course it is ridiculous; you and I know it is ridiculous but the Government does not, and that is the essential difference.” There are different standards.

Different cultures.

When we talk about culture, then we must think of the “Kleurlingnasie” which we have heard so much about and their place in this country. I want to say what I have said before. I want to repeat it because I think it is good. The Coloured man does not want to be a “nasie” of any kind except a South African. That is what he is. He is a South African. Nobody can gainsay it. It does not matter what the Nationalist Party calls him; he regards himself as a South African. When he applies for a passport, which he has great difficulty in getting, he writes down “South African” in the appropriate space.

Where you wrote “British subject” once.

Listen to these remarks. We are dealing with two million people who, in the opinion of this side of the House, are being deprived of certain rights which they have enjoyed for years, and they have never abused them. No Coloured man or person to my knowledge, which is quite extensive, has had any type of criticism of any kind whatsoever leveled at him or her or them, that they have not behaved in every way properly at all elections in which they had been involved. When it comes to behaviour at elections, the Nationalist Party could give a few correspondence courses. It is a wonderful way of raising funds and they would make plenty of money.

I now want to deal with this story of integration in the limited time left to me. I want to ask hon. members, also those in absentia— bad news travels fast the second time— whether the people walking about in Adderley Street to-day and who are preparing for the long week-end, are being integrated when they walk intermingled all over the place? Is that integration? Does the fact that 14 per cent of the army are Coloured men make it integrated? Is that integration? I think the time is coming, if it has not already come, that we should ask the Government to tell us in plain simple terms, what is integration? I think we should do that. We have heard a lot about it. [Interjections.] Politics is described in the dictionary as the art or the science of government.

What does the dictionary say, what is a “verkrampte Sap”?

I want to ask the hon. member for Parow whether he agrees with the hon. member for Randfontein, when he walks about town and is surrounded by Coloured people, that we can unscramble these people? Is he going to do that? If so, how will he do it? I think there is a fortune waiting for the one who can unscramble an egg. Anybody who can unscramble an egg I will give it to him with a concession. We have this sort of nonsensical talk from these intelligent men, because these men opposite are intelligent— well, some of them. [Interjections.] It reminds me of the story of the speaker at the political meeting who did not know how to deal with the very hostile audience.

He must have been a “Sap”.

No, it was a Nat., actually. This man wanted to tell them really what he thought of them. I cannot say that all hon. members on that side of the House are all stupid, because that would be unfair and un-parliamentary. But if I were to say—which is what I really mean—that all but one are stupid, they would be happy. [Interjections.] The great pity about all the hon. men opposite— and I know all these hon. gentlemen well …

[Inaudible.]

Never mind, you have made your speech. As I said, all but one. Here we find ourselves now in the year 1968, in the 20th century and in this modern world— but we are still without television, incidentally —and we are imposing upon a group of people in our country something which they did not ask for, which they do not want, and which, even at this late hour, I hope the Minister will be sensible enough to realize cannot work. We have other similar legislation on our Statute Book. I hope the Minister will listen to my plea when I tell him that from long experience I know this type of legislation simply cannot work. And that is genuine. I do not know who drafted the Bill. A commission of erudite gentlemen pondered the previous Bill which was put before them and they said it could not work. The whole lot of them said so; they were unanimous. Here we have another Bill which has already been shot full of holes. Indeed, any good politician, and there are plenty opposite, could drive a cart and horses through this Bill comfortably, quite easily.

I want to say further, before I sit down, that when this session is over I want to go back to my constituency and hold report-back meetings. I want to tell all these good fellows who support me—and God bless them for doing so—what has been going on. And it is not going to be complimentary to the Nationalist Party. I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will tell me that he will intercede in advance, in consultation with the Attorney-General and see that I get a pass or a blanket exemption permitting me to get up at political meetings which will be called by my committees all over the Karoo and address them on politics, on political methods promoting the interests of whatever political party they happen to belong to. Because there are three or four political parties which the Coloured people have already formed. They want to know what is going on. I want to ask the Minister to tell me in his reply whether I shall be granted an exemption and whether he will guarantee that no snooper at one of these meetings reports me to the Attorney-General and there will be heard the words which we have heard so often here, namely, “ ‘Die agb. lid vir Karoo,’ he is the chap who has been making a speech at Putsonderwater, or Omdraaisvlei, or Pofadder, or Brandvlei …”, anywhere you like. I might even grace the hon. member for Piketberg or “Picketberg” with a visit. I will go and see him and invite him to come to the meeting and “hou my dop”. Because that is what he has been doing for quite a long time. In conclusion I do say quite sincerely that this Bill will never—but never—work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of the hon. Opposition’s speeches on this Bill, and especially now that I have listened to the hon. member for Karoo, I am convinced that the United Party is feeling like a spinster whose chances of getting married are dwindling rapidly. Not only the Whites, but also the non-Whites, and particularly the Coloureds, are rejecting the United Party to an increasing extent. That is why the hon. member rose here this afternoon to woo the Coloured electorate, and I am sure that if he had the opportunity of standing for the Karoo constituency once again, he too would be rejected because the Progressive Party is better at wooing the electorate. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand the attitude adopted by the hon. Opposition. After all, when this Bill—the first Bill in regard to improper political interference—was referred to a commission of enquiry, their leader stated very clearly that he, too, was concerned about the malpractices occurring in Coloured elections. I want to refer you, Sir, to the English Hansard of 26th September, 1966, Col. 2865), when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

That enquiry was made. In the commission’s report there were no fewer than 14 bodies or persons that gave evidence to the effect that they were opposed to this improper political interference which had been taking place amongst the Coloureds over the years.

Why “improper interference”?

“Improper interference” is defined very clearly here in this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will be given an opportunity to make his own speech.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Karoo. We know the hon. member for Karoo as a person who is inclined to rise here and to present to this House facts that are wrong. This afternoon he got up here straight away and told us that the Council for Coloured Affairs had never lent any support to the envisaged legislation which is before this House to-day. Here I have a clipping taken from the December edition of The Banner of 1964.

Is that the same one?

Yes. Then the hon. member did not read it. He was afraid of reading that quotation. The heading of that article reads as follows—

This is followed by a second heading—

It was probably the hon. member for Houghton who had become so affectionate as regards the Coloureds’ votes. I should like to quote a few things from this clipping, because it reflects the official attitude of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs very clearly. I want to state here in this House this afternoon that I am much more prepared to listen to the opinions expressed by these Coloured leaders all over the country than I am to listen to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Karoo, because whatever he says here, and whatever he does, he as a white man can never reflect the feelings and aspirations of the Coloureds. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker…

Order! Hon. members may not read newspapers here.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a passage taken from a newspaper; I hope you will permit me to do so.

I am referring to other hon. members, not to the hon. member who is speaking.

The passage I want to quote reads as follows—

I emphasize, “in a motion”—

That is as long ago as 1964. It was proposed by Councillor H. J. Coverdale, and this is what he said—

I put it to the House: Whose request must we accept—that of the hon. member for Karoo or the one made by this Representative Council, as it spoke on behalf of the Coloureds at that stage and in its capacity as the only official mouthpiece of the Coloureds at that stage?

When was that?

It is a report of their meeting published in the December edition of The Banner in 1964.

Why did you wait for so long?

It has been going on for so long, and that is why it is high time this Government proceeded to taking active steps.

I want to quote another passage. Councillor Fischat said the following—

Order! If the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Houghton want to have a chat, they should not do so here. The hon. member may proceed.

—and more especially, members of the Council—

I shall go further, Sir. The chairman of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, Mr. Tom Swartz, came out against this in July, 1964, and according to a report published in The Banner, he said the following—

In this way I can go on reading out stacks of clippings to hon. members. I am merely doing so to prove how that hon. member has been trying here this afternoon to misrepresent the actual position. The hon. member also wanted to know from us this afternoon what integration is. If one only reads the memorandum he submitted to the Commission of Inquiry into the Bill, one finds that there is no better reply to the question of what integration is. In that memorandum he simply pleads holus-bolus for mixed representation in the Central Parliament. He is the arch-integrationist of this House. But if he does not know what integration is, we have the hon. member for Houghton sitting over there. Given the opportunity, she will perhaps be able to tell us what integration is. But they are like-minded persons, and I do not think he needs any guidance.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Musgrave said earlier on this afternoon. He spoke about the fact that the Whites would allegedly cease to provide the guidance and the leadership the Coloureds and other non-Whites in this country had been receiving from the Whites all these years. That is the very role played by the National Party in South Africa, namely that, with its policy of political segregation—that is the point here— as the non-White groups become ready for it, we want to enable them to develop their own leadership. We do not want the Whites to intercede for them all the time. They must learn how to build up their political machinery themselves and how to fight their elections themselves. I think our Coloured community in particular is strong enough and has enough background to conduct elections. I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Musgrave, namely that this Bill will, for instance, not permit the United Party to go to non-White groups and then to point out to them the dangers implied in the National Party’s policy. But, of course, we shall not permit that. The fight which is going on between the National Party and the United Party, is being conducted across the floor of a white Parliament because it has a bearing on white politics, and the politics of the non-Whites have no bearing on what is being debated here. The existing dispute between these two parties should not be settled on the platform in the presence of the non-Whites, but in this Parliament.

The hon. member also said that everybody had the right to exercise his responsibility and to put his case; it did not matter whether it was a white or a non-white group. With the United Party’s records of irresponsibility in the past in respect of the Coloureds, I think that they are the last people who should make such a request. Long ago already one of their prominent M.P.s, Mr. B. K. Long, who was the hon. member for Gardens as well as the editor of The Cape Times, said the following in his book “In Smuts’s Camp” which was published in 1945—

Is that not political interference?

Strong language, not so, Mr. Speaker?

We have already tried that, Mr. Speaker, but it was a failure—as a very result of this improper interference, at first on the part of the hon. Opposition and now again on the part of the Progressive Party. I want to quote something else to show how in the past Opposition parties, by virtue of their being permitted to interfere politically in the Coloured politics, misled the Coloureds and told them things which alienated them from the Whites. I quote from a pamphlet published by the Springbok Legion just after the war (translation)—

I mention this in the light of what we are dealing with at the moment, as regards the economic upliftment of the Coloureds. Is this not flagrant deception of our Coloured communities by means of this sort of political interference which has been permitted over the years? But I shall read further—

I wish this liar could have seen what is happening in Athlone and in Johannesburg and throughout our country as regards the housing with which we have provided the Coloureds.

They are sitting here.

Yes, it is quite possible that some of them belonged to the Springbok Legion. I do not know and for that reason I do not want to make accusations. [Interjections.] The pamphlet goes on to say—

Now you can see, Sir, how these people, these Whites, incited the Coloureds against the Whites of South Africa in a distasteful way just after, the war. That is the sort of process which has been at work over the past 20 years and which has caused the sands of time to run out and compelled this side of the House to decide that we should act now; that was why we had to introduce this legislation. We cannot permit this improper political interference to continue. This afternoon the hon. member for Musgrave asked for examples of improper political interference. I think there is no example more blatant than this pamphlet from which I have just quoted. The hon. member for Musgrave also said that only a few examples of malpractices had been mentioned in the course of the commission’s inquiry, and that they could be controlled in terms of the electoral laws. But, once again referring to what I quoted a moment ago, you know just as well as I do that it is impossible to cover and to control certain clever techniques by means of the electoral laws. One simply cannot succeed in court. The other day the hon. member for Parow pointed this out in his speech. This is just as it is in the case of the communist. One cannot fight against him with legislation alone. One also needs other measures. That is why it has become necessary for us to introduce a Bill which is specifically aimed at combating improper political interference. We on this side are not saying that this is legislation which we were keen to introduce, but this Government stands for the implementation of its policy of political segregation and we are determined to implement it. We shall not permit our apartheid policy to be undermined by people who are integrationists and who are not interested in racial peace in this country, by people who interfere politically and present our policy in a suspicious light to organizations seeking to further the interests of the non-Whites in South Africa.

The M.P.C. for the Coloureds of the Northern Cape, Mr. van Heerden, personally admitted in an article in the Sunday Times that he had driven about in the Northern Cape and as a candidate he saw that there was no organization amongst the Coloureds. He went to filling stations and there he made contact with the petrol-pump attendants. In this way he drew them into his political organization. Is that not political interference? He told us about the night-schools he had arranged for them in order to teach them to write so that they might be registered. He boasted about that in public. Can this Government permit that type of thing to continue?

He learned that from the Nats.

I think the hon. member for North Rand is the last person who should talk about this. They are the people who arranged night-schools here in the Cape Peninsula and handed out small cans of wine to induce the Coloureds to vote for them. After that they very smartly forgot about them.

Now I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Peninsula. This hon. member is not present now, but he said that there was no need for this legislation. If there has ever been any need for the introduction of a Bill, then it is in the light of the circumstances I have indicated in the course of my speech. He said that there would no longer be any elections after other legislation, which had been approved by this House, had been passed. However, later on he dealt with the Coloured Persons Representative Council, this new body we are establishing for the Coloureds to give them practice in the art of government and of conducting elections and of undertaking political administration. It is in fact with a view to that that we as the guardians of the Coloureds should guard against the possibility of people such as members of the Opposition and the Progressive Party suddenly beginning to interfere in that field, not because they can capture seats there, but because they want to undermine the Government’s policy and because they want to present this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in a ludicrous light to the outside world so that in due course there might perhaps be a hostile Coloured Council which would oppose the Government’s measures in every possible respect. It is for that reason that we need this legislation to afford the Coloureds the opportunity of developing their own technique and to conduct elections on their own, without the interference of Whites. The hon. member for Peninsula also said, “Leave it to the Coloureds.” That is exactly what we want to do. We want to leave political government, as it applies to Coloureds, to the Coloureds themselves. It is very important for us to do so without any interference from them.

Now I come to something which has struck me recently as regards the debates on Coloured affairs conducted here. We had much to say about the Coloureds and their future. Occasionally a few Coloured persons sat here in the galleries, but the situation here was actually an unrealistic one. We are debating their future, but they themselves are not here. Nor do they want to be here. They themselves want to debate their own political future in their own bodies. What would our attitude have been if we had been in the Coloureds’ position and they had been laying down the law here in this House in regard to the future of the Whites? We would have revolted against it. We would have said that we wanted our own political organs in which we ourselves could settle our future. As I have said earlier on, we must stop interfering with the non-white groups. Their aspirations, spiritual make-up and outlook on matters are different from ours. It is for that reason that this Bill is imperative. The National Party Government is an apartheid Government, and all that is happening here is that we now have a logical consequence of our policy of separate development. We are still implementing our policy of political segregation without there being any need for one group to interfere in the political practices or activities of another; each in his own domain, but good neighbours. The entire country knows that this legislation is the outcome of the continuous provocation and of the continued canvassing, exploitation and of the manoeuvring of white groups and parties amongst the non-Whites, where there is no need for them to interfere. Those people who wish to foil separate development and wish to promote integration to the highest level, must understand why this legislation is being carried through. Its purpose is to put a stop to this negative action we have had in the past years. For four years already the Government has been giving warnings that it would take action in regard to this matter, that it would prohibit improper interference by white parties in the political affairs of the non-Whites. The Opposition and the Progressive Party should not come forward now with complaints to the effect that we had not given them sufficient notice of our intention to introduce legislation seeking to eliminate this sort of thing. It allows the non-Whites to use their own discretion in taking decisions in regard to their own politics, something to which they have a right. If we want to implement our policy, a policy which is being accepted by the non-white groups, it is essential that they should take charge of their own politics in their own areas. As we are developing them in every sphere, socially and economically, so they should also be developed in the political sphere, and the time has now arrived for the non-Whites to learn how to look after their own party organization and election machinery in their own areas. By means of other legislation we are now going to give the Coloureds a political body, the Coloured Persons Representative Council, where the Coloureds themselves will be able to test whether it complies with their aspirations, without there being any need for white political parties to interfere and to confuse issues. It will be left to them to outline the course they will follow in future. I think we should afford the Coloureds and other non-white groups in the country the opportunity to test for themselves which course they want to follow. They must be given that moratorium. We have been confusing the issues for them for too long a time. At any rate, we should at least keep our noses out of their affairs for a long time, so that they themselves can decide “this is the course we want to follow”, or “this is not the course we want to follow”. It is for that reason that I say that this legislation has become imperative. A period of major political construction work lies ahead for the Coloureds and for the other non-white groups as well, and they must be left alone to do that construction work. For too long a time the Coloureds of our country have been the prey of white politicians who have been exploiting their vote for personal gain only. The reason why the Progressive Party started wooing the Coloured electorate all of a sudden, was simply because they, as we have said here before, are no longer able to enter this House on the back of the white electorate, because they are being rejected by the white electorate, and now they want to try to undermine and subvert from within the political institutions we are creating for the Coloureds. Their plan is, as I have indicated, very clear. The reason why they want to interfere in the elections that will take place in connection with the Coloured Persons Representative Council next year, is to bedevil matters as much as they can. The Progressives know that we would have taken steps against them. Many warnings have been issued to them—the late Dr. Verwoerd did so and several Cabinet Ministers on this side of the House have done so.

But before I resume my seat, I just want to investigate briefly the history of this sudden interest displayed by the Progressives in the election of Coloured Representatives to the House of Assembly. What was the position in connection with the previous election of Coloured Representatives to the House of Assembly? In 1961 neither the Progressive nor the United Party displayed any interest in this election, since at that stage the Coloureds were still on the common voters’ roll, and consequently the hon. member for Outeniqua and the hon. member for Peninsula were elected unopposed at the time. Whence this sudden change of front on the part of both the Progressive Party and the United Party?—in spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated last year, that he, too, felt that a stop should be put to this improper interference? However, now he has changed his mind and he, too, is fighting this Bill. The reason for this about-face, is that they—this does not apply to the hon. member for Houghton, since she was elected for reasons other than her policy and her Party’s policy— wanted to enter the House of Assembly on the backs of the Coloureds. They were keen to create for themselves a platform so that they might propagate their political doctrine further, and now we have this sudden intense interest on the part of the Progressive Party in the political destiny of the Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, I still want to touch upon a few other points in connection with other aspects of this legislation. It is of the utmost importance that a firm line should be taken in connection with interference by foreigners, be it by means of personal activities or by means of funds transferred here from countries abroad. We know the miserable history of some foreign clergymen, who, over the past few years, have been directing their attentions to our country and poking their noses into our political affairs and also into those of the non-Whites. We know now they stirred up feelings amongst the non-Whites; that it was the time of the Huddlestones, the Michael Scotts and the Ambrose Reeveses. With this legislation such activities are now being stamped out and eliminated completely. It would, for instance, amount to audacity on the part of any white South African, after the recent events in America where the racial cauldron is now boiling over, to interfere in the political affairs of the Negroes or to interfere in Britain where there are major race problems in connection with West Indians. I say that it would amount to audacity on the part of Whites in South Africa, irrespective of the political party to which they may belong, to go to Britain and to interfere there by means of statements in the Press, etc., and by means of expressing opinions on platforms as to how Britain should handle the situation in connection with the non-white immigrants. Those are domestic matters, and, in the same way, since we want to put a stop to improper interference by one race group in the political activities of another, this is also a domestic matter. Why should foreigners be permitted to interfere in our domestic affairs? Moreover, it has already happened that money has even been sent here from abroad by institutions such as Christian Action and the Anti-Apartheid Movement to incite our non-Whites politically against the Government. If such evil-doers are not dealt with firmly, I can well imagine what the position will be next year when the election of members to the Coloured Persons Representative Council will be held. The position would be a chaotic one, because attempts will be made, with large amounts of money being sent here from abroad, to influence the election of members to the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and this would only be prejudicial to sound cooperation amongst the various population groups. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Turffontein began his speech by saying that he simply could not understand the Opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, how must we understand that hon. member? He is a man who felt so strongly about the cause of the Coloureds a few years ago that he wrote a book in which he said that it was logical, right and necessary for the Coloureds, to be represented in this Parliament by their own people. He went further and said that the time had to come that Coloureds sat in the South African Cabinet. I am not going to spend any time quoting what he wrote; that book is here in the library. Surely a man must feel very strongly about a matter if he writes a book on it, but now the hon. member, of all people, comes along and talks about the irresponsible record of the United Party. I regret to say this, but we must assume that he could not have believed what he said here to-day. For example, he read a large number of quotations from Die Banier to us to create the impression that the Coloured Council supports this legislation. This is not true, Sir. On two occasions the Coloured Council officially decided that it wanted the Coloureds to be represented by Coloureds in this House, because it believed the best method of eliminating interference in any sense was to afford these people an opportunity of electing their own members. This is what is behind the quotations the hon. member read to us.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me come to the crux of the debate. As we have pointed out, we have no objection to the aim of clause 3. There is the question of the wording, to which we can give attention during the Committee Stage, but we have no objection to the aim. Therefore I want to confine myself to clauses 2 and 4, because it is on account of these two clauses that we reject this Bill. With its method of legislating this Government has over the years landed us in the position that as a country we have more prohibitions and more punishable offences than any other country in the world, and this has already given rise to many serious social problems for our country. Session after session the list of prohibitions and punishable offences becomes a little longer and our living problems become more intricate and difficult. Now crimes are being fabricated by law and each time such a new crime is fabricated by legislation, a new field of offences is created and along with that a new field of activity for complainants, for informers, for the police and for the courts of law, and here we have it again. Just imagine, here it is being made a crime for a White and a Coloured, to mention one example, to belong to the same political party. This is an absolutely unique crime in the history of mankind, and I can predict already even now that in due course it will appear in Ripley’s “Believe it or not” series that somewhere there is a country where a White and a Coloured may not belong to the same political party, and if such a person commits the offence for a second time he may be punished with a fine of R2,000 plus two years of imprisonment. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parow nearly had the shivers the other day about the fact that Coloureds had belonged to the United Party. Mr. Speaker, this was quite common in South Africa before “verkrampt-heid” (bigotedness) came down upon us, and I want to make the prediction to-day that it will become common again. I remember the days when Coloureds attended the congresses of the National Party. I saw Coloureds sitting on the platform next to Dr. Malan and other leaders at the congress of the National Party.

[Inaudible.]

I remember the days when Dr. Malan sent a telegram to the Natives of Oskraal.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow said, “You know you are twisting the matter”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, I said: “I almost said you were twisting the matter”.

It does not matter, because what I am saying here is true. They have already had an organizer amongst the Coloureds. I remember the days when Dr. Malan sent a telegram to the Natives of Oskraal, and in that telegram he asked: “Vote for us because you, the Natives, are the true, born Nationalists of South Africa.” We have been continually abused here as standing for integration because Coloureds can belong to our Party, but here we have a provision in this Bill which prohibits two different groups from being members of the same party. [Interjections.] What right does an hon. member have to get up and have the shivers here because Coloureds arid Whites have sat together in the United Party? All I wanted to prove is that it was common practice. But now I want to ask the hon. member for Parow this. There are Coloureds belonging to the same church as he and I. Is this such a terrible thought? They meet separately, but this is merely a question of practice. There is nothing to prevent Coloureds from attending a service in a Dutch Reformed Church, and both Whites and Coloureds are serving on the Cape Synod, which is the spiritual parliament of the Afrikaner.

Order! This has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

But I am dealing with the Bill.

Yes, but the hon. member is going too far. He is discussing matters that have nothing to do with the Bill.

It is provided here that a Coloured and a White may not belong to the same political party. May I not ask that if a Coloured and a White may belong to the same church, why they may not belong to the same political party?

This has nothing to do with the matter.

But this is my argument.

On a point of order, Sir, we have had speeches by Government members bringing in bodies like Christian Action, NUSAS and all sorts of other organizations. If those examples can be given, can the hon. member not mention the church?

Order! I have given my ruling.

I shall keep to the Bill, which provides that a Coloured and a White may not belong to the same political party. My argument is that if they may belong to other organizations, such as the churches, why this provision? If I cannot argue this, I cannot argue the matter at all.

But I do not have to go as far back as that. There is not the least bit of logic in the point of view of the Government. The other day the hon. the Minister went so far back in history. We do not have to do this. The hon. member for Moorreesburg—I am sorry he is not here —was chief secretary of the National Party in the Cape until very recently. He held a meeting, and here is the report in Die Burger (translation)—

This was on 5th December, 1966. [Interjection.] Until lately, that Party through its chief secretary adopted the attitude that the National Party must promote its point of view amongst the Coloureds. Now it has suddenly become interference. He said that there were five challenges facing the National Party and then he mentioned a few, but the one he emphasizes is the propagation of the National Party’s policy among the Coloureds and the English-speaking section.

What is wrong with that?

But this Act is making it wrong.

It refers to improper interference.

How can one have this type of logic? The hon. member asks what is wrong with that, but he is voting for a law which makes it wrong. Membership and the propagation of one’s policy are being defined as improper interference. That hon. member has obviously not read the Bill.

But I can go much further. I can quote from Sabra, from Dr. A. L. Geyer, and Die Burger expresses the idea in a leading article (translation)—

By Whites—

In other words, unless the policy of white parties is put across, nothing will come of their policy, because they know that unless the non-Whites understand what the Whites want in politics, no policy will succeed in South Africa. Now it is becoming a crime for a White and a Coloured to belong to the same political party or for someone to listen to a speaker of another group if there is the least danger that the interests, and this is the point of view, of a political party will be promoted by that.

I think it is a tragedy that a beautiful country like ours wants to place such a ludicrous idea on the Statute Book. The objections one could raise are legion. To begin with, there is the question of the meaning of words. Certainly it is not difficult to know that the United Party and the National Party are political parties; this is obvious, but when one deals with legislation there must be precision. Legislation must go hand in hand with precision. Then it is a completely different matter, and I want to ask the Minister how one can distinguish between a political party and a political movement. Would he, for example, have classified the Ossewa-Brandwag as a political party in terms of this law? Where would he have placed the Ossewa-Brandwag, to mention a practical example? If he tells me that the norm for a political party is whether it puts up candidates or not, if this is the criterion, the implication is that if a new political party, or a political action group, is in process of being established then, before it puts up candidates, it is completely free within the framework of this Act to do what it likes.

If this is the norm, it means that a new party can practise politics for an indefinite time, and if it does not put up candidates it can remain free of the provisions of this Bill. There is a multitude of organizations in the country with a political flavour whose normal democratic activities must be in question in the future. When do the activities of a political movement become the activities of a political party in terms of this Bill? Now they want to leave it to the courts of law. Sir, it is not the function of a court of law in effect to make the law where the law does not exist. The inevitable result of this unprecise legislation, as is always the case with legislation of this nature, will be that the Government will have to return to Parliament with this legislation and make it stricter, and then it will go from one extreme to the other. I predict that we shall come to have registration of political parties. The Government will have to return to Parliament and it will have to introduce registration of political parties, and from there it is only one step to having approval of political parties. Sir, mark my words. This legislation is not the last piece of improper interference with political freedoms and with our political parties, because it is nothing but a law to restrict the common freedom of political parties. This is what its name should have been.

Then there is the question of membership. When is a man a member of a political party? Legally speaking, if I merely sign an application for membership and am informed by word of mouth that I have been accepted, am I a member or not, in terms of this law? Or will the State prescribe to us one of these days what the procedure for membership must be in order to meet the requirements of the law? Just take a meeting. When is a meeting a meeting in terms of the law? What is there to prevent a friendly discussion amongst a group of people from being regarded as a meeting? Or is the real object of this law to prevent all political exchange of opinion among people of different colours? As the law stands here, I may tell you that all private exchange of opinion may be regarded as constituting a gathering.

Now hon. members are hiding behind what they regard as the crucial test for this law before a prosecution can be instituted. This is whether one’s words or one’s actions promote the interests of a political party. But surely every statement of a political point of view is meant to promote that point of view. If I state a point of view, no matter to whom, then I am promoting that point of view. And what is the promotion of one’s political point of view but the promotion of the interests of a party which holds that point of view? What particularly places an ugly aspect upon the matter is that the one party actually wants the monopoly for itself to state its point of view freely by doing it under the colours of the Government of the day. It will be possible to canvass support freely for the point of view of the Government, but not for the point of view of the alternative Government. Surely this is not something which should apply in a democratic country.

And I may say that the implications of this are far reaching. Whatever subordinate bodies are created for people, this Parliament will remain the Parliament of the whole of South Africa and of all who live in this country. The removal of the Native representatives has not had the result that we talk less about Native affairs here, the very reverse is true. With the disappearance of the Native representatives a greater burden was placed upon the other representatives as regards the discussion of Native affairs, and the same is going to happen in the case of the Coloureds.

Our white political parties will, and will have to, discuss Coloured affairs to a much larger extent after the removal of the Coloured representatives than is the case at present. This Parliament still has to decide on all matters of importance. For example, this Parliament has to decide what funds we are going to give to the Coloured Council, and how those funds are going to be spent on a small scale, may depend to a large extent on the policy of the political parties of the Coloureds. But now we have the position in terms of this legislation that it will be impossible for the leader of a Coloured party to be invited, for example, to meet a study group of Members of Parliament in order to enlighten us about the point of view of his party, so that we as Members of Parliament may be informed as to what attitude to adopt. If he comes as the Coloured leader of a political party, both he and we will be in trouble because it may be interpreted as the promotion of the point of view of that political party. The whole thing is too ridiculous for words. In terms of this Bill we are making political consultation a crime, and so one can mention numerous examples of this to show how untenable the situation will become.

But there are also serious moral considerations. The short title of the Act is “The Prohibition of Improper Interference Act”, but, as in the case of many other Acts, it is a title which is completely misleading. It is just as much an Act against proper contact. What is in fact envisaged here is a prohibition of sound political co-operation and understanding and consultation among citizens of the same country whose interests are absolutely interdependent. We are not independent of each other. Each group has its own identity, but the one is dependent upon the other. Now the ridiculous fiction is being created in this Bill that the politics of one population group can be distinguished from the politics of another. Look at the long title. It reads: “To prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group.” Can one get a more ridiculous statement than this? Fundamentally, all citizens strive after the same good things, sometimes along different lines. To talk seriously of interference by one group in the politics of another group is to make a farce of the whole idea of parliamentary politics, which is the same for all groups.

I now move—

Agreed to.