Mr. Speaker, with your leave I wish to make a statement on the tragic air disaster that occurred on Saturday night.

It is with deep regret that I have to announce that a Boeing 707 jet aircraft of South African Airways crashed at approximately 8.50 p.m. on Saturday night, 20th April, after taking off from the J. G. Strijdom Airport, Windhoek, and that out of a total of 128 persons on board, i.e. a crew of 12 and 116 passengers, there are only six survivors. 122 persons lost their lives in this disaster. On behalf of the Government and South African Airways I wish to express my deepest sympathy with the next-of-kin of the victims of this accident. As far as possible, the next-of-kin of all the victims have already been informed. Through the agency of the news service of the S.A.B.C. and the Press the names of all who were on board have already been published.

The aircraft was on its way from Johannesburg to London on the Windhoek-Luanda-Las Palmas-Frankfurt route.

A departmental team of investigators from South African Airways and a team of investigators from the Department of Transport have been at the scene of the disaster since yesterday morning in order to start with the preliminary investigation. Such an investigation is necessary before the statutory board of inquiry which will be appointed can begin with its investigations.

All but 20 of the bodies of the deceased have been removed from the scene of the crash. Arrangements have been made for those bodies that have not yet been identified to be conveyed to Johannesburg by aircraft, so that they may be identified there. Five of the six survivors are still in hospital in Windhoek, and the latest information is that they have been taken off the danger list. The sixth survivor was not injured.

In order to obviate any misunderstanding, I want to say that this aircraft was not fitted with a flight recorder. So far only one Boeing 707 has been fitted with such a recorder. It is hoped that the installation of this equipment in our aircraft will be completed by the end of this year.

I should like to express my heart-felt gratitude to everybody who has rendered assistance in such a spontaneous and unselfish way in this time of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy to the dependants and relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic occurrence.

It is certainly no easy matter to return to normal debate so soon after the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to the shocking event of the week-end, especially not when we have a Bill of this nature before us, a Bill which interferes with old traditions, destroys important freedoms and erects another Berlin wall in the community, in addition to all the others that are already in existence. As I pointed out when the debate was adjourned 11 days ago, we are dealing here with a Bill which is making it a crime for citizens of the same country to discuss their political interests freely with one another and to be members of the same political party. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for a political party such as the National Party or the United Party to decide of its own free will and according to circumstances that it will be a party for Whites alone, but it is a very serious matter when political freedom in general is curtailed so drastically that one makes criminals out of people who choose to belong to the same political party. As it is, the minor parties that chose to allow mixed membership have remained small and powerless, and I wonder whether much would have been left of them to-day if the Government had not invested them with such exaggerated importance and had met them, as we do, with cogent arguments rather than with compulsion by legislation. We also regard it as a particularly serious consideration against this Bill that legislation which includes the sanction of imprisonment usually creates an anti-attitude on the part of the public. The public usually takes its lead from the attitude displayed in legislation, and if that attitude creates an anti-sentiment on the part of the public, it often results in new demands of an extreme nature being made. It is being declared a crime to-day for Whites and Coloured people to consult together in politics and to belong to the same political party. Where will this lead to to-morrow? What must necessarily result to-morrow from the anti-attitude that will be created by this? If it is to become such a terrible misdeed now, with, at the worst, a fine of R2,000 plus imprisonment for two years in the case of a second offence, for a white person and a Coloured person to co-operate in the political field, while each retaining his own identity, how long will it take before we arrive at the logical consequences of this step? I believe it will not be very long before demands are made that this “Berlin wall” should be extended to several other aspects of civil life in our country. For example, Coloured people form an integral part of our Defence Force, our Police Force and our security services. They are being armed in the same way as the Whites. Great pains are being taken to-day to give our soldiers the right psychological attitude and to teach them what the common interests of our citizens are and who the common enemy is to take action against. As a matter of fact, the success of our Defence Force and our security services is dependent upon the creation of such a common loyalty. But how does one reconcile that situation with a Bill such as the one before us now, which stands for the complete political isolation of the various population groups up to the point where it becomes a crime to further common political interests? The time will come very soon, for example, when Coloured people will have to fight for South Africa on the diplomatic and information front as well. But what a ridiculous situation will such persons find themselves in when outside the country they will be allowed to explain South Africa to people, but inside the country they will be charged with an offence if as citizens they should further their political views before Whites? I have no doubt whatsoever that this Bill will have an extremely adverse effect on our foreign relations. As surely as we are sitting here, this Bill will be used outside by our enemies as an argument for expelling White South Africa from bodies which include non-white representatives, because we are creating a terrible principle in this Bill. This measure will undoubtedly cause us new harm and create new dangers for and new hostility towards us in our foreign relations.

I find that every time we make an honest analysis of the implications of such measures, hon. members opposite come forward with only one argument. As soon as they run out of arguments they pull out the old phantom of “You are an integration party”. How many times have we not heard that in this debate! In answer to that charge against us I just want to say the following. It is time for the Government to give us clarity on what they mean by the term “integration”, because as they are using it now, they are applying a double criterion, they are applying double standards. We have said time and again that we stand for the preservation of the identity of the various population groups, and nobody can change this in any way and nobody wants to, but we are interdependent; in other words, each group remains what it is, but in the interests of the whole it is necessary for all of us to cooperate on a high level, while preserving the identity of each. In other words, not integration, but co-operation; and there is an important difference. If co-operation in the political field is integration, then co-operation in the military field, in the field of defence, in the diplomatic field, in the ecclesiastical field, where they sit together, is also integration. The choice rests with the Government, and if they want to continue construing every form of co-operation that we stand for, as integration, then we on this side can very easily pay the Government back in its own coin by also calling it an integration party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I regard the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as a vicious one. I regard it as an extremely unreasonable speech, as I shall indicate in my speech. He used numerous adjectives for describing this measure. I want to call the attention of this House for a moment to what that hon. member was doing in this House during his second-reading speech on this measure. He described this Bill as being, inter alia, a measure “without the least bit of logic”, a “tragedy”, and “a ludicrous idea”. He said it was a “ridiculous piece of fiction” and asked whether there could be “anything more ridiculous than this Bill”. He said the entire thing was “too ridiculous for words”. He asked whether there could be “a more ridiculous Bill than this”. He said it was aimed at “making a farce of the whole concept of Parliamentary politics”. He said the objections which he could raise against this Bill were “legion”. He said he could mention “numerous examples” to indicate “how ridiculous” this Bill really was. But as though all that was not enough, he said—and take careful note of his words— “This Bill is an absolutely unique crime in the history of mankind.” That was what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He said in the course of history this Bill would appear in Ripley’s “Believe it or not”.

If an hon. member got up here and, with the necessary substantiation, as is expected of an hon. member in this House, make so many accusations, with the use of so many adjectives—and that was the way in which that hon. member described this Bill—that in itself would already be something strange. But when it comes from that hon. member who has jumped about from political party to political party like a real political bontebok, it truly sounds very odd and very strange. I think even the colleagues of that hon. member will readily agree that in this regard one is not to take that hon. member too seriously. All that hon. member still has to do is to join the Progressive Party then, in his relatively short political career, he would have completed the full circle of having been a member of every legal political party in South Africa. When one analyses the speech of that hon. member as well as the grounds on which he based his speech, one realizes that that hon. member is still sitting on the United Party benches in name, but that he lost his heart to the hon. member for Houghton long ago. He lost his heart to the Progressive Party long ago. If that hon. member still is a true supporter of the United Party, I should like to know what has become of the hon. member for Simonstown of late. Then one is really astonished that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still able to do that egg dance on a barbed wire in order to accommodate those two members, together with the hon. member for Karoo, in the same party. In this connection one admires him as being a real Job. But I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout neatly let the cat out of the bag in the course of his speech.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what further description he gave of this Bill? He said this Bill was “legislation against contact”. This is what he wants to gull the world into believing. I shall presently indicate how he really wanted to prove that to the world in his speech by giving chapter and verse. I want to say straight away that to my mind—and that is what I have against the whole speech of the hon. member—the hon. member once again tried to use the floor of this House as a platform not for addressing this House but for addressing the outside world. Then he still had the audacity to say towards the end of his speech that this Bill would have an adverse effect abroad. But he is the cause of that. He who got up here and said that this was a “unique crime in the history of mankind” and who said that a “terrible principle” was contained in this Bill. The position simply is that this Bill does not prohibit contact between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. To say that it does indeed is an infamous lie to say the least of it. This Bill is simply aimed at terminating the existence of mixed political parties consisting of Whites and non-Whites in the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member may not use the words “infamous lie”.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the words, but it is a gross untruth.

I never said that; consequently what you are saying does not affect me.

I can prove it from the speech of the hon. member.

Then I also say it is an infamous lie.

He said that this Bill was aimed at terminating proper contact between White and non-White.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, may I say …

No, the hon. member must simply withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the words, but the hon. member misquoted me. He is distorting.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to say that the hon. member for Primrose distorted his words?

The hon. member is now repeating his charge against the member that that is a lie. He must withdraw that.

But what am I to do, Mr. Speaker, when he attributes words to me which I have not used? The record is available.

Order! The hon. member must simply withdraw the words.

I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not going to get away with that so easily, because I have his speech here in front of me and I quote directly from his speech where he said—

Does he want to deny that? He did not say “political contact”. That is precisely my point. He said “contact”. He uses this House as a platform to try to make an impression on the outside world with those anti-South African things we are so used to getting from that hon. member. Let me say that I am serious when I discuss this matter. I crossed swords with the hon. member about this before, and it annoys one when an hon. member makes this kind of allegation. He must not be allowed to get away with it. I repeat: He did not speak of “political contact”; he said, “It is an Act against proper contact.” That is my very point.

You are talking like a parrot.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition on those benches: The other day in this House I listened to the hon. member for South Coast raising numerous objections after we on this side of the House had said that that party was one which stood for integration. We know that that hurts them. But read the speech of that hon. member as I have read it, and then the Opposition will know that as long as that hon. member makes that kind of speech in this House, they will hear and deserve the accusations that they are a Party of integration. [Interjections.] I do not intend to stop saying this. As long as that hon. member uses this House for the purpose of influencing the outside world against South Africa, we shall castigate him as sure as two times two are four.

But then there is another ailment from which that hon. member suffers and to which this speech clearly testifies. I am going to prove it by giving chapter and verse and by giving examples. This House can form its own judgment about that. His colleagues too can form their own judgement about that. His speech is larded with that anti-South African attitude of which we are most heartily sick by this time. His speech seems to amount to an invitation to the outside world and the U.N. to come and see what a bad country South Africa is, the country of which that hon. member is an inhabitant. The following is the first argument advanced in his speech. He must not say that I am misquoting him, because I am not. His first argument against this Bill is the following—

What a bad country it is in which that hon. member is living! Then he had the audacity to level the charge against us that this Bill would meet with an unfavourable response in the outside world.

But that is not all. That is the beginning. He said—

Now note the old, well-known Bezuidenhout refrain

Say “Japie refrain”!

Then comes the refrain of the hon. member: “This Act is a unique crime in the history of mankind.” That is the position according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. When the hon. member wanted to drag in the churches and wanted to bring them into the ambit of this Bill, the Speaker called him to order. Do hon. members know what his reply was? “If I cannot argue this. I cannot argue the matter at all.” But then he went further than that. I cannot describe it by any other term than viciousness towards South Africa. He said from here it was “only one step to having approval of political parties”. Do you see the implications here, Mr. Speaker? Do you see the implications? I do not even want to call these things by their proper names. But that is not all. He proceeded and made the following statement. “Mark my words, this legislation is not the last piece of improper interference with political freedoms …” Here we again have the implication: Interference not only in the political freedoms of non-Whites, but even in the political freedoms of the Whites in South Africa. The hon. member stated, “this legislations is not the last piece of improper interference with political freedoms and with our political parties”. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you what other inference can be drawn from this than that which everyone in this House can draw from it and which can cause trouble in the outside world? But the hon. member went further than that and said, “As the law stands here, I may tell you …”— and now you must take note of the unprecedented viciousness—“… that all private exchange of opinion will be regarded as constituting a gathering”, and it would therefore be a crime and illegal.

“May be regarded”.

He wants to gull the world into believing that this legislation makes all private exchange of opinion in South Africa illegal.

Between White and non-White.

Does the hon. member for Simonstown agree with this kind of speech here in this House of Assembly in the times in which we are living? Does the hon. member for South Coast agree with that? Does the hon. member for Green Point agree with that? Does the hon. member for Sea Point agree with that? How does the hon. member for Yeoville make political propaganda for South Africa if this is the kind of speech delivered from the Opposition benches in these times? In my modest opinion there is only one word to describe such a speech— disgraceful. What do they think do we do with a speech like this when we go to rural or urban constituencies and quote from it in detail as I have done here? I shall tell you what we do—we destroy the United Party still more and we push them deeper into the mud. [Interjections.] Let me tell the Opposition, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular, that they may be able to afford having such an hon. member in their ranks, as well as an hon. member like the hon. member for Karoo, on whose speech time unfortunately does not permit me to dwell, but that we on this side, strong as we are, cannot afford to have such members and that we are grateful for not having members like them. But to crown it all, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that this legislation did not belong in a democratic country. In what country does such legislation belong then? Do you see, Sir, the implication of what he said? We are most heartily sick and tired of this kind of thing.

Let us look at the positive side of this legislation, legislation which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout described by using so many unflattering adjectives. I regret that I have had to devote so much time to his speech. I have not done so because I am of the opinion that his speech deserves so much time to be devoted to it, but I have deemed it essential to do so because I want to expose this kind of thing to public contempt. When we now come to the positive side of this legislation, legislation which he described in such unsavoury terms, what is the object of this Bill? The object is very simple indeed, and every hon. member in this House knows what this legislation seeks to achieve. This legislation embodies a simple principle, one which is as old as the hills and is accepted and recognized internationally—the principle of no interference in the internal affairs of another and which is being applied here to a political scheme for the promotion of the orderly progress of the respective race groups in this country in which we all live together. That is the principle which is being applied here, and the hon. member had the audacity to refer to that as a “unique crime in the history of mankind”. With the creation of separate political institutions, the Government is indeed seeking to guide—and every hon. member knows this—every nation in South Africa along its own lines and according to its own ability to proper development without interference in its affairs from the side of others so that those separate communities may be brought into existence and so that all of us in South Africa may co-operate in peace and prosperity with mutual respect for one another and to the mutual benefit of one another. This principle has nothing to do with the termination of contact between White and non-White. Does this attempt of the Government to implement this principle deserve the kind of speech and the provision of such a platform to the outside world as the hon. member was guilty of?

The legislation does a great deal more than just applying this principle. This legislation puts an end to the exploitation, the abominable exploitation of the Coloured, of which we know only too well from experience in South Africa, and which we have been experiencing over a period of many years, and is also a timeous measure for preventing exploitation in respect of other race groups. I am referring to the political exploitation by unscrupulous white individuals and “White political parties”—these are the words of the hon. member for Outeniqua which I am quoting from the report. In this connection he could have meant only the United Party and the Progressive Party. Why do the United Party and the Progressive Party do this? The reply is obvious. They are doing so with one object in view only, and that is to obtain and to strengthen parliamentary representation for themselves here in this House of Assembly. That is why they are doing so, because that is the essence of the whole matter. I can indicate to you in detail how the Coloured has been exploited by the United Party and by the Progressive Party in the field of politics throughout the years with no other object in view than to strengthen their own position here against the National Party. They have done so without the slightest or any regard to the real interests of the Coloured nation, but merely with a view to obtaining more seats here and trying to dislodge the National Party in that way. That is the purpose for which the Coloureds have been used by members on that side, according to the hon. member for Outeniqua who has much more experience of this than I do. I have his memorandum here and I wish I had the time to go into the particulars of his detailed account of how the United Party has pushed this thing to the extremes. I do not want to be too negative, but I should like to quote from this memorandum. He said—

In another place he says—

I can quote other examples to prove my point. This legislation is before this House to put an end to this state of affairs. I want to repeat that this legislation offers many things which hon. members may criticize, but not this kind of thing which we have had from that hon. member. The fact, as the hon. member for Outeniqua indicated very strikingly in his evidence, that the United Party eventually could not pay its candidates more as a result of a lack of funds, but that the Progressive Party, as a result of its abundant funds, could finance its candidates properly, has become the big difference between those two parties, namely the United Party and the Progressive Party. The similarity between those two parties is equally clear. The big similarity is that both parties are so bankrupt that they want to use the Coloureds as voting cattle to increase their numbers in this House of Assembly. Small wonder that Mr. Fortuin stated this very clearly and concisely in the circular of the Conservative Party as follows—

Where do those “white politicans” sit? The “white politicans”, to whom the Coloureds are saying that they no longer want to be hangers-on of them, are sitting over there on the Opposition benches. Small wonder that General Hertzog said in this House as long ago as 1927—

And then he added the following significant words—

And now, Sir, 40 years later, under the efficient leadership of our present Prime Minister, this National Government has now taken this historic step of putting an end to this basic dishonesty towards the Coloured and of trying to remove the basis of that dishonesty. Instead of this being a “unique crime in the history of mankind”, it is, and this is so thanks to the National Government, an ambitious and noble step in the direction of bringing about that basic honesty which there must be towards the Coloured and of putting an end to the exploitation of those people in this way. In spite of what the United Party says, the Coloureds have always been in a position of subordination, and it is for the very reason of escaping from that position that we are trying to remove this basic dishonesty by means of this Bill and other Bills before this House. By these means we want to lead the Coloureds to self-determination on a road of political autonomy, and we are going to succeed in this in spite of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the speech made by him in this House. The fact of the matter is that there was a sham solution under the rule of the United Party in the past which yielded very little or nothing for the Coloured and his welfare and prosperity and which merely used the Coloured as voting cattle for defending the position of the United Party. Therefore I say the logical outcome of this Bill is specifically to give the Coloureds real opportunities and rights in the political sphere, free of interference by Whites and without any conditions attached, in order to lead the Coloureds towards becoming an autonomous and proud national group in the Republic of South Africa. The Volksparty of the Coloureds recently stated it concisely in a pamphlet as follows (translation)—

Therefore I say that this legislation is implementing the principle stated by Dr. Verwoerd, and that is that the essence of the policy of separate development of the National Government is political separation. That principle is embodied in this legislation, and I think we in this country will find happiness and prosperity on the road of peace and pleasant co-existence of which the world will become more and more envious. This is the object of this legislation and it is not a unique crime against mankind, as it was called by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and as he wanted to gull this House and the outside world into believing.

The hon. member for Primrose started his speech by referring to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and said he had never heard anything so bitter as the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. But I want to say that we have now heard something more bitter than what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had to say.

And more vicious.

Yes, and more vicious. This was a personal tirade by the hon. member for Primrose, but we are not surprised, because we are used to that type of speech from him. I would like to say that his criticism of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he changed his party should not receive any support in the Nationalist Party because it seems to me that the best way of getting into the Nationalist Party Cabinet is to change one’s party. In fact, if you look around you, Sir, you will see the rejects of the United Party sitting in the Nationalist Party Cabinet. The only way that hon. member will get into this Cabinet, after his speech to-day, is by joining some other group at the first opportunity that offers. But I want to say this for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that when he resigned from the Nationalist Party and joined the United Party, he left a party which was in the ascendancy and joined a party which was then battling for its life. But other members first got into the Nationalist Party Cabinet and then joined the Nationalist Party. Then he took exception to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his speech had said that this Bill which we are debating now will mean the breaking off of all contact. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout explained that he meant political contact. But I am surprised at the hon. member for Primrose even taking exception to that, because the way many of the Nationalist Party members are thinking is to break off all contact except the contact between master and servant.

You are talking nonsense.

I did not say that it applied to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I would not expect it to, because he still has ingrained in him some of the policies of the United Party. The hon. member for Primrose made a long speech accusing us of opposing this Bill because we want to strengthen our position in this House of Assembly; we want more members.

Quite true.

I did not think the hon. member for Parow would say such a foolish thing, because he was a member of the Commission. But I want to ask the hon. member for Primrose how opposing this Bill can give us more Members of Parliament. This Bill has nothing to do with representation in the House of Assembly. There are other Bills which are taking away the representation of non-Whites in this House, but this Bill does not affect that at all. Even if this Bill does not go through there is no chance of either the United Party or the Progressive Party getting a single more member in this House. The hon. member spoke of the positive side of this Bill. What is the positive side—to stop political interference? He said there must be no political interference at all in the affairs of other groups. This, of course, is fundamental to the United Nations Charter. But what is the effect? Has it had any effect there? Has it stopped interference in the affairs of other groups? The result of this Bill becoming law will be that only one party will interfere with the affairs of other groups and that will be the Government. This prohibition against interference will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance, as is the position in the United Nations. Sir, what surprised me too was the fact that the hon. member quoted General Hertzog in support of their policy.

I quoted the basic statement which he made.

What was General Hertzog’s attitude? How did he describe the attitude of the Nationalist Party to the Coloureds? He said this in 1938—

And that hon. member over there has the audacity to quote General Hertzog in favour of the Nationalist Party. I would like to ask that hon. member why he did not tell us what General Hertzog’s attitude was to the Broederbond too. Sir, I do not know how the hon. member for Primrose thinks. He stands up and belabours the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and then tells us of the United Party that if he quotes that speech on the platteland he will “vernietig” us. Sir, I would have thought that they would have congratulated the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; that they would be rushing out to Swellendam with that speech to “vernietig” us there. We will see who will be destroyed there. [Interjections.] Sir, I leave the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education; he has enough bets on at the moment.

This debate is now nearing its end, and after listening very intently to hon. members opposite I must say that we are not convinced; we are not even slightly persuaded that we should give this measure our support. The simple question before the House is this: Is it wise, desirable or necessary to cut off all political contact between the race groups? After all, that is what this Bill will mean. It will mean the cutting off of all political contact.

Nonsense.

After this Bill has been passed only Ministers and officials will be able to address other groups with any sort of assurance that there will be no prosecution against them. Sir, this is not a reflection upon the Attorneys-General but I cannot see any Attorney-General prosecuting, say, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of Coloured Affairs or even the officials, should they address other race groups on the policies of the Government. Hon. members opposite argue that the Government is not a political party. This, of course, is fallacious; it is ridiculous in view of the fact that the policies of the different parties on race matters differ so fundamentally. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Primrose, who has just interjected again, was quite open and quite blunt; he said: “This is an apartheid measure; it is a measure to bring about separate development.” The hon. member nods his head. What is separate development? If it merely means giving each group the right to manage its own internal affairs, then we say that we have no objection because that is in fact our policy and was our policy before the Nationalists took it over. If it is to mean economic development for the different race groups, then again we have no objection. Our only criticism is that the Government is not doing enough in that respect. But, Sir, it means more. It means complete political separation. As far as the Bantu are concerned it means development to independent sovereign states. If that is what this measure sets out to bring about, then we are opposed to that part of separate development. We adhere to the old traditional policy of Paul Kruger, Botha, Smuts and Hertzog, the traditional policy that these people will be allowed to develop towards self-government but always under the umbrella of the Central Government. As far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, we have been told here repeatedly that this measure and the other two related measures will give them nationhood and that they will enjoy political rights to the fullest extent. If the Government means that we can have a state within a state as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, then there may be something in it. But is that their policy? Do they believe that we can have a state within a state? I do not believe that that is what they stand for.

Sir, if this measure is intended only to prohibit members of different race groups belonging to the same political party, then you do not need a measure like this. I remember very well that there was a time when the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal prohibited Jews from becoming members of the Nationalist Party. They did not need an Act of Parliament to bring that about; it was provided for in their Constitution. The Nationalists at the time did not think it necessary to have an Act of Parliament, but if they think that it is undesirable for different groups to belong to the same political party, then there are other ways of prohibiting it. The Nationalists say— and I am inclined to agree with them; I believe it is true—that the people do not want different race groups to belong to the same party, and possibly that is why the Progressives and the Liberal Parties have lost ground, because of their attitude towards this question of mixed membership. But surely if they wish to be eliminated or if they wish to wipe themselves out by doing something which they think the people do not want them to do, then it is their own affair. Let them decide themselves who shall be allowed to be members of the party.

Sir, there is no doubt in my mind and I think there is no doubt in the mind of anybody in this House, even Government members, that had the Government enjoyed the support of the Coloured people, this measure would never have been introduced. It was only when they introduced the separate roll and found that the Coloureds rejected them completely, that the Coloureds would have nothing to do with their policy, that they decided to take steps to stop other parties from getting the support of the Coloured people. If this is not so, then why, when they put the Coloureds on to a separate roll, did they not then make provision for the principle of prohibiting other rare groups from interfering in the political affairs of a particular group? Why did they do it then? After all, that was when they separated the Coloureds from the Whites. If it is improper interference to give guidance and talk to them, why did the government of the day not then make provision to prohibit it? Only when they found the Coloured people would have no truck with them and their policies did they resort to this measure.

This Government is, of course, going to have its cake and eat it. It will stop everybody else from interfering in the political affairs of other groups; it will stop everybody else from addressing groups in the interests of a particular party. But the Government itself will take every opportunity of doing so. The hon. the Minister of Finance is opening the Transkei Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, and I would be very surprised if he did not address the Assembly on the benefits of separate development and the desirability of all the Africans in the country accepting the policy of separate development. We will see what speech he makes there. It is, of course, well-known that the Transkei has two political parties represented in their Legislative Assembly, and they differ on this very question of separate development. These two parties will be fighting an election towards the end of the year. Now, I do not blame the Minister of finance if he does address them on the benefits of separate development, because naturally it is in the interests of the Government or of any political party to win the support of the non-White groups for its policy. It is in its interests not only for internal purposes but also for outside consumption. We have heard so much about the guardian and the ward in this connection from hon. members opposite. It is, of course, the guardian’s duty to give advice, and surely it is in the interests of the Government to win the support of the Transkei population in the next election. How can the Transkei support the Government’s policy if the people there do not know what the policy is? If three or more Africans should come to me and ask me to explain to them the United Party’s policy so that they could decide on their own what to do—perhaps they want to form another political party—surely it would be my duty to give them my party’s policy, and in the most favourable light. I will then be talking in the interests of the United Party. If the same group of Africans were to ask Government members to explain to them the policy of separate development then surely it would be in the interests of the Nationalist Party to give them that information. But in fact we would be breaking the law, we would be committing an offence. Perhaps we will not be prosecuted—that will be for the Attorney-General to decide—but one cannot expect people to give advice in such circumstances because they will be afraid to do so. People will not know whether they will be prosecuted. Supposing a Coloured or African candidate asked me to advise him on his organization and I were to address his workers on how to canvass, how to run his transport, or on any other matter affecting elections, I would then be committing an offence, because a gathering can mean one or two or more people. Moreover, if I assist a candidate in his election, then in terms of this Bill I will be committing an offence. The hon. member for Prinshof cannot deny it.

Have you read the Bill?

I suggest that hon. member reads this measure again. If that candidate is a communist he would not come to me for advice, because he would be well-informed and would know how to run his election campaign. The politically immature, on the other hand, need advice and assistance.

Dominee Botha, Professor Olivier, Judge De Vries and others gave evidence before the commission on the question of giving advice. The Government can propagate its policies much more freely than other parties can because it has the use of the radio, and it also has a Press. The radio is, of course, a powerful weapon, and the Government uses it. We have “Current Affairs”, selected news items, and special talks over the air. But other political parties do not have all those advantages and they can only get their policies and advice across by talking to the people in other ways.

We are at one with the Government in opposing improper interference, for example political parties getting money from abroad, but we have not yet heard what is regarded as “improper interference”. I hoped to hear the meaning during this debate. Up to now, however, we have not heard a word in that regard. The only information we have had, the only suggestions we have had regarding improper interference, is when hon. members read evidence given before the commission as to what happened and the case was generally made out against the Progressive Party organizers.

And that is not true.

All the instances referred to could be dealt with under the Electoral Act. I defy any hon. member opposite to quote me an example of improper interference given to the commission which could not be dealt with under the Electoral Act. [Interjections.] The commission was specially appointed to go into this question of what is improper interference and how it should be dealt with, and I want to read some of the evidence given by influential witnesses evidence which has not been quoted here yet, evidence given by influential witnesses, evidence of any witness as justification for this measure because it cannot find any support for this Bill in the evidence given before the commission.

All hon. members who served on that commission will agree that Dominee Botha was a most credible witness, a man who impressed us all. I want to read what he had to say, as recorded on page 160 of the commission’s report—

He stressed the importance of meeting these people and talking to them.

You can still meet them.

You cannot, I will deal with that. I just want to finish reading this portion of Dominee Botha’s evidence, evidence given against the introduction of this Bill. I continue—

He then goes on to say why he thought they supported the Progressive Party. I return now to why he thinks it is so essential to have contact and discussion. He says—

He then goes on to tell us of the advantages of having Mr. Kobus Louw address the Coloured members of the Synod. Then he was asked what he felt about political interference. I quote the question and his reply—

He warned against the dangers of this legislation. But what surprised me was when the hon. member for Parow asked him this question—

But those were the provisions of that Bill.

The hon. member for Parow then said this to him—

Then the hon. member for Parow said this—

The point I want to make is that the hon. member for Parow was trying to impress it upon Ds. Botha that there was no prohibition. He said that there was no prohibition against him appearing on a platform to state his case. He was pleading with him to accept the Bill. Why did the hon. member for Parow not adopt the same attitude in regard to this Bill? Why does he not get up now and say that he refuses to accept this Bill because it does not give a person the chance to state his case before the Coloured people? It does not give him the opportunity to address them. I do not have time to read all the evidence. Judge De Vries who was also an impressive witness made it quite clear that he was against this Bill because it prevented the guardian from having an opportunity of getting together with his ward and talking with and advising him. One of the points he made was that a Bill could not be introduced in this regard because of the difficulty in defining improper interference. He said—

I do not have the time to read the rest of his evidence but the point is that he saw the difficulty of trying to prohibit interference. There is still no definition of improper interference. Our objection is that this Bill seeks to end all political association. Innocent persons will be afraid to talk to other groups because they will not know whether they are committing an offence with such severe minimum penalties which the Judge or the magistrate will have to apply. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really wish to pay much attention to a speech I do not regard as important, namely the speech the hon. member for Transkei has just made. However, I do want to say that if I were he, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would have been the last person I would have selected as an example not only of political independence, but also of political stability in this House. This is my reason for saying so. He said: “He left the rejects.” Then he referred to us as the “rejects”. Where are the “rejects” actually sitting? After all, if the United Party rejects the National Party, it does not matter at all. We are a democratic nation and a democratic country. Governments are being elected in a democratic way. What matters, is what the nation says. Who are they supporting? That is what one should have regard to, for if one does not have regard to the reaction of the nation, one will remain sitting in the Opposition benches for ever. The fact that the hon. member for Transkei refers to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and says “he left the rejects”, whilst the “rejects” of the nation are sitting opposite, is to me not only politically immature, but also borders on political stupidity.

There are a few other things which the hon. member for Transkei said and which were merely a repetition of what so many members opposite had already said. One of them is the following: “Is it wise to break down all political contact?” Another of them is this: “It means complete political isolation.” I shall deal with those statements later on, because that hon. member is not the only hon. member who made them. Then he referred to the short title of the Bill. If he had consulted the Order Paper—and he is a Senior Whip on that side of the House—he would have seen that I myself had given notice of an amendment in respect of the short title. In the amendment I gave notice of my intention to bring the short title into line with the long title, i.e. the name of the Bill itself. This Bill will then be called the Prohibition of Political Interference Bill. The hon. member will, of course, say that this is even worse, because now we are not only concerned with improper interference, but also with political interference.

When I introduced this debate, I referred to the new dispensation for the Coloureds arising out of the legislation before the House at present and the legislation that had already been discussed. These bills link up with the one we are dealing with now. I said that for the first time in South Africa a new political dispensation was being established here for the Coloured population. It is a dispensation which will be of value to the Coloured population and which will be of much more value to them than any political dispensation they have ever had in South Africa since they came into being and since the beginning of all white civilization in this country. I say this without any fear of contradiction. They are now going to receive their own parliament, two-thirds of the members of which will be Coloureds elected, from 40 constituencies all over the country, by male and female Coloured voters over the age of 21. They will elect two-thirds of the members of that body from their own ranks.

In addition to that the Government is going to nominate one-third of the members, i.e. 20 members. They, too, will not be Whites, but Coloureds. This is not interference, this is development. As a result of the colonial policy the Coloureds never had the opportunity in the past—and I am not blaming the United Party for that, but history—and the privilege, except under National Party Government, to develop their own political thinking. What say did the Coloureds have when they were on the common voters’ roll? They were abused, and I do not even want to read out to you, Sir, what the Coloureds themselves have to say about this matter. They were simply degenerated politically, morally and otherwise. That led to frustration and the worst relations between Whites and non-Whites, but also between Whites and Whites. Nobody can deny this. After all, we know this. This is not pleasant history, but it is true.

I do not want to be reproachful this afternoon by laying this at the door of some party or other, because since 1910, and even before that, there have been many governments in this country which have taken a hand in this matter. The National Party, which came to power with the Pact Government in 1923 and subsequently in 1948, was the first Government which, under its own steam, laid down a pattern for the development of the Coloureds’ continued existence and political say in this country. This is not something one can develop in one day, because Rome was not built in one day. Ten years or 20 years in a person’s history or life is a long time. However, 100 years or 300 years in the history of a nation is perhaps an even shorter time. There are nations, and history bears testimony to this, which, without stopping and without losing heart, fought for their emancipation and liberation for more than 800 years. Eventually they succeeded in doing so. That being so, how can the United Party say that persons who are undeveloped and who are not schooled and developed to that extent and are in that sense lagging behind the Whites, should be emancipated in one day?

Do they wish to follow the example of world opinion, and that of major colonial powers in Africa with their catastrophic results? Do we want catastrophe in South Africa or do we want order, peace and development, which will be for the good and the benefit of the entire nation, the entire population and all the various race groups comprising the population? It is of course the latter, since I believe that members on the opposite side of the House also want to see that this is done. This sort of bickering and squabbling and these differences that exist, I consider to be nothing but cheap politics, because anybody in this House or outside who considers this matter impartially and has the interests of all the population groups in South Africa at heart, cannot think up and raise these imaginary objections which the hon. Opposition has raised in connection with the discussion of this Bill. I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave, who so flippantly said here that the Government was doing nothing for the Coloureds, that he should ask those people themselves. I made notes of what the hon. member said here. He will therefore hear what I have said before, and that is that the Coloureds themselves will bear witness to the fact that never at any time before the 20 years during which the National Party has been in power, have more positive attempts been made and steps been taken for the development of the Coloured population than has been the case during this very period under the regime of the National Party. Owing to this new political dispensation it has become necessary and it has been decided that the four representatives in this House of a section of the Coloured population of the Cape are redundant and that they will disappear. Now, I added—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made mention of it— that the following question had quite rightly arisen: In view of the fact that a new dispensation is being established to replace an old one, is it necessary to have legislation prohibiting political interference by one population group in the affairs of another population group to which the former group does not belong? Having listened attentively and very intensely for days on end to what hon. members of the Opposition had to say, I want to tell hon. members that more than ever before I am convinced of the necessity of this legislation. It happens time and again—but in this particular case, in this second-reading debate, I think it was pre-eminently the case—that speakers on this side of the House tower head and shoulders above the speakers on the Opposition side. I shall tell you why. Every single speaker on this side of the House devoted very little time to replying to the few questions about minor, less important matters, matters which could just as well be discussed during the Committee Stage. In the main speakers on this side confined themselves to the essence, the principle on which this Bill has a bearing. That is the way it ought to be at the second-reading debate. I cannot say that of the Opposition, because they evaded the principle. They occupied themselves with allegations such as the following, “The Bill is too vague”. In other words, it is not sufficiently descriptive and to the point. “How can it be interpreted?” they asked. Whereas one speaker said that it was too vague, others said that it went too far. They explained how far it went: “As far as from the East to the West”. But they did not suggest any improvements. I am now going to wait and see whether they will make a contribution during the Committee Stage as regards defining it properly so as to make it less vague.

A second question they put was, “What is a political party?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself asked this question. A short while later he spoke of “political parties,” and when the hon. member for Prinshof asked him what his definition of a political party was, he could not furnish one either. This is allegedly an indefinable thing, yet everybody knows what it is.

Tell us what a “political party” is.

I am convinced that our Judges are not so stupid that they will not know when there is interference or when something has been done to further objects of a political party or the candidature of a political party’s candidate, as is provided in this legislation.

Tell us now what your intentions are.

I can tell what I feel like, and what I do not feel like, I need not tell. However, I shall not allow the Opposition to put me off my stroke. [Interjections.] One can ask the most stupid person in the street what a political party is, and he will explain it to one. One can ask the Coloureds that question. The hon. member for Transkei says that they have already formed two political parties, but he is wrong; they have formed four, and every Coloured person who knows about their being formed will tell one what the names of those political parties are and also that they are political parties. And so far no candidates have been nominated and no nominations have taken place, for there has not been an election as yet; they are still organizing.

What was the O.B.?

Ask Japie. He has formed political parties before.

As regards the political party formed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I know that it provided him with a safe seat, although the party itself was no good. [Interjections.] What is the greater majority? Just imagine, Sir, the Leader of the Opposition is making a point out of that. The Bill provides that if a person who belongs to one population group addresses any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom the greater majority belong to any other race group, such a person would be contravening the law. But he wants to know what is the greater majority; is it one or two or five? This is too ridiculous for words. I know that we won the referendum by more than 70,000 votes, but to him it was not a great enough majority. Assemble a number of Whites and non-Whites in one place and I shall soon tell you whether one race group forms the greater majority. This merely goes to show how hollow their arguments are. They do not want to accept the principle of this legislation, but on the strength of these minor points they want to make the world believe that this legislation is too vague; it is no good and includes everything. But I can give the Opposition this assurance. Mr. Speaker, you may not nod assent or say that you agree, but what I do know is that if you could express your feelings, you would certainly have said that arguments of this kind had made no contribution to this debate. Then it is asked what an agent is. Just imagine, the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what an agent is! He can find it in the dictionary. The hon. member for Omaruru told him what an agent is in the broad sense of the word. Surely, he knows that an agent is a person who has been appointed to act on behalf of another person or to render a service. But here one is dealing with people; the legislation explicitly provides the purposes for which one cannot be an agent—for a political party or for a political candidate or for a person who may be nominated. All of this is concerned with political activities and political functions and the furthering of the political interests of a candidate and a political party of a race group other than the one to which such a person may belong. Surely, that is obvious.

I want to say this. This Bill—and let there be no doubt about this—does not only embody the concept of distinctive development, but also safeguards it, in the political sphere as well. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is anti-integrationist, and if people want to call it apartheid legislation or separate development legislation or distinctive development legislation, they would still be correct in doing so. But in principle and basically it is anti-integrationist. Its purpose is to bring about separation. It affords greater opportunities, particularly for the underdeveloped non-white population to bring forth their own leaders, to manage their own affairs and their own interests as they please, to help them to help themselves and not always to sit around and wait for people, from whom they did not request any assistance, to help them. In this respect I should address myself to the hon. member for Houghton. She is the one who said here with great ostentation that the Coloureds did not need the help of the Government to protect them. I want to ask her, as a member of the Progressive Party, whether the Coloureds did perhaps invoke the Progressive Party’s help or their protection at the latest provincial elections, or did you simply offload it on them and take advantage thereof? No, they did not only impose themselves upon them, but also on their registration forms, which is even worse.

Nonsense.

You know that it was proved in court. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that this Bill does not deal with registrations. Of course, it does not, since this is not legislation against incorrect registrations. The only way to deal with registrations, is to arrange a re-registration.

[Inaudible.]

I suppose the hon. member for Houghton has already made her speech.

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather proceed with his speech.

There are indeed very few ladies who think that they have already said enough. I am always courteous to a lady. But the fact of the matter is that certain people did appear in court. Who were they? They were the people who were used to do the dirty work, and they were convicted and sentenced. As a result of those sentences, some registrations were set right, but we all know that there are hundreds of registrations which, as a result of the actions of the Progressive Party in particular, unlawfully appear on those Voters’ lists. How can one set that right? One has to have a re-registration, and then one can start registering anew. But the Department of the Interior does certainly not feel called upon to arrange re-registrations for these purposes. Now the Leader of the Opposition has agreed and actually made the request that the matter should be discussed with the Prime Minister to see whether they can find ways and means of reaching a settlement. That is why the legislation on political interference, as it stood—the one which was particularly drastic because we wanted to eliminate every possible loophole— was referred to the Select Committee. The hon. member for Transkei referred to that, because that was the legislation which was before the Select Committee, and not the legislation we have before us now, and he says that this Bill does not make provision for a re-registration. It stands to reason that next year, when the Coloured constituencies will be delimited, there will be a re-registration of Coloured voters. But at the same time he pleaded that we should fill the vacancy which occurred through the death of the hon. member for Boland. But surely, if one had to fill that vacancy under the present circumstances, before this Bill is enacted, one would have had a double repetition of what had happened before, which compelled the hon. members for Peninsula and Karoo and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to admit that there had been abuses, and which satisfied nobody in this House, nor the Coloureds outside. Then one would have had the same position. In other words, no law will make law-abiding citizens out of people who do not want to obey laws. That is not the solution. It is an offence to steal, but it does not follow that because of the fact that people are nevertheless stealing, one should not have a law which provides that it is an offence to steal. Without such a law the incidence of theft would be much higher. [Interjections.] But this Bill which we have before us will cause greater political independence to develop amongst the non-Whites, and by virtue of its provisions the amount of direct interference in their own political lives and in their right to determine their own political course and authority will be restricted to an absolute minimum. I admit that this legislation puts obstacles in the way of political mingling and political interference, and that is really the point at issue we have to-day. That is why the Opposition is fighting this legislation tooth and nail, because this is their policy. The hon. member for Transkei says we are repeatedly referring to integration. I say the United Party’s policy is nothing but political integration.

Where did I ever use the word “integration”?

You said that we repeatedly accused the Opposition of being integrationists. Now he denies that he ever used the word “integration”. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say at the end of his speech during this debate? He said (Hansard, col. 3611)—

You had that in Bredasdorp.

I did not. Ask Major Van der Byl how many he had. I did not seek Coloured votes there. I knew that as a Nationalist I never had a hope of gaining Coloured votes. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but as a Nationalist I have never had a hope of gaining Coloured votes, because they are not only superstitious, but also credulous, and all the trash the United Party had promised them they accepted as the truth. Then the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

Do you see, Sir, if there is still a person on the opposite side of the House who tells me that the United Party’s policy is not one of political integration, then that person has taken leave of all his senses, or then words no longer have any meaning.

But let us follow this up. The political integration they are proposing is, to begin with, to have in this House 16 non-White representatives who will be Bantu or Coloureds for the most part—some will be Whites, but the majority will probably be Bantu or other non-Whites—but later on, as the hon. member for Yeoville himself said in a passage I quoted during the first-reading debate, it will be different. In that television broadcast of his he said that this was advocated by his Leader and accepted by all of them, namely that in future the time would have to come when all non-Whites would be represented by non-Whites in this House. And then these people say that they do not stand for political integration! They say that they stand for “White leadership with justice”. It is just as impossible to reconcile “White leadership” with political integration as it is to reconcile the moon with the sun. That is simply impossible, because particularly in a country such as South Africa, with its multi-racial population, such a policy must lead to a majority government and that majority government, as historical events in the world and also in Africa have shown us, will eventually not be a White government, but a non-White government. That is the reason for this vehement attack on this Bill. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that this Bill is an admission of failure on our part, and a short while ago the hon. member for Transkei said that if we could have induced the Coloured representatives in this House to vote on our side, this Bill would not have been introduced. Let me tell the hon. member that that has never been our view; that has never been our need. In the days when the Coloureds were still on the Common Voters’ Roll, we did, of course, also make use of the fact that they were enfranchised, just as the others did. There was nothing to prevent the National Party from canvassing for their votes, just as the other parties were doing. But it was the National Party that placed the Coloureds on separate Voters’ Rolls. Mention to me one single member of the National Party who spoke on behalf of the National Party, or any leader of the National Party who has since addressed a public meeting of Coloureds at any time.

Daantjie Scholtz.

Daantjie Scholtz was a member of the National Party; he left this House and stood for election as an independent candidate. He had no official backing of the National Party. But look at the role the United Party played when they nominated Mr. Eden, the hon. member for Karoo, as the United Party candidate to oppose the hon. member for Outeniqua. They tried to oust the hon. member for Outeniqua and tried to have an enrolled member of the United Party elected as a Coloured Representative, but they lost that fight. Now the United Party wants to impute that sort of thing to us. Sir, it has never been the National Party’s endeavour to have National Party candidates elected as Coloured Representatives. Why did the National Party grant the Coloureds separate representation and why did Dr. Verwoerd say so clearly in 1965 that the Coloured representation here could not remain as it was? That is how Dr. Verwoerd put it, and no less a person than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout understood it that way, because in a speech immediately afterwards he repeated what Dr. Verwoerd had said and he said that everybody knew then that the representatives of the Coloureds in this House would not remain here on the basis on which they were here at that time. The reproach which is now being leveled at us is that we want an absolute say. It seems to me as though hon. members opposite have not read this Bill. This Bill does not provide that the Opposition party or the National Party or the Progressive Party or any other party may not state its point if view in public, also in respect of the way it views South Africa’s development and the way it views the development of the Coloureds.

May it do so at a meeting?

Yes, it may do so at a meeting. All this Bill provides is that one may not address a meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom the greater majority are non-Whites, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a Coloured or a Bantu political party.

No, that is not what the Bill provides.

Any respectable legal adviser will tell you that; I am not referring to that hon. member. That is why the hon. member for Parow was right when he said that the National Party would still convey its message to the Coloureds—and it is going to do so—but not necessarily by addressing political meetings of Coloureds under the chairmanship of Coloureds. Hon. members may correct me—the hon. member for Peninsula may know more about this—but I honestly do not know of one single prominent leader of the United Party who, since the removal of the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll and the introduction of the present system of Coloured Representation in this House, has at any time at any place (except perhaps for the Progressive Party which did so during the provincial elections) made it his business to address political meetings intended mainly for Coloureds. Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether he has held such meetings?

Yes.

For what purpose?

To have my candidate elected.

The United Party’s candidate or the Coloureds’ candidate?

My candidate. What is wrong with that?

Do you hear the admission, Sir? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now says that he has addressed such Coloured meetings at several places. In order to do what? To encourage his candidate and to recommend him to the Coloureds so that they may elect him instead of a Progressive Party candidate perhaps. Can you see that, Sir? We now want to put an end to Coloured candidates of that sort. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any Nationalist or any white person were to address a political meeting of persons belonging to any population group other than the one to which he belongs —in other words, any meeting of a non-white political group—for the purpose of furthering the interests of a candidate, irrespective of whether he is a white or a non-white person, or for the purpose of furthering the objects of his political party, then we say that this constitutes interference and this Bill prohibits that. The Coloureds want us to prohibit it. The Coloureds have the right to form their own political party and to nominate their own candidates. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that since this legislation has been under way I have received letters from the various prominent Coloured leaders. Amongst others I have had an interview with the present Coloured Persons Representative Council, not about this matter but about another matter in connection with which they wanted to see me. There is one matter in regard to which they have taken an absolutely unyielding stand, and that is clearly apparent from what I am going to read out now. They have confirmed it once again. The attitude they adopt is clearly apparent in a brochure published by a Coloured political party in June, 1965. They said it at that time already, but they are reaffirming it to-day.

Who are “they”? *The MINISTER: I quote (translation)—

They are referring here to the common franchise which obtained previously—

I am going to read out just this one further passage—

This was just after the present Coloured Council, which is still in existence, was constituted—

How many Coloured votes have you personally gained?

That hon. member has gained more than I did. In 1948 I, too, addressed a Coloured group in Carnarvon, where the hon. member for Gardens was the Opposition candidate and the sitting member at the time. [Interjections.] I addressed them on one occasion. That was at the time when they were still on the common voters’ roll. That was the first and only occasion in my life on which I did so. What did I tell them? I said, “I did not come here to-night to tell you how bad the United Party is and how good the National Party is; I shall state to you the policy of the National Party, and you can vote for the United Party or for the National Party”. I think most of them voted for the United Party. But since the hon. member for Gardens has referred to that, I want to tell him this: In those days the National Party did not have one single Coloured person as an enrolled member of the National Party, but the United Party did in fact have such members.

Mr. Speaker, what are the three major principles embodied in this Bill? In the first instance this Bill prohibits a member of one population group from being a member of a political party of any other population group. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s point of view? His point of view is that the United Party does not want mixed membership, but he wants to know what is wrong with it if other people want it to be so. Can you see, Sir, how he always wants to keep his way open? To-day he is not strongly opposed to that; he does not want it now, because it means little or nothing to him at present, but since the other parties want it, he wants to keep the way open for himself for the future. Addressing a meeting, etc., where the greater majority of the members of the audience consist of persons from another population group, is prohibited by this Bill, but the United Party or the National Party is not being prevented from propagating throughout the country to whomever it pleases its political views in respect of Coloured or Bantu administration and development or in respect of the Whites, just as long as it does not propagate the view that “this Coloured party or that Bantu party represents our policy”, since they would then be making propaganda for a political party of another race group.

From what Coloured group’s document have you just read out to us?

I quoted from a document issued by the Federal Coloured Peoples’ Party of the Transvaal. This document was drafted as long ago as 1964. [Interjections.] They may be affiliated with the others; I do not know. Mr. Speaker, the previous Act was so strict that one could not even render assistance to one’s farm labourers or anybody to get them to the polls so that they may cast their votes. This Bill does not prohibit that. This Bill contains three basic principles only; the first is no mixed political party membership; the second is that no person may address political meetings or assemblies of persons belonging to another race group, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party of another race group or its candidates who have been nominated or may be nominated. The third principle is that no financial assistance from abroad may be rendered to any political party, and what is provided in this Bill applies to the National Party as much as it does to the United Party, the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party or any other party. We are all treated alike. Hon. members of the Opposition suggested that the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Bantu Commissioners would have the right to say to the Coloured or Bantu political parties, “Stop your nonsense, for you are not supporting the Government’s policy,” and that they could be compelled and forced to support the Government’s policy, or to compel and to force them to support our policy.

But I want to conclude by saying that the National Party Government has honourably maintained and developed its trusteeship towards the non-white population in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated that this legislation was an indication of the failure of the Government’s policy. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the United Party had to admit and bear in mind one thing, whether it is pleasant or not, namely that the non-Whites were endorsing and supporting the National Government’s policy in increasing numbers …

I said why. I said …

It does not matter why. The hon. member said so and by doing so he spoke the truth.

For once in his life.

I would not go quite as far as that. At any rate, what the hon. member said here, is the truth. I claim, and I think even the hon. member for Houghton will agree with me, that in fulfilling its trusteeship obligations during the 20 years it has been in power, the National Party Government has brought about more goodwill and greater satisfaction and happiness and that with its policy it has held out better prospects to our non-white race groups than has been the case with any previous Government over a similar period. I can understand that the Progressive Party, which has fallen into disfavour with the Whites or was born prematurely and can therefore only have one representative here, wants to snatch at every straw they can get hold of in order to keep its head above water and at least to retain that one representative here. But for the life of me I cannot understand the attitude adopted by the United Party to this measure and to the measure that was recently piloted through this House, unless, of course, they have so little hope of realizing under their own steam their vision for the future of South Africa that they are now trying to make this possible by trying to come to power on the backs of the non-Whites. But they will first have to come to power before they can put this integration policy of theirs into effect. But there are many other things which the National Government introduced in spite of every possible prophecy of doom, things which they dare not touch to-day and do not have the courage to repeal because the nation will revolt against their doing so. I maintain that if they were ever to come to power in South Africa again, the chances of their tampering with this legislation would be as slim. But as I am saying, that will still be many, many years, if ever.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and H. Suzman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs for having agreed to the adjournment of this debate after the delivery of his second-reading speech to give us an opportunity to study the details of this Bill. I may say that, after such study, it is quite clear that the principle of this Bill is to reconstitute and enlarge the existing Council for Coloured Affairs. When I say “the existing Council”, I mean the council as brought into existence by the 1964 legislation and not the council which is active at the present time.

The principle of reconstituting and enlarging that existing council is one which we support. For that reason we shall support the second reading of this Bill. We are unhappy about certain details, which I shall outline, and we shall move amendments to cover them at the Committee Stage. But before dealing with them, I want to say one or two things which I think are of fundamental importance. The first is that this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is not, and never can be, a substitute for representation in this Parliament of the Coloured people. It is, and will always have to remain, subordinate to this Parliament, and there will always be a large area covered by matters of national importance, matters of great importance for both the European and the Coloured people, in fact for every population group in South Africa, over which that council will have no say whatever, no influence and not the slightest say of any kind. Whatever the Minister may have said in the course of his second-reading speech, introducing this Bill, this Bill itself contains no reference to any substitution of that council for Coloured representation in this House. The battle for the principle of Coloured representation in this House has already been fought and lost. Therefore this Bill must be treated on its merits as things are at the present time. When looked at on its merits, I must say this council falls a long way short of the sort of communal council which we of the United Party would like to see set up for the Cape Coloured people. It is not entirely elected as we would like to see it. There are still a number of nominated members. Participation in elections is not limited to people who are literate. It has no taxing powers, as even the majority of the recent commission dealing with improper interference recommended. It is still largely advisory and administrative. It is to be given legislative powers, but it can only introduce legislation with the consent of the Minister. When that legislation is passed by the council, it can be vetoed by the State President on the advice of the Cabinet which operates as elected from this Parliament. Nor is there any proper machinery created for liaison with this House. I know that it has been promised in some form or other after consultation with the council itself when it has been in operation, but it is not in this Bill. We still do not know what is intended. These are examples where I feel that it does not measure up to the sort of communal council for the Coloured people which we of the United Party would like to see. There are others, but I do not propose to deal with them now.

But, nevertheless this is a step, however faltering a step, in the right direction. From all the evidence given before the Commission on Improper Interference it is quite clear that the existing limited council in operation at the moment has done good work and is popular with the Coloured people. The prospect of reconstituting it and enlarging its powers is greeted with enthusiasm by the Cape Coloured people. I believe we could build on the structure which it is intended to create under this Bill. I believe we can develop it into something with real powers and meaning in its own sphere. Already we have a council which will have certain legislative authority. Under this Bill we will have a council which can hold its meetings in public, as opposed to the closed meetings which are held at the present time. Under this Bill the majority of members will be elected. All those are steps in the right direction. That is why this Bill has our support. I want to say at the same time a word or two about the details of some of the provisions about the wisdom of which we are uncertain.

The first question I want to raise is why it is that there are still one-third of the members of the council to be nominated. Why are not all elected? I know there is an argument that by nominating members of the council you can give representation to minority groups. But do we want to go on encouraging the development of minority groups? Here in this House there is no representation of minority groups. Here in this House all Europeans are represented through the various constituencies. Why introduce a principle of this kind?

Secondly, under this legislation the vote is given to everyone over the age of 21, literate or illiterate, male or female. The experience of democracy throughout the world and particularly in emerging Africa shows how irresponsible an electorate can be which is not literate, which is dependent upon word of mouth and hearsay for its information and knowledge as to what is happening. It would be a pity if the vote is not made subject to a literacy test, however limited.

If I look at the clauses of the Bill, there are one or two matters that worry me. In clause 5, I find that for registration it is incumbent on every voter to post or deliver an application for registration. Surely, it should be enough if he causes it to be posted or delivered, or am I misunderstanding the Interpretation Act in saying that that is not inherent in the statement in the Bill itself? I am sure the Minister would feel with me that, if it were caused to be done, that should be sufficient.

Clause 7 provides that there will be in the Cape Province 28 elected members of the council, as opposed to the 18 in the original Bill. Naturally, I am in favour of an increase in representation for the Cape Province. But, Sir, is it wise to continue to lay down as in the original Bill the numbers of representatives for each province? Would it not be wiser to say that we shall establish a quota for the Republic once we know how many people have been registered, and that we will determine the number of representatives for each province by having regard to the number of persons registered in that province, and not fix it in advance in this Bill? Twenty-eight may be over-representation for the Cape Province. It may be under-representation for the Cape Province. At the present time we do not know how many people are registered or are likely to be registered.

Then we find in clause 11 a new provision that the chairman of the council can be removed from office by the State President. The State President has the power to remove an Administrator, and I suppose it is nothing unusual for him to have the power to remove the chairman of this council. When an Administrator is removed, it has to be reported to Parliament within a certain time, stating the reasons, which have to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. In this case should there not be a report to Parliament and the council as to the reasons why it has been found necessary to remove the chairman of the council? It is done by the State President. The Coloured People’s Representative Council may have no knowledge of what the reasons are. It seems to me that it will be wise for the matter to be tabled in this House and possibly in the council, so that there can be proper publicity and information as to exactly why such a step was taken.

Then in clause 11 we find, read with clauses 15 and 16, the powers of the executive and the council. It seems as if this council is to have powers to legislate over finance, local government, education, community welfare and pensions, rural areas and settlements for Coloureds and “such other matters as the State President may from time to time determine by proclamation in the Gazette”. The change here is that we in Parliament have decided that these particular matters should be placed under the authority of the council. In the previous legislation we specified nothing and we left it to the State President to determine what should be placed under the authority of the council. I think that this is the correct step. I think that Parliament should decide. Why therefore should we leave it now to the State President to add to that list? Surely it is for this body to decide what shall be added to that list. It is our powers we are handing over. Clause 15 states that—

In other words, the powers given the council derogate from the powers of this Parliament. I believe that if there is to be a further granting of powers it should be by Parliament itself and not by the State President. When we speak of finance we find that a special procedure is introduced. That procedure is that the executive will draw up estimates which require the approval of the Minister. These estimates will then be submitted to the council and the council may come to Parliament. We find also when it comes to legislation, that legislation can only be introduced with the permission and approval of the Minister. What happens if the executive or the council cannot get the approval of the Minister? Finance always tends to be the nub of legislation of this kind. It tends to be the axis around which everything revolves. I have no doubt that this council will have big ideas about how to carry out the administrative duties which will be granted to it under this Bill. What happens if it thinks it needs more money than the Minister is prepared to give? What happens if it thinks it needs more money than the Minister is prepared to recommend? Are we not creating here a source of friction which may lead to misunderstanding and difficulties in the future? That is why we on this side of the House have wondered whether there is no way in which one could clothe this council with some taxing power. One knows that the Commission on Improper Interference recommended that the council be given taxing power. I know how difficult that is. I know how difficult it is to have two taxing powers in one area. I believe however that it is not beyond the wit of well-intentioned people who have the interests of the Coloured people at heart to find some machinery whereby there could be some income assured to them, some income for which they will be responsible for raising, in order to obviate the difficulty of making this a cause of friction between what would be a Minister of the white Parliament and the Coloured People’s Representative Council.

Clause 11 also amends section 17 (8). It states—

Section 1 (1) brings the council into existence. It proclaims the law under which the council can be elected, but of course there will not be a council until there has been a delimitation and an election and until an executive has been elected by the council. I see the Minister’s difficulty. During that interregnum period he has to have someone to carry out the duties of the executive. I do want to express the hope that it may be possible to find another way of covering this period. If there is not, I do wish to express the hope that the Minister will not nominate people to the executive who may be eligible to it by election in future so that it will seem that he is indicating whom he would like to see serving on that executive.

I come now to clause 14, where it amends section 20 (4). Section 20 (4) provides—

Surely this is not a good principle? Surely it is not right that the Minister should attend all these meetings as of right? Surely he should attend only by invitation? Surely it would be wrong for the Minister to attend meetings of the council and speak at them when at least one-third of the members of the council are nominees nominated by his Government? Is it likely that they will oppose him? It seems to me that this is an unhappy situation. It seems to me that it arises because the machinery for consultation with the Government or this House has not yet been determined. I believe that if that machinery becomes adequate, this provision could be done away with to the mutual advantage of the Minister and the council. In his second-reading introduction speech the Minister said that the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs was “die rekenpligtige amptenaar wat ook die voorsitter van die Verteenwoordigende Raad vergesel wanneer hy voor die Gekose Komitee van die Volksraad moet verskyn”. I take it that he meant “die voorsitter van die Uitvoerende Bestuur”, the Executive Committee.

That is correct.

I raised the matter only to have the record correct because it did not seem to me that that was logical.

I now wish to deal with a few other matters. We agree that registration should be compulsory. We think it is vital as things exist at present among the Coloured people that this should be the position. We are pleased to see how much administration is being handed over to the council. I should like the Minister to express our gratitude to those European officials in our Public Service who are agreeing to act in a temporary capacity as officials of this council.

I think that I should like to emphasize three things. I hope that it will be understood from the beginning that the sittings of this council will be public and not behind closed doors as is the case with the council operating at the moment—not the 1964 council, but the old council operating at the moment. I also hope that very early attention will be given to liaison between the council and not merely the Government but this House. I think that it is vitally important that this House should know what the Coloured people are thinking. I am not satisfied that liaison with the Government will be sufficient to ensure that this House is aware of their aspirations and ideals. Various forms were suggested by the Select Committee which became a Commission. I know that it is the policy of the Government that the council itself will be asked to decide but I do say that I hope that they will appreciate the advantage of contact not only with the Government but with this House so that all the representatives of the white people in South Africa in this House will know what the Coloured people are thinking and what their aspirations and ideals are.

I believe that those are a few minor criticisms of a Bill which, as I say, is a step in the right direction and one on which I believe we can build. We shall support the second reading of this Bill.

We on this side of the House have throughout the years maintained that the policy of separate development is not a negative policy, but a policy with a positive content aimed at contributing to and assisting in the development of all the population groups in South Africa, with recognition and retention of the identities of the various groups. We are grateful that where we have to-day reached the second reading of this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Amendment Bill, hon. members on the Opposition side, as represented by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, have come round to supporting the second reading of the Bill, in other words, to endorse its principle. This testifies to a fair and reasonable attitude in regard to a matter, as he himself put it, which is of significance and value to the Coloured population. As he rightly said, even the existing Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is of value to the Coloured nation; it is a popular council among them.

I shall not try to deal in detail with certain doubts which he raised. I think the hon. the Minister can deal with them himself, particularly in so far as minor details are concerned. But I do want to refer to a few of the doubts which he expressed. One of these is the question of why one-third of the members of this new Coloured Persons’ Representative Council should still be nominated. He will admit that here we are in fact at the beginning of a new dispensation as far as the political activities of the Coloured population are concerned, and that this Bill provides for the establishment of a Coloured Persons’ Representative Council whose powers will be considerably extended as compared with those of the existing advisory council. I think it wise that, by means of the nomination of one-third of the members of the new Council by the State President, we shall keep a hand on this body which is now being established. This does not mean that this is a permanent order, and that we must always have a third of the members nominated by the State President, but I think it wise to provide initially for the State President to nominate a considerable proportion of the members in order to ensure in that way that responsible persons, and possibly also persons with special knowledge who would not easily be elected, not being in such a position as to be elected, will in fact be placed on such a council. It is also important in that, by means of the nomination of about 20 of the members of this council, the interests of certain minority groups can be looked after. The Coloured population is in itself a heterogeneous population group. The Coloureds consist of a wide variety of people. I think that hon. members who represented them will acknowledge this. It is quite possible that certain groups may feel that they do not have a proper say in the Council as it will be constituted, especially as far as the elected members are concerned. That is why we are making this provision and why care will be taken, by means of nomination by the State President, to have the widest possible representation of the Coloured population in this Council. It is important that there should not be large sections of the Coloured population who will feel that they have not been done justice or that they have been overlooked. It is important that this Council will really be one that is respected by the Coloured population as a council whose guidance they will accept and whose actions will be supported by them. Therefore I regard this as a good arrangement and we hope that it will be continued until time has taught us that the Coloureds are capable of choosing their people themselves and of establishing for themselves a board with which they will be satisfied in all respects.

As far as the numbers for the various provinces are concerned, I also consider it a good thing that in giving political franchise to the Coloureds in the other provinces with the composition of the new Council, whereas they have not had it up to now, we should give them a reasonable representation. Since those people in the other provinces are naturally more dispersed and form smaller groups, it is a good thing that we are at this stage giving them greater representation, as regards the numerical relationship, than we are giving the Coloureds in the Cape Province, especially in the Western Cape, where the people live in large numbers close to one another.

We find it gratifying—and here I want to pass from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said and should like to mention a few points in connection with this Bill—that we have now reached the stage where our Coloured population will not only receive broad political representation in the Council which is to be appointed, but where we shall also give a broad franchise to the Coloured population. Up to now the Coloureds have always found it strange that when those who have the franchise cross the borders of the Cape Province they lose that franchise. One of the things which is welcomed by the Coloured population to-day, in the Cape Province as well, is that their people in the Free State and the Transvaal will now also be represented in this new council, that those people are being drawn closer to them by this legislation to form a unit along with them in order to develop a national consciousness and to work together in the pursuance of their common ideals and objectives. The Coloured people represent a considerable proportion of our country’s population. According to the available information, more than one and a half million Coloureds live in the Cape Province at present, and a few hundred thousand in the other provinces. We foresee that this new council will usher in a new dispensation for the Coloured population and that it will open a new opportunity for them in the future, an opportunity which they will use with gratitude and which they will develop in the interests of the Coloured population. Up to now white political leaders and white political parties have always made the decisions for the Coloured population. Even the latest decisions taken in this House concerning the lives and the political activities of the Coloured population were taken by Whites. The Coloureds were more or less passive onlookers who knew that they actually had no decisive voice. Whites spoke on their behalf in this House. Their representation was therefore an indirect one, but I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that with this legislation we are really opening a new world for the Coloured population, a new political dispensation. I want to point out to hon. members on both sides of the House that the political representation given up to now to the Coloured population by the Whites could be increased or decreased by the latter, or even taken away, as has now been done. But this new political dispensation and these new political rights, this participation in the political life of the Coloured population, this participation in their future, cannot be taken away from the Coloured population again. They actually stand to-day where the Whites in South Africa stood at the stage when political representation in the government of the country was given to them many years ago. With the establishment of this Council, the Coloured population actually stands to-day on the point of taking its first steps as a broad population group on the road of active participation in its own destiny. We must appreciate that this is an important decision not only for the Coloured population, but also for the Whites. In the Republic of South Africa in the future there will be a voice of the Coloured population speaking for itself to the Coloured population, but also speaking on its behalf to the white population. The Coloured people have never had that in this way, on such a scale, with such responsibility and status. We must be aware of that. We must bear in mind that as the Prime Minister of the Transkei and his Parliament to-day speak on behalf of the Bantu of the Transkei, and as the Prime Minister and the Parliament of Lesotho speak on behalf of the people of Lesotho, to the Republic of South Africa and the outside world, so will the Coloured population begin to speak for itself to its own people, to the white people of South Africa and also to the outside world, by virtue of the legislation being adopted in this House. There will be an authoritative, responsible Coloured voice of which we shall have to take note. We must realize this to the full. It will be significant not only to the Coloured population, but also to South Africa. Therefore it is a good thing that we shall lead the Coloured population sensibly along this road, that we shall convince them of our goodwill, that the means for this new council will be made available and that they will in increasing measure be enabled to give their own people the services which must be given; because if they are to be a council which may only take certain decisions which are merely advisory, we can understand that the Coloured population will still feel that it is not actually their parliament and that they cannot really look up to their parliament.

But when in the future we make provision in increasing measure for not only administrative activities but also for funds and a budget of its own for this council, it will indeed increase in prestige among the population which it represents. In proportion as it is enabled to serve the people whom it represents, its authority and its influence will increase. I do not want to enter into details in this connection. We are at the beginning of this dispensation; there is a world of possibilities. It strikes me, in reading the evidence which Coloured leaders gave before the Select Committee, that they admit that they do not have much administrative experience; that even esteemed Coloured leaders admit that they do not have a proper knowledge of the expenditure of funds and the handling of financial matters; they realize that this is a serious shortcoming on their part and they are keen to gain the necessary experience. Therefore these things cannot be done overhastily. Indeed, I want to emphasize that we must proceed with caution in that direction. But nevertheless that door is opening for these people. This council will in time be given ever greater responsibilities in this respect as well, and if we guide them correctly and sensibly and if we educate them to apply State funds with responsibility, thrift and reason, it will not only be an achievement for them to be able to do it, but the council will also grow in stature among the people which it represents; then confidence will develop and the Coloured population will increasingly respect the Coloured Persons Representative Council as the council which manages their affairs.

There is a considerable number of the leader group of the Coloured population who already are and can be good administrative officials to-day. There are among them those who have already learnt to manage financial affairs. Very few of them—in fact, hardly any of them—have experience of legislative affairs. It appears from the evidence given before the Select Committee that this will be a new world to them and that they want to be led along that road as well. They put it in so many words that they know nothing of the handling and the drafting of a Bill. In this respect, too, we shall give the Coloured population an opportunity of gaining experience in a field in which they have had no experience up to now. They themselves admit that they know nothing about it. Since we have a fastgrowing Coloured population group—according to statistics submitted from time to time the indications are that the Coloured population will number at least 3 million by the end of the century—we must keep in mind that these people will in time, of necessity, make an important contribution to our national development, and it is important that their leaders, their own political representatives, gain sound experience not only in the direction of administrative affairs and financial control, but also on the legislative level.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by just emphasizing a few positive aspects of this Bill. I have already indicated the broad voters’ roll which will now be introduced. This is a new world to the Coloured population. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them who have always only heard that “the Whites are going to vote to-day”, or who have only heard that certain Coloureds can sometimes go and vote. But since we are now introducing compulsory registration and a broad voters’ roll for the Coloured population, we are now bringing Coloured politics within reach of the ordinary Coloured man and Coloured woman. They are being given the opportunity of playing an active part in it themselves.

There will be a considerable number of people coming to the fore in this connection. This Coloured Persons Representative Council will definitely be a prestige body for the Coloureds. They will consider it an honour to be a member of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and they will increasingly grow to respect their own people. One of the problems of our Coloured leaders is that to a large extent their people have not yet learnt to respect a fellow Coloured. There is still a long and difficult road ahead for the Coloured leaders, but in so far as they can act with authority as members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, that body will not only be a prestige body, but its members will be persons of esteem and authority among the Coloured population. Mr. Speaker, if we look into the future and think of the liaison with this Parliament, then there are various fruitful possibilities, but I consider it a good thing that, once this Coloured Persons Representative Council is established in terms of the provisions of this amending Bill, it should be consulted. There are important reasons why the Coloured Persons Representative Council should be consulted.

Let me just point out that the President of the Republic of South Africa, our head of state, will be the head of state of the Coloured population as well. I think that in the establishment of this liaison between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the white Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, consideration should be given to the desirability of recognizing the Coloureds in some way or another in the election of the State President. I just want to submit this for consideration to-day.

Our Coloured population have demonstrated in the past that they are willing to accept the State President and to recognize and respect him as their State President. They did so again recently, and therefore I hope that when this matter is discussed, we shall calmly and sensibly and also in consultation with the Coloured Persons Representative Council consider giving the Coloured population the opportunity of eventually participating directly or indirectly in the election of the State President. If that is done, it will not only be expected of them to recognize and respect the State President, but they will actually be given the opportunity of participating themselves. I want to express the confidence that this Coloured Persons Representative Council will not only be a prestige body among the Coloured population, but that since it is in the first instance a creation of the white Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, the Whites of the Republic, and this House too, will recognize and encourage and foster the authority of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and that we shall assist them in leading the Coloured population in the best possible way, in helping them to develop and in urging them as a population group and as individuals to be good citizens of the Republic of South Africa.

Sir, I rise to support this Bill primarily because it is a positive step taken by the Government to improve the status of the existing Coloured Persons Representative Council. In my view the present body is in no way representative of the Coloured people of South Africa, and this is a step taken by the Government to improve the status of that council.

Sir, in the minority report of the Muller Commission to which I was a party, we supported the creation of an effective, democratically elected body to deal with matters concerning the Coloured people. We emphasized that, distinct from the present nominated council, the new body should be a democratically elected one. We considered that an elected body would give our Coloured citizen valuable experience in the administration of public affairs. I regard this measure as a positive step in that direction. I want to emphasize, however, that this view does not in any way derogate from the strong view which was held and is still held by my colleagues and myself who were signatories to the minority report, that our Coloured citizens should continue to be represented in the sovereign Parliament of their own country.

I said then, and I repeat now, that this new Coloured council could never assume the status or the powers of this Central Parliament. It must be remembered that the powers of this council will be only those which will be given to it by our Central Parliament. The powers envisaged in this Bill are briefly as follows: In the first instance, a certain amount of handling of limited finance; secondly, local government in so far as it affects the Coloured people themselves; thirdly, Coloured education; fourthly, community welfare and pensions; fifthly, rural areas and settlements for the Coloured people and, lastly, such other matters as the State President (which in effect means the Government) may determine from time to time.

Sir, to indicate to the House that this council can never assume the status or the position of the Central Parliament, I want to deal briefly with the financial aspect as an example of the limited powers which this council is going to have. In the majority report of the Muller Commission, dealing with the financial aspects of this new deal for the Coloured people, it is indicated that the proposed Coloured council will have a revenue vote of approximately R46 million and a loan vote of R500,000, based on the 1967-’68 Estimates. Sir, it is very interesting to compare these figures which I have just mentioned with the Revenue Account of our Central Parliament for the same period. The Central Government’s Revenue Account for the same period amounts to R 1,245 million, and its Loan Account for the same period amounts to R510 million. I want to go even further. The finances made available to this new council, when compared with the finances available to the Cape Provincial Council, amount to a mere bagatelle. The Revenue Account of the Cape Provincial Council is nearly R162 million and its Capital Account is over R18 million. When one compares the amounts allocated to the new Coloured council with the moneys available to the public bodies I have mentioned, it will be appreciated that this new council will have very limited financial powers indeed.

It cannot therefore by any stretch of the imagination, I suggest, be regarded as taking the place or assuming the status of Parliament. I realize, as the hon. member for Piketberg indicated, that this is but a start. I realize that this is but a commencement of what the Government regards as a new deal for the Coloured people. But I feel I should draw attention to and emphasize the fact—that this cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as taking the place of their representation in the Central Parliament of this country. I think our citizens generally, European and non-European, should not be misled in that connection. Nonetheless this Bill is a step in the right direction in that it envisages an extension of the powers of the existing council, and I feel it should therefore receive the support of those of us who are anxious to improve the lot and the position of our Coloured citizens. I repeat it is a step in the right direction because it affords our Coloured citizens a real opportunity of assuming some administrative responsibility in the management of their own affairs. The establishment of this representative council, to my mind, is in the nature of giving to our Coloured people some small compensation for the indignities which have been inflicted upon them in depriving them of some form of representation in the Central Parliament of their own country and precluding them from having a free hand as regards their own political affairs. I repeat it is a step in the right direction, and if the Government will give to our Coloured citizens everything that has been promised to them as regards this council and generally in regard to the advantages mentioned by the hon. the Minister, it will help them, in my view, to take their place in South Africa’s industrial and economic life.

The first point which commends itself to me is the fact that this by and large is going to be a more democratically elected body. The number of elected members in this enlarged council has been increased from 30 to 40, and the number of nominated members from 16 to 20. I can understand—and in this regard I can appreciate what the hon. member for Piketberg said—the necessity of ab initio there being a number of nominated members. I quite appreciate that. I can see the necessity of having these nominated members. However, I can only hope that as time goes on the number of elected members will be increased whilst the number of nominated members decreased. I think this aspect will have to be borne in mind by the Minister as this council develops, so that ultimately this council will be regarded as a thoroughly democratically elected body in this country.

Another aspect which commends itself to me is the fact that there will now be brought into being a system of compulsory registration of Coloured voters, and that from now on Coloured men and women over the age of 21 will be eligible for registration as voters on their own rolls. This registration will extend throughout South Africa and will no longer be restricted to the Cape only. From the introductory speech made by the hon. the Minister in the second-reading debate it appears that the Government estimates a potential of 700,000 registered Coloured voters throughout the Republic. Quite obviously this is a tremendous improvement on the comparatively small number of Coloured male voters on the present roll. There are, of course, many reasons for the meagre number of Coloured men on the roll to-day, particularly the difficulties connected with registration, and so on. However, I do not think it necessary to deal at any length with this aspect at this stage.

The fact is that, under this Bill, Coloured citizens—both male and female—over the age of 21 now become eligible for registration as voters. I can only express the hope that our Coloured citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity and will register voluntarily and as speedily as possible so as to get this roll into being as soon as possible. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has suggested, and not without merit, that in due course a literacy test should be applied. Here I must say that a large number of Coloured people support that point of view, and in due course it may be necessary for the Government to take heed of what the hon. Leader has suggested in that connection. To commence with, I think one can only urge responsible Coloured leaders to ensure that as many people as possible who qualify to vote under this new scheme should register on a voluntary basis as quickly as possible so that this voters’ roll can be brought into effect speedily.

During his second-reading speech, the Minister used words to this effect. Referring to this Bill, he said that, with this measure and everything that it comprises, Coloured South Africans are being placed on a road which can put them in a position to be themselves. They are for the first time in their existence being given an opportunity to make a proper contribution to the development of South Africa’s progress and prosperity. I am glad the Minister used those words. I agree that this new council will afford a good opportunity to our Coloured citizens of making a substantial contribution towards their own development in the industrial and economic life of this country.

I was very glad that the hon. the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, had indicated the Government’s willingness to help our Coloured citizens to make a proper contribution to the development of our country’s progress and prosperity. I am glad the Minister made that suggestion, and I sincerely hope the Government will give effect to the undertaking given by the Minister. I can only hope that the Government will implement fully this solemn undertaking, and that this undertaking will not in due course have the same fate as some of the other solemn undertakings which unfortunately were given to the Coloured people in the past. I hope the Government, will endeavour to ensure that the undertaking given by the Minister when introducing this Bill, will be given effect to. I know the hon. the Minister is sincere enough to do so.

The Bill before us provides for an extension of the functions and powers of the council. Again I have to say that I hope as time goes on the Government will give to this council more and more functions so that eventually it will be in the position where it deals with all matters affecting our Coloured citizens. In the course of his speech the hon. the Minister suggested it was a total illusion to think that the Coloured people, who were enjoying more and more education and who were expected to number more than four million by the end of the century, would also be satisfied with dummy representation in Parliament. My reply to that is that it is a greater illusion for the Government to think that our Coloured people, whose position is going to be improved as time goes on, will always be satisfied with no representation in Parliament. I think that would be even a greater illusion on the part of the Government were they to believe that. I feel the Government must work towards the time, as this council continues to function and improve in status, when the council itself will urge some form of representation for the Coloured people in the central Parliament. I can only express the hope that when that time comes, the government of the day will give the most favourable consideration to that appeal, because I am certain, as surely as we are here to-day, that the time will come when that appeal will be made by the council for the representation of the Coloured people in this Parliament.

In the interim, however, I should like to associate myself with the views expressed by the Minister and others when they suggested that it was the duty of the white people, with their superior knowledge, insight and experience, to help their less fortunate fellow-citizens. I would urge the White people of South Africa to try and give this new council every possible help and guidance, although—and I want to say this in all fairness—how that is going to be possible in the light of the Improper Interference Bill presently before Parliament, is something which I cannot envisage. However the responsibility will rest primarily upon the Government to help this new Coloured Representative Council to become a really worthwhile body.

To the extent, therefore, that this is a positive measure, which should bring benefits to our Coloured people throughout the Republic, I fully support the principle envisaged in this Bill. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there are many matters of detail which we shall have an opportunity of discussing during the Committee Stage, and I hope this House will be given the fullest opportunity of discussing those details when that stage is reached. In the interim, however, as a matter of general principle, I am prepared to give this Bill my support and I shall be very happy to vote for it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, one must express one’s appreciation towards the hon. member for Peninsula, who has just resumed his seat, for the support which he has given to this measure in principle. The only pity, however, is that there was a sting in the tail, for he said he regretted the fact that the Coloured Representatives were being removed from the House of Assembly. But his complaint is inconsistent because these two things are closely connected. This measure is the completion of a gradual disengagement from a principle which was imposed upon South Africa from outside when the British Parliament resolved on 15th July, 1828, to request the King “that directions be given for effectually securing to all the Natives of South Africa the same freedom and protection as are enjoyed by other free persons residing at the Cape, whether they be English or Dutch”. The difficulty arose in that the word “same” meant that no distinction was made between the various colour groups. The result was that when, in 1853, Representative Government was introduced into the Cape Colony, no mention of colour was made in the Constitution. Nor was this done when Responsible Government was subsequently introduced. In 1910, when the Cape Colony became part of the Union of South Africa, the principle of identity or integration was maintained in the Cape Province. Originally, in 1828, by “Natives” was meant the Hottentots, but as the Bantu also entered the Colony, it applied to them as well. Since the National Party came into power a departure from that principle has been in progress, and it is now being completed in this measure with the positive replacement of what is being taken away by the introduction of a legislative Coloured Persons’ Council. This is in accordance with Dr. Verwoerd’s vision. On 10th April, 1961, during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, he envisaged the separate development of the Coloured population by means of their own legislative council, with executive authority. His words were as follows—

In his reply to the debate on 14th April, 1961, Dr. Verwoerd explained that he had not meant a separate homeland for Coloureds, but the idea of a state within a state, “is an unorthodox idea precisely because it does not deal with territorial division. I would not have used the words ‘a state within a state’ in the case of a separate area”. On 12th December, during the same year, he stated, in a speech before the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, that a homeland for the Coloureds offered “no solution for the Coloured group”. He went on to say—

For the Coloureds, and in the same way for the Indians separately, he therefore envisaged an autogenous legislative body. I quote (translation)—

That is why I want to repeat what I said just now to the hon. member for Peninsula, i.e. that an independent state development for the Coloureds is being established, which makes representation for the Coloureds in this Parliament an inconsistency. It would in any case prejudice the significance of their own Coloured Parliament if they continue to have representatives here. It would result in there being a confusion of principles. On 14th April, 1961, Dr. Verwoerd, in his Budget speech, also expressed the opinion “that the hon. members of the Opposition are always making the mistake of thinking that the only kind of political rights are rights in the same Parliament, whereas I am of the opinion that political rights can be granted according to the other methods I have explained”. That is, through this Legislative Coloured Persons’ Council in this case.

The principle we are dealing with is the principle of nationhood in South Africa. It is the central fact in the history of South Africa that there has been a process of becoming a nation, that a white nation has grown into existence in the course of history. But at first it was only a white nation, and subsequently this was also the case with Coloured nations. This process of growing nationhood is based on the principle of differentiation in regard to colour. It is a scientific principle. The other principle from which we have disengaged ourselves is the principle of identity or integration and is an unscientific principle. Authorities in the field of anthropology and social psychology are agreed that there are differences between the groups which can be distinguished on the basis of colour and which are of such a nature that a separate group consciousness exists amongst each one, with the result that they compete with one another as group units in the various walks of life, including the political sphere, if they have to live under the same political allegiance. It is this profound difference which causes a separate group consciousness and which makes it essential for various nations to come into existence, and not a mixed nation of a demos in the democracy, because in that case the various groups will compete with one another as a result of their separate group consciousness, and will clash in order to gain control of the machinery of government.

The religious principle also plays a role. It is necessary that we realize this. It is alleged far too easily that it is un-Christian to differentiate on the basis of colour, to establish separate nations, and not one common, identical nation. It is alleged that it is un-Christian to do so, but it is clear from the Old Testament as well as the New that there should be a distinction in regard to colour, that there must be separate nations in the world, and not a Babel which creates confusion.

It is very interesting to read that Dr. Verwoerd said that he rejected the idea that there could not be a state within a state; that he in fact accepted that there could be a state within a state. To me this seems to be a new departure in politics. It is a little difficult to understand if we consider that a state is usually regarded as a community which has a government, subjects and a territory of its own. But the question arises as to whether a distinctive country is in fact essential for a state. It is not fundamentally part of the state. In general a state does in fact possess a country, but there have been states which did not possess a country. I am thinking for example of the Israelites when for 40 years they journeyed through the wilderness. They had a government and subjects, but they did not have a country. We cannot state that they did not have the fundamental characteristics of a State. They were a group of people. The state consists of people. They had the fundamental characteristics of a state. The same applied to the Voortrekkers when they did not yet have a specific country.

A very interesting view was also expressed here by the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs, when he referred to the group areas of the Coloureds and their rural as well as in their urban areas, and stated that they would have their roots in those areas. This is a basis on which their political development can be built up: These group areas and their properties by which means they nevertheless have their roots in that area.

Often, when the Coloured or the Bantu are being discussed, emphasis is laid on what the legislation means to the Coloureds or the Bantu. That is quite correct, but it is also essential to emphasize what the legislation means to the Whites. If there were no white nation, and specifically the Afrikaners, as the nucleus of that white nation, then there would also be no civilization in South Africa. It is this same white nation which provides the guarantee for the security of the Coloureds and for their development towards independence in the political field. It was the white nation which protected the Coloureds as well as the Bantu in the past and saved them from elimination by tyrants and also from the barbaric hordes which were set on destroying them. Here, too, it is the white nation which is safeguarding their future for them. For that reason it is also necessary that they should take into account the fact that the Whites themselves should be in a strong position in South Africa and in Africa.

I do not know whether I heard correctly, but it sounded to me as if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that he supported the second reading of the Bill. Did he say that?

Yes.

We must welcome this as well. It is perhaps the salvation of the few remaining hon. members of the Opposition, i.e. the fact that they are supporting the second reading of this bill. The great difficulty with the Opposition in the past was that they were unable to adjust to the process of growing nationhood. They could not adjust themselves to it, and specifically they could not adjust to the constitutional development with which we are also dealing now. It was always their lot to follow after and accept the changes as inevitable. In this way the public came under the impression, and quite rightly so, that they were the fifth wheel to the coach.

You are looking for trouble now.

Yes, I am looking for trouble. It would have been very pleasant to have been given a little trouble in this case. It is very fortunate that the Opposition is not supporting this Bill. The final steps in the establishment of separate nations in South Africa is now taking place by means of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the previous speaker makes one think that the Coloured people, as a community is something new, which has just been discovered and for whom something extraordinary is now going to be done. They are now going to be led into the promised land, except that it is not going to be their own land. The hon. member mentioned the Israelites. I only hope that the Coloured people are not going to wander in the wilderness for 40 years as from to-day, before they get back the political rights which they enjoyed.

I wanted to deal with this Bill from the angle that half a loaf is better than no bread, but I do not think that this is even half a loaf. I am not going to oppose the Bill, because the Coloured people, who are extremely disappointed and bewildered as a result of the course of events in recent weeks, feel that there might be something in this. I want to say that the present Union Council for Coloured Affairs holds its meetings in secret. That secrecy will now be lifted. The stands that have been taken by the Coloured representatives are going to be exonerated to the full because the country will hear this council asking for precisely the same things that these four Coloured representatives in this House have been asking for since they have been here. That is the information that we as the representatives of the Coloured people find out from time to time. When we ask for certain things in Parliament, we find that the members for the Union Council for Coloured Affairs tell us that they have been asking for precisely the same thing. The affairs of this particular council will now for the first time be made public. I think that the Government is in for a shock. They are going to find that political rights are not merely some small obscure right, as is the case with this council, which does not even have the right to rate property. It does not even have the standing of the smallest local authority in the Cape Province.

Are you referring to the new Coloured Council?

Yes, the new Coloured Council. It has no power. [Interjections.] The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that they will have no money which they will be able to say they have been responsible for raising, and spend, and say that it is theirs. They are going to receive a lump sum, the size of which will be within the discretion of the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. I feel to-day that it must be placed on record that there were people during the second reading of this Bill who could advise the Government on the direction in which this council will move. I want to deal mainly with the powers of the council. I know something about local government and the provincial administration. To take one authority affected by this Bill, the Provincial Council of the Cape set up a commission, which was not appointed by the United Party, but by the Administrator of the Cape and his Executive. The commission made a long searching examination into the possibility of local authorities being split into viable Coloured local authorities, as distinct from white local authorities. In all honesty and kindness I recommend to the Minister that he study the Rossouw Commission Report because he will find that the one place which is mentioned as being possibly a viable municipality in the future, is Athlone. It also mentions the tremendous difficulties that will arise-—I think that it said they were almost incapable of solution—in order to split the money for use in regard to watermains, electricity mains, sewer mains, streets, etc. When we come to the smaller local authorities, I ask the Minister in all sincerity how small local authorities such as Carnarvon, Loxton, Beaufort West, Middelburg, Graaff-Reinet and Colesberg are to establish separate viable municipalities to be controlled by the new council. These platteland towns have limitations. We do not see any enormous population growth in those towns. I therefore say that this power is mythical because there is only one authority, according to a commission properly constituted, which called for evidence from competent people. They found that it is not a proposition.

When we come to the power to handle education we find that the Coloured community as such has for years been asking for salaries for their teachers on the same scale as the salaries of white teachers. At present the scale is considerably lower. For years they have felt that the scales should be the same and they have said so. In this council they will repeat it until they get the same salary as a white teacher. The Minister must tell us whether, if that were to be one of the first resolutions passed by this council, he would recommend to the Minister of Finance that Coloured teachers should receive the same salaries as white teachers. A lot of money would be involved.

When it comes to pensions, disability and old age pensions for instance, it has always been a complaint on the part of the Coloured community that these pensions are inadequate. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the second item on which this council is going to pass a resolution will be the matter of pensions. They are going to ask for the pension which Coloureds receive to be adjusted on a par with pensions received by Whites. In fairness to these people, and in fairness to this House, I think the Minister should give an indication what will happen should they in future come along with these resolutions. Is resistance going to be at his level, or where?

The third power this council is going to have is the power to deal with Coloured settlements. This is merely an administrative power and I think the council with its 60 members will be able to deal with these settlements in very quick time. It will be interesting to know whether they would have the power to expand present settlements or create new settlements, such as or better than, the settlement at Eksteenskuil below Upington. Will they have the power to do that?

Having now dealt with the few positive things the Government wants this council to deal with, let us have a look at the things they will not be able to do. Here the hon. the Minister should give us some kind of a lead because the Coloured people outside are waiting to hear. I have been in touch with the hon. the Minister of Defence in order to determine what role the Coloured community will be playing in the field of defence. I do not have in mind defence policies, but the training of Coloured youths. The Coloured people feel that they too can make a useful contribution in this regard. As a matter of fact, they have a very proud record in this field. The Minister told me that the small establishment there is at present at Eerste River was the limit of what was intended for them in the field of defence. During another debate earlier this session, I dealt with the role the Coloured man is playing on the Railways and the say he is going to have there. That brought forth laughter. But if one looks at the items which it is within the power of the Government to transfer to this council, one wonders whether this council will at some time or other get the authority to issue passports, thereby ensuring that the Coloureds as well will get passports as quickly as possible instead of having to wait for them six months. This is a sore point with the Coloured community. If the Coloured community is going to get full citizenship as new South Africans, instead of as old South Africans as before, they will want to know what is going to happen in regard to passports. They will want to know too what is going to happen to those race classifications made by the Race Classification Board to which they object. I should like to have some indication from the Minister of what is intended in this regard. What about posts and telegraphs? Will the sky be the limit here? Is this council going to have the power to train people to run a portion of the Post Office, at a level higher than the low positions they occupy to-day, with the exception of one or two isolated cases in their own townships? Are those post offices serving the Coloureds in their own communities going to be open to the Coloureds, so that they can serve their own people? What is their function to be in the field of agriculture? What will the position be if Coloured men would like to farm on a small or a big scale? What will their role be in the field of commerce and industry? As you may know, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the interference of the Coloured Development Corporation in Coloured business, with the direct competition of that body with Coloured businessmen, although this body is doing quite a good job in other directions.

Interference which does a good job.

What I mean is that there were cases where Coloured men wanted to start businesses when the Coloured Development Corporation stepped in. That is interference. But where this corporation has been financing people who came to it for assistance it has done a good job. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would let his affairs he run by the Coloured Development Corporation there might be a big improvement.

I now want to deal with certain functions of the provincial council vis-à-vis the Coloured community. I should like the Minister, when he replies, to deal with the question of hospitals, for instance. There are a number of Coloured hospitals, including two large ones in the Cape Province. What I want to know is who is going to have the authority over the hospitals which are being built, with one administrative staff for the white and non-white wings? Will this council at one time or other have the authority to deal with the Coloured section of that hospital? Who is going to be the master? Then we have the old question, which the Provincial Council also deals with, of libraries, museums, flora and fauna. The Coloured people also have an interest in these things. Are these powers to be taken away from the provinces in due course and handed over to this council? We have heard a lot of brave talk about “separate development” and “the sky is the limit” but I, as a practical man, realize that a lot of this fancy talk is incapable of application.

How can you then support this Bill?

The point is the Coloureds are going to get a start on something, but I want to put on record now the line which I hope the hon. the Minister is going to take. I have said earlier on that these people are going to get something. It is very little, and I would be the last to take the little away. It would be like taking the blind man’s penny out of his hat.

You did not say that in 1964.

I would like the hon. member for Houghton to remember that she is sitting in front of me and not at the back.

You must not be naughty and interfere with him.

Mr. Speaker, we will let that pass. I would like to refer to this question of the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs having the right to be present and taking part in discussions of this Executive. Surely that is not a wholesome step. Surely that should be by invitation. Surely neither the hon. the Minister nor the Secretary for Coloured Affairs would wish to influence these people if they wanted to take a certain course of action. If it is not the intention to influence them, why are they allowed to be present? There are cases on record where officials have intervened in the Union Council of Coloured Affairs and taken part in debates and tried to influence what has been going on. I also want to know what the function is, and who the individual will be, who will be the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs. Is that going to be a white man? If not, at what stage will it be a Coloured man? If it is a new post why is this post necessary? Is it possibly a differentiation or a change in the title of an official in the department? If one looks at the estimates which are before us in this session and sees the amount of money which is being allocated for Coloured affairs one must be struck, as the hon. member for Peninsula said, by the inadequacy of the amount of money which is being voted. I for one do not suggest that the hon. the Minister does not intend to come forward next year, or the year after that, with a greater sum of money. I do believe, however, that the whole basis of this council, as I have said in a previous debate, is, that we are setting the clock back 100 years in regard to the Coloured people. They are going to start now right at the beginning again. I think that the hon. the Minister should give some indication as to what he envisages. Hon. members, who have spoken before me, have referred to statements by Dr. Verwoerd that we cannot have a state within a state. If this council carries on to its ultimate and logical conclusion we are going to have a state within a state. Whether or not that is a good thing, time will tell. But if they are not going to get to the status of being a state within a state, all the talk and promises that the sky is the limit in all directions, will fall away. I believe that the Coloured people are getting a worse deal than the Bantu in the Transkei and that they will always have to come along, cap in hand, to ask for favours and to plead. Nevertheless, with all these shortcomings, and they are very real ones, I, unlike the hon. member for Houghton who does not want to give anything at all, believe this is something …

If I were you, I would wait and see what I am prepared to give them.

I have waited long enough already but I have nothing yet.

The position to-day, as I see it, is that the Coloured people outside with whom I have been in contact, do not welcome the council, but they say: “At least we will have a forum where we will be able to speak”. They will have a forum where they will be able to state their case. They will be able to talk with each other and argue with each other. For this reason alone this council has merit, because a forum is what it is going to be.

It will be their own people’s forum.

It may be their own people’s forum, but the world is going to know what they think and we are going to know. You know it already, of course, because you have heard it from the gentlemen who sit on my left with me.

I now come to the situation of the nominated members. The Coloured people ask one thing, and although it is embodied in the main Bill, I offer it to the hon. the Minister. Why is the Malay community getting special treatment? I want to tell the Minister that already there is another group of people who want to know when they are going to have a council of their own. A letter is lying on my desk asking me what the position is in regard to Gordonia being given back to the basters, the “bruin-mense”. That is what they call themselves. They are asking, and they are very earnest and sincere. They tell me that they saw the late Dr. Verwoerd and put this proposition to him. I had to tell them that as far as I know the position is as it was before and that there will be no change. The fact remains that the “baster-volk”, or as they prefer to call themselves the “bruinmense”, expect to have some authority of their own. They feel that they are entitled to it and that they are competent to exercise it. Then you have another group of people, namely the Griquas. They have multiplied in number and are getting identity cards. They now number quite a force. The fact is that the Griqua does not consider himself to be neither a Coloured nor a Bantu. These are the complications that I envisage. I think that the hon. the Minister, in fairness to the Coloured community, should realize that the Coloured people in Natal are a totally different group of people from the Coloured people here in the Western Cape. They are quite different people and stem from quite different sources. I want to say that we are embarking here on a course of action which I think will run faster than the Government realizes. I believe that the Coloured community will state their case clearly and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is going to be hard-pressed, because they are going to demand many things. Because there will be a forum from which they will be able to demand many things which they feel they need, I intend to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Karoo said that one could apply the saying “half a loaf is better than none” to this legislation. The hon. member immediately added that this was not even half a loaf, and his entire speech was in the same vein. The Leader of the United Party, of which that hon. member, as far as I know, is a member, supports this legislation. However, the hon. member speaks of all the arguments raised here as “fancy talk”. In other words, the hon. member’s Leader was also indulging in “fancy talk” when he supported this legislation. The hon. member merely illustrated by this speech, in which he tried to disparage this legislation, that he does not have the interests of the Coloureds at heart. With that speech the hon. member has gone directly against his Leader. According to the speech which the hon. member delivered it is in fact fitting that he should vote against this legislation. He cannot make a few modifications at the end of his speech and say that for various reasons he supports the legislation. The spirit of his entire speech was against this legislation. It is a fact that that hon. member and the United Party try to disparage everything which is of a positive nature and which the National Party tackles and which has positive results. This is what that hon. member now did once again.

We have seen a very interesting spectacle on the part of the Opposition to-day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at the beginning of his speech—

This was with reference to the legislation of 1964. At the end of his speech he used these fine words: “A step in the right direction”. To me the principle of this legislation is still precisely the same as it was in 1964. The principle remains the same. Therein lies the basic difference between the two parties. During that debate one United Party speaker after another, and it is recorded in the Hansard of 1964, opposed and condemned the Bill. The present attitude of the United Party in respect of this legislation is in conflict with that and I should like to quote the words of the hon. member for Umlazi as reported in Hansard (volume 10, column 4336) …

The hon. member for Houghton is the only true United Party member remaining.

The hon. member for Houghton is at least consistent in not supporting this legislation. The_ hon. member for Umlazi said on that occasion—

This is only one typical example of what hon. members on that side said at the time. There has therefore been an improvement and I shall indicate in a moment that the United Party will soon turn round and say that we are accepting their policy. I have references in this connection as to where the hon. member for Yeoville implied what I shall suggest in a moment. I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member for Peninsula supports the legislation with the proviso that he still adheres to his original standpoint that the Coloured representatives should remain in the Central Parliament. What an anomaly! What a contradiction! This contradiction is to be found in the entire United Party and of course, in the case of the hon. member for Peninsula as well. He says that he supports the legislation merely because the powers of the existing council are being extended and this is a step in the right direction. I can only say that it is an absolute anomaly in the standpoint of that hon. member as well. As it is in the standpoint of the United Party, I want to suggest that the Coloured policy of the Official Opposition is giving it its worst political headache to-day, and one of the means which it normally applies to get rid of that headache is to make accusations against the National Party and its policy. I do not have the time to elaborate on that and to show how it is in fact the United Party that must stand in the dock as far as the alienation of the Coloureds is concerned, because there is in fact no other party which has treated the Coloureds in this fashion over the years, especially since 1950. When, originally, the Coloureds were members of their Party, they were ignored as such. When at the beginning of the thirties they did not allow Coloureds to attend their congresses, the Coloureds were told that they would have separate congresses, but those congresses were never held. This is history, and I challenge any member of the United Party to deny it.

The purpose of this legislation is to enable the Coloureds to exercise their rights without discrimination. All Coloureds will share in this privilege, and not only a negligible proportion of the Coloured population, as has been the case up to now. The Coloureds are spread throughout the Republic, and the Constitution which was drawn up in 1909, contained a serious discrimination against certain Coloureds. Whenever the Coloured franchise was mentioned, only the small group of Coloureds in the Cape and in Natal who had the vote was meant. I do not want to elaborate on how that Coloured vote was exploited, because it was amply discussed in the debates on the other two Bills. But with this legislation there is no longer any discrimination against the Coloureds in the Free State and Transvaal. They are no longer second-class Coloureds as was always the position in terms of the United Party’s policy. Provincial boundaries are now being eliminated in this connection. But what was the United Party’s attitude towards the Coloureds in the Transvaal and Free State? It is very interesting to examine it. At the time when they still pleaded for the retention of the Coloureds on the common voters’ roll, the United Party said that the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State could not vote for a member of the House of Assembly because they were politically immature. But the strange aspect was that the same party said that on a separate voters’ roll the same Coloureds could vote for a senator. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? They were politically too immature to vote for a member of the House of Assembly, but they were politically mature enough to vote for a senator, and, moreover, the senator could be a Coloured person. Sir, the United Party wanted to give the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State less voting rights than they wanted to give the Bantu in the Transvaal in terms of their federation plan, because I think that in terms of their race federation plan the Bantu in the Transvaal would have been able to get at least three representatives in this House of Assembly. We do not want to delve into the history of their floundering over the common voters’ roll, and how over the years they made one promise after another to the Coloureds that if they came to power, they would restore the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll. Dr. Friedman, the member for Hillbrow at the time, resigned from their party, because the United Party could not decide about the Coloured vote.

You are just wasting your time. Where does one find that in this Bill?

That hon. member apparently knows absolutely nothing about this matter. I am not talking to him either; I am talking about his Party’s policy. I just want to enumerate their sins and to show how inconsistent they have been in the past. Now, suddenly, they are supporting this legislation. [Interjections.]

I just want to say, to make a long story short, that we on this side of the House are very glad that the National Party’s policy is in fact slowly getting through to the United Party and that it is being accepted on such fundamental points, as has already happened in other fields. In 1964 the United Party strongly opposed this legislation, and now it is accepting it in principle. This is the breakthrough which we have made into United Party thinking. One could actually have predicted this sudden change of front on the part of the United Party. I do not only want to refer to the United Party congress in Bloemfontein last year where this sudden change of front occurred. And so I come to the point which I wanted to make in the beginning. According to Dagbreek and Sondagnuus of 19th November, 1967, the hon. member for Yeoville declared in an interview (translation)—

It is very interesting to hear this from the lips of the hon. member for Yeoville after they had opposed that legislation so violently in 1964. Then he goes on to say—

I now come to the most interesting part—

We have already heard this refrain from the United Party time and again in this Session and in previous sessions—this political corkscrewing in order to claim that when something in the National Party’s policy is sound and successful, and when the other groups for whom the legislation is passed, accept it with gratitude, it is United Party policy. But the United Party can bluff no one, least of all the electorate outside. I ask again why the United Party fought the legislation on the same principle in 1964, while they are now accepting it?

In conclusion I want to say that this measure is a logical consequence of the National Party’s policy of separate development, and it places the National Party on the road to greater political separation of the various race groups.

Another illusion.

But you are voting for that illusion though. You are agreeing with this illusion by voting for the Bill. In short, the Bill satisfies two basic ideas in the National Party’s policy. The first is separate development, which remains the pattern of the National Party’s policy of separate national groups in South Africa, also as far as the Coloureds are concerned. In the second place, the white Parliament is a House in which only Whites will sit. This legislation also affirms the National Party’s policy and goal of “separate but just”. When the Coloureds lose all representation in the Central Parliament, this alternative is offered them in terms of which they can develop to greater independence and responsibility.

If the hon. member who has just sat down had perhaps attended the debates which have taken place on this measure and the other two connected Bills, he would not have been quite so naïve as to put forward the argument which consumed most of the 20 odd minutes that he spoke, because the position was made quite clear to us in the House and he should have been aware of it. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs introduced the Bill and it was accompanied by two other Bills which have since been disposed of in the sense that this House has adopted the second reading. When my hon. Leader spoke on this particular Bill this afternoon, he was faced with the position that this House had already adopted the principle that representation of the Coloured people in this House had to disappear. Secondly, this House had already adopted the principle that no member of the white group should have the opportunity of addressing a Coloured political meeting. It is in that context that this Bill must be approached. This House has already agreed in principle to those two measures. They may be and we hope they will be amended to alleviate the position of the Coloureds before they pass through all their stages in this House and in the Other Place, but at the present moment that is the context in which we must look at this Bill which we have before us to-day. The position to-day is vastly different from the position which obtained in 1964, when a Bill was introduced to establish this ineffective council, which was the obvious first step towards the removal of Coloured representation in this House. Having said that, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to deal in his reply with one or two questions of principle with a little more clarity than appears from his introductory speech.

The first clause to which I wish to refer is clause 11 which amends section 17 of the Act of 1964. The powers which could formerly be passed over to the council by proclamation, are now being provided for in subsection (6) which appears on pages 8 and 9 of the Bill. They are now stated to be part of the powers of the council. But if one goes further and passes on to clause 15, one finds that the hon. the Minister now proposes an amendment to section 21 of the Act. The council is now being given legislative powers in respect of the items mentioned in section 17 of the Act as it will be amended. As I read the Bill it seems that powers are going to be given to the council to legislate in regard to matters specifically entrusted by this House to the council, and the only control of this House over the council will then be by way of the veto right of the hon. the Minister under section 21 (2). But for the Minister’s veto right and the fact that Bills passed by the council must receive the Minister’s approval, this Coloured Representative Council will have power to legislate in any of the matters mentioned in section 17.

The powers are very wide. The hon. member for Karoo has raised some of the problems that will face this council in trying to reconcile the exercise of its legislative powers with the exercise of the legislative powers of this House. I would be grateful to the hon. the Minister if, when he replies to this debate, he would elaborate and give us some indication as to how he visualizes those complementary and possibly conflicting legislative powers can be exercised by two separate legislative bodies in the way which is now contemplated in the Act.

Then, Sir, I want to refer again to the question as to whether there should be a literacy test so far as the registration of voters is concerned. I think it is clear from the figures quoted in the 1964 debate that out of some 835,000 Coloured voters who were qualified in terms of age for registration as voters, less than 50 per cent of them would pass a basic literacy test. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us in a little more detail why the idea of some basic literacy test should be discarded so far as this council is concerned? It does seem to me that until Coloured education has advanced to a very much higher plane than it has reached now—and I must concede that it is advancing apace; there are more Coloured children at school, for instance, in the Cape Province at the present time than white children and one knows that that was the position even some years ago when education was still controlled by the Province—until the percentage of literate Coloured people has reached a very much higher figure, it does seem that perhaps the principle is not a correct one, namely that there should be universal franchise for the Coloured people, without any test. The test might be a simple one; one might go back to the test which applied under the old Electoral Act, where it is a question of being able to write one’s name and address and occupation, or something to that effect. That would at least give some means of checking whether the person exercising the vote is capable of doing a little bit more than voting for some symbol, the sort of thing that is happening in some of the under-developed countries where the voters vote for some symbol and not for an actual candidate.

There is also the problem of the registration of voters unless there is a literacy test. One could imagine quite a number of problems which would arise but those are matters which we could deal with more fully in the Committee Stage, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will deal in his reply with the principle of a literacy test.

Sir, there is another matter which arises and that is the principle of the composition of this council. I do not want to go into the question as to whether 20 or 40 is the correct figure; that is a matter which can also be discussed at another stage. The hon. the Minister in the course of his speech referred to certain of the recommendations of the Muller Commission, but, Sir, the one thing which the Muller Commission did not recommend—in fact it recommended to the contrary—was that the chairman should be nominated. The commission recommended that the chairman should be elected by the council. The Bill before us provides for a nominated chairman. If the Minister’s reason for this is that the chairman of the council will be in the position of an administrator in relation to the council, one could understand it perhaps; it may be connected with the financial responsibilities of the Minister, but the hon. the Minister has said nothing in his speech to justify this departure from the unanimous recommendation in this regard of the Muller Commission.

Another question which arises is the degree of liaison which is going to exist between this House and the council. I think the hon. the Minister is going a little bit far and, if I may suggest, even taking liberties in asking that he should be given a blank cheque and allowed to tell us only afterwards what sort of liaison is going to exist. He has, of course, put forward the argument that he first wants to consult the Coloured council. Sir, he is not necessarily going to accept the recommendations, and I do think that the hon. the Minister would be doing a disservice to this House if he does not tell us when he replies to this debate in what manner this consultative body should be established, as he visualizes it. Does he visualize it as being a purely consultative body as between the Government and the council or is there to be consultation between this House and the Council whereby the Opposition would have an opportunity of consulting with representatives of the council?

The hon. the Minister will be aware that we on this side of the House believe that there should be something in the form of a standing select committee to provide that means of consultation. It would be of interest, if the Minister would not be so secretive about his own views and about the Government’s own approach to this question, and not as secretive as the way in which he has introduced the Bill before this House.

Besides those matters, I wish to deal with one or two aspects of the comment which the Minister made when introducing the measure. I think that these are comments of which we on this side of the House must take notice and to which we must record, as I now wish to do, our strong objection.

First of all, the Minister had a lot to say about the Coloured people developing sufficiently as a people. He went on to say that he wanted to see the Coloureds developing into a people with national pride and with maturity. Or words to that effect. He then went on to say that the Opposition begrudged the Coloureds such development, and that our approach was simply that the Coloureds should remain immature. I think that is a very inaccurate statement to make, so far as our approach to the Coloured is concerned. Our approach to the Coloured people has been one which is based on what the Minister himself said in his speech, i.e. that on those occasions when he had met Coloured people he had never heard people sing the national anthem with such gusto as they did. They stand with the white people and there is no need for us to worry about that. That is what our approach has been about these people. That is what we feel about the people. We feel as his predecessor, the present Minister of Defence, there is no separate homeland that can be created for these people, that they are here as part of our Western group in this country of ours. The Minister was quite inaccurate in suggesting that this side of the House at any time felt that there should be a maintenance of immaturity so far as the Coloured people are concerned. We on this side of the House have welcomed the allocation of responsibility to the Coloured people, to the non-white people, where it is a practical thing to be done. It was the hon. member for Karoo who pointed out to you that, even at the very lowest level of local government, the Nationalist Party’s own commission of inquiry found that one could not find viable Coloured units, and that we were trying to create viable units where they could not exist. That was the view of the Nationalist Party’s own commission of inquiry, not ours. Our belief has been that these people must develop in collaboration with and not separate from the white people. But the legislation before us may be, I believe so far as the Government is concerned, at the present moment directed towards a widening of the gap between the Coloured and the white people, causing deeper separation. It is towards what has always been regarded as and what is the vertical segregation of the Nationalist policy, namely that these four streams will become more clearly defined. But the end of that road is the question which concerns me to-day. What concerns me is the end of the road which we are eventually going to reach, or whether the position is that we should look at this question more from the angle, as we see it on this side of the House, i.e. that this council presents an opportunity of giving greater responsibilities to the Coloured people. At the same time there will have to be the building of bridges between that Coloured Council and this House. At this stage we cannot say what the end of the road will be. I can only quote, if I may, what General Smuts himself said when talking of constitutional issues, and this is a constitutional issue. He said—

He was not alone in thinking that, because the Minister of Coloured Affairs in 1964 said that no arrangement in respect of a nation’s political course of development is cast in final form in any particular period. A nation is a living organism which from time to time undergoes new processes of development, the Minister said. So, as I look at this council, I look at it in the light of the ultimate as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. I look at it as a council which possibly will allow the Coloured people to develop to the highest level, without restriction, of nationhood. The Nationalist Party must to-day say that is the goal they are looking forward to, if that is indeed the case. And if it is the case, then the ultimate end is division and sub-division of South Africa to give certain territory to the Coloured people. A certain portion of this country must be given to the Coloured people as their own national homeland, because no nation can be complete without a homeland. The alternative, which we on this side of the House believe in, is the following. We believe that the demand will come, as sure as ever, for the Coloured _ people to have a say in the sovereign parliament that governs them.

That is integration.

Will the hon. member listen for one moment. They must have a say in the sovereign parliament. Our belief is that the sovereign parliament will ultimately be in the form of a federal authority over the whole of the country. If that is not done, there must be a partition. In view of the Bantustans for the Bantu, there must inevitably be a Colouredstan for the Coloureds. That is the only alternative, unless what is claimed as being offered to these Coloured people, namely that they can achieve the fullness of nationhood, is a complete myth. That cannot be achieved unless they can eventually govern themselves in every facet of their daily lives. That they cannot do, unless they have representation in the sovereign parliament, In so far as this measure enables us on this side to see the ultimate goal of a federal authority, and inasmuch as this is a start as far as the Coloureds are concerned to accept responsibility as far as we can give it to them in matters that concern them primarily, we welcome and support this Bill. During the Committee Stage, however, we will make certain further comments and propose certain amendments which we believe are necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen attentively to the statements and arguments of the hon. Opposition, but I must honestly admit that to me they were only a conglomeration of meaningless, insignificant, disjointed tattle. The only connection I could discern between the various speakers on the opposite side was that there was really no connection. The only policy put forward from their side, was actually no policy. After this debate my problem will be to return to my voters and explain to them the policy and standpoint of the United Party. That is the greatest problem I shall have.

Nor could I understand why the hon. Opposition had so many speakers take the floor merely to apologize for supporting this measure. They support it, but that really does not convey anything to me. As far as I am concerned, I must state very clearly that I do not really trust the United Party with their support of the Bill in question, nor do I believe that those outside, whose interests are involved here, will subsequently have greater confidence in the United Party.

The hon. member for Green Point touched upon a large number of matters here. If he had made a study of the political position of the Coloureds, his speech would have been much clearer, but to my mind this all goes to prove that the hon. member does not really acknowledge that the origin, the growth and the position of the Coloured in South Africa has any scientific significance.

When the so-called Muller Commission Report was being discussed, the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech touched upon a very important matter in regard to the Coloured question, and towards the end of the Second Reading Debate the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs also referred to it again in passing when, inter alia, he stated the following—

In the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister, as well as in this particular quotation, there lies a depth of meaning which one cannot really plumb in such a debate as this, a depth of meaning which is in fact fundamental to the entire standpoint of the National Party. I want to say a few words about this important fact, a fact which has been stated by various speakers on our side, a fact which the United Party and the enemies of the National Party either omit to mention or regard as untrue, which is that the Coloureds have never before enjoyed full political rights in South Africa. This is one of the cornerstones when we are dealing with this kind of legislation.

Are you saying that they are now being granted this according to this legislation?

I am indicating that. I am discussing one of the most important cornerstones for the understanding of this legislation, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, I did not gain the impression that hon. members of the Opposition had any knowledge in respect of this particular cornerstone. I would have preferred the hon. member for Hillbrow to have been here, because he is the important scientific figure who in one small published work of his actually gave himself out to be an authority on the racial question in South Africa.

I maintain that what is important here is that the Coloureds have never before enjoyed full political rights in South Africa, and one must have a certain historic depth before one can understand further legislation in respect of the Coloureds. In the light of history I should just like to refer briefly to one or two matters.

What was the situation before Union? Before Union we had two great phases. The one was the National settlement in 1652 up to the first British occupation in 1795. That is really the period of the Dutch East India Company. From our standpoint, seen from a South African point of view, that was the first kind of imperialism we had to deal with here. Very little of a positive nature was accomplished by the D.E.I.C. to promote independent political thought and stability amongst the Whites during that period, namely the free burghers of that time, to say nothing of the growing Coloured population. So little was done that the Wilcox Report, in its 11th Chapter, where it discusses the political rights of the Cape Coloured population, commences with the date 1806. Then there is a small work which the controversial organisation NUSAS published in 1961 under the title “The History of Race Relations in South Africa”, in which discussion also commenced at that date and much later. The arguments of the Progressive Party, as well as those of the United Party, only commence from 1948. They want to place all responsibility for all the so-called problems in Coloured politics or which can possibly exist in the relationship between Whites and Coloureds upon the shoulders of the National Party alone. That is why they do not want to go back any further than 1948. Up to the date of the first British occupation in 1795 there was, on the part of this foreign power, no attempt whatsoever to afford that growing Coloured population any political rights. In other words, there was, during the first 150 years, no question of this foreign power having granted the Coloureds any rights. In the efforts made by the developing Afrikaner nation there was no attempt either to integrate the Coloureds politically. I can just refer here to the “Raad van Representanten” towards the end of the 18th century. What does stand out during that period is clear attempts to bring about segregation, social segregation, particularly between the Whites and the Coloureds.

The second phase I would like to refer to briefly, actually began with the second British occupation of the Cape and of Southern Africa. That was the second kind of imperialism we had to deal with. From 1806 to 1825 the Cape Colony was governed by a governor, and from that year to 1834, by a governor and an advisory council of six official members. Only after that date was the first step in the direction of general participation in the machinery of government taken by the introduction of a Legislative Council, consisting of officials and national representatives nominated by the then Government. Even the much-discussed Ordinance No. 50 of 1828 afforded the Coloureds no actual political participation. Nor did Ordinance No. 9 of 1836, or No. 1 of 1840, afford the Coloureds full political participation. On paper that may have seemed to be the case, and perhaps the people of England of that time were deceived, but in practice what it amounted to was that the qualifications for franchise was so high that few Coloureds were able to enjoy full political rights. So it continued throughout the entire history of the Coloureds in the Cape, and in 1892 this franchise qualification was actually increased even further in order to curb the possible increased influence of the Coloureds in the political sphere.

I may state briefly that this was the situation in Natal, the Transvaal and the Free State as well. In that short interim period between the Anglo-Boer War, up to 1910, precisely the same applied. The Coloureds have never really had full political rights. From 1910 up to the present, and here I am referring specifically to the Progressive Party as well as the United Party, the Coloureds were never really able to enjoy the full fruits of and participation in democracy as we know it today. That is the one important aspect. Now, I should also like to dwell for a moment on the other aspect.

Many people, particularly the United Party, and I am not even mentioning the Progressive Party now, regard the Coloured, or the Brown man, as some people like to call them, as an integral part of the white nation, and particularly an integral part of the Afrikaner nation, the Boer nation. They supposedly form such an integral part that they cannot be separated from the Afrikaner and the Whites. That is another premise of the Opposition. They then try to support this assertion by saying there is one language, which is the medium of one culture, in other words, one nation, one organic unit. The advocates of this view, however, come up against a quite obvious difference between Whites and Coloureds each time. But because they reason superficially and often emotionally, and more often from a 19th century imperialistic point of view, and then regard the Coloureds as a wronged, underprivileged section of the Whites, their conclusions are incorrect. In this way one of the witnesses before the commission, namely the Rev. D. P. Botha, decided that White and Brown formed one organic unit, but that the Coloureds were a lower class. He maintained that they, the Coloureds, are the third class of the white community and many members of the United Party adopt the same attitude. Apart from the fact that the Rev. Botha and the United Party commit the error of maintaining that there is class distinction in the white social structure, they are also thinking in terms of the liberalism of the former century. But not only that. They also make scientific errors. They and others make use in their arguments of two norms, one so-called social anthropological, and the other sociological, and since both these norms have a scientific basis, we are justified in expecting them to pass the test of scientific soundness and objectivity. In the utilization of their norms they were never able to succeed in doing so. To them a nation is a commonality of territory, language and religion. It is in fact true that environment influences culture, and that culture in its turn determines national character, but language and religion are only subdivisions of culture, and are not necessarily decisive determinants of the formation of nations. A nation grows out of an ethnic nucleus of identity which in the case of the Afrikaner and the Coloured is and always has been different. The apparent social culture form of these two groups is the function of acculturation through co-habitation and co-existence, and not because they are one nation. That is the basis of any legislation which we want to establish as a basis in respect of the Coloureds’ political future. On the one hand they have, historically speaking, never enjoyed full political rights, and on the other they do not form an integral part of the white society in South Africa.

It is important that when we consider this measure we should not consider it in isolation. We should consider it in the broader prospective of the approach of the National Party, and particularly also in the light of the previous two measures, which met with tremendous opposition from the United Party because those two Bills may have seemed to them to be a kind of negative innovation. But the National Party has never had a negative approach to any problem. It has always been able to convert the ostensibly negative into the positive, and that is why this legislation which we have before us is characterized by its positive approach which will be beneficial to the Coloureds and will ensure the peaceful co-existence of the various population groups in South Africa.

Now for the first time we actually find the possibility that the Coloureds can make the full implications and the full possibilities of democracy their own, and that the possibility exists for them to develop and attain full participation in Western democracy, and democracy as we know it.

I should therefore like to point to the following. I am thinking of the element of the election of these 40 representatives, where the National Party is saying to the Coloured population: “Now you can elect, you have the opportunity of electing 40 people, your own people”. In addition 20 people will be appointed, and they are once again testimony to the fact that the National Party and the Whites are not pushing the Coloureds to one side and saying to them that we want nothing further to do with them, but that we are consistently maintaining the principle of guardianship here as well, that we are, because of the presence of those 20 appointed representatives, going to the Coloureds and saying to them: “We are still holding the hand of guardianship and protection over you. We are still accepting that responsibility, which we took upon our shoulders a long time ago.”

There is a second important aspect, and that is the general registration. I want to quote specifically what is stated in clause 4 (1) of the Bill—