Sir, we on this side of the House oppose this clause, not only because it provides the machinery which puts the whole of the contents of this Bill into action, but because it is designed to divide the population of the country into certain water-tight political groups along the lines defined by the Population Register. We oppose it because by this Bill it is clear that the Government has failed to attract to itself and to its policy the support of those people who are being divided into groups. This Bill is going to have the effect of creating in South Africa a state of political isolation as between the various groups into which by the terms of the clause we are to be divided politically—the Bantu, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians, with the Chinese and other Asiatic groups. Apart from stopping all consultation between the various political groups, the effect of this is going to be to make of innocent people in South Africa criminals, subject to the penalties which are provided for later in this Bill, and for those reasons and others which we will deal with when we come to the various clauses, we on this side of the House are totally opposed to this clause.

I agree with everything the hon. member who has just sat down has said in connection with this clause and I am also of course going to oppose it, because it is the mainspring of this Bill. It is not the clause containing the principle as such, but without this definitions clause the rest of the Bill will of course fall away altogether. I am against the whole of the contents of this Bill, and I intend to oppose every single clause.

This particular clause defines the various population groups and it will have the effect of dropping a curtain between the different racial groups in South Africa as far as any political discussion across the colour line is concerned. I think not only is this undesirable, but it is positively dangerous, because it will prevent the different races from exchanging opinions and having peaceful discussions across the colour line about their political aims and objectives. Therefore I oppose this clause.

While I am on my feet, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister please to explain just what he means by this extraordinary terminology which appears in clause 1 (i), where it says that a population group means the persons who “from time to time” belong to any one of the following population groups: the Bantu population, the white population, the Coloured population and the Indian population and other Asiatic groups. I asked the Minister this by way of interjection during the second reading, and the impression I got from the hon. the Minister was that he thought that this strange phrase “from time to time belong to such a group” had some connection with reclassification under the Population Registration Act.

I was surprised to hear that interpretation, because I did not imagine for one moment that the definition clause of a Bill dealing with political discussions across the colour line would take into account changes in the race classification of an individual under the Population Registration Act. I find it most extraordinary to suggest a chameleon-like character for the individuals in South Africa, who from time to time, apparently, go from one group to the other, and therefore I should like to know how this phrase has come to be included in the definitions clause. But of course my main objection is one of principle. I am against the political isolation of the different colour groups in South Africa, and I, too, will oppose this clause.

This is the definitions clause of the Bill and one would have expected in a Bill of this nature that the main and important aspects of the Bill would have been defined here. Instead we find a very vague definition of population groups. As the hon. member for Houghton has said, they are defined as belonging to a particular population group “from time to time”. One knows that in the Act itself the other Asiatic groups, etc., can be prescribed by proclamation. One knows that the Secretary for the Interior is obliged to put the Bantu and the Coloureds into various ethnic groups. One wonders, if one has a definition clause of this sort, as one ought to have in every Bill, why it is that the important aspects dealt with in the Bill are not defined also. Why is there no definition, for example, of the thing that occurs throughout the Bill, a political party? There is no definition at all of a political party, and this is the place where one would have expected to find it, and it is very important. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that the courts will interpret this Bill and that the courts will determine what a political party is.

The function of this House, of this Parliament, is to say what the law is; it is to define the law. It is not the function of our courts to make the law. Our courts have never assumed the American judges’ concept of their function, namely to make the law and decide what it is. It is our function to say what the law is so that the courts will be in a position to interpret it. There is no definition of the kernel around which this whole thing revolves, and that is a political party and political interference. There is no definition of interference, of what is “political”. There is an amendment on the Order Paper by the hon. the Minister to take out a certain word and substitute another word with “political”. What does “political” mean, what does this House, what does the hon. the Minister intend should be the meaning of the word “political”.

Then the Minister has classified in paragraph (iv) as a group of people who may talk to each other about political matters and address each other about political matters, and meet together on political matters, “the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population group”. The “Other Asiatics population group” can be specified by the Minister by proclamation. Why does the Minister, and I would like to hear what he has to say about this, feel that the Chinese group has a political affinity with the Indian and other Asiatics group? We would like to know why are they put there. Do they not perhaps have an affinity with the Coloured group or with the white group or some other group? One does not know. Do they not perhaps have an affinity with the Malays? The Minister has the power to determine where and how these sub-groups belong. We should like to know how he is going to apply this provision. What sort of proclamations is he going to make and what is the standard he is going to apply in determining which groups may meet together for political purposes and which groups may not. Specifically would he explain why the Chinese group is included in this odds and ends group that he has included in paragraph (iv)?

Mr. Chairman, this clause actually deals with the classification of the various population groups and it quite rightly follows the classification in the Population Registration Act. I do not wish to embroider now on the points introduced by the hon. member for Durban (North) under this clause, because I do not think it is necessary at this stage. All I wish to reply to, is to the question put to me by the hon. member for Houghton. She wanted to know why I said “from time to time”. I think it is a fair question, but I also think that it is a very unnecessary one, because the hon. member for Houghton, like the hon. members of the Opposition and other hon. members of this House—but they more so than other hon. members—is aware of the fact that the Population Registration Act provides that there may be appeals to the higher courts and to a board, and certain matters may even be brought to the notice of the Secretary who may feel obliged to re-classify or not to do so. If a person follows the procedure as laid down in the Population Registration Act, and he appeals against his classification as a white person, for instance, and the court rules that he is not a white person per se but falls under the Coloured race group, or under the Bantu, why then should he with his incorrect registration or classification fall, for election purposes, under a political group to which he does in point of fact not belong? The intention with this legislation is in fact to curb interference by one race group in the distinctive political activities of another race group. Now, it does after all follow logically that if a change is effected in a person’s classification, a change which separates him from the group to which he thought he belonged and puts him into another group, then he should in terms of this Bill be deemed to belong to that group to which he legally belongs. This is simply the reply to that question.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I gather from what the hon. the Minister says that if a person is reclassified, he must then fall under the new classification for the purpose of this Bill, but that he may remain under the old classification in terms of the Electoral Act because the definitions in the Electoral Act are different from those in the Population Registration Act. Is that not correct?

No.

Then I cannot see the point of this measure at all. If that is not the case, then immediately a man is reclassified, he obviously has to be classified according to his most recent classification. The words “from time to time”, therefore, do not mean anything. I do not understand the Minister’s explanation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, since we are in fact arguing about this matter, I just want to explain it further. We are dealing with legislation which seeks to delimit the country into 40 constituencies and through which the Coloureds, for instance, will be afforded the opportunity to elect for themselves 40 elected Coloured members to their Council. Only the names of Coloureds will appear on that voters’ list. Let us suppose that the name Isaac Jacobs appears on that voters’ list, because he has been classified as a Coloured person. Let us suppose further that that person lodged an appeal because he was dissatisfied with his qualification, and that his appeal was upheld and that he was declared to be a white person. Surely, it follows logically that his name has to be struck off that voters’ list and that he has to be registered in a white constituency as a voter for a white representative in this House. That is the logical consequence.

Mr. Chairman, I want to query the refusal of the Minister to answer my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member for Durban (North) raised a perfectly legitimate issue, namely the question of the grouping of the Chinese population with the Asiatic group. He asked whether that meant that the Government considered them for political purposes as part of the Asiatic group. He asked whether they would enjoy political rights and whether they Would be able to participate in politics with the Asiatics. He raised the question of whether there was not a closer affinity between the Chinese population group and, for example, the Coloured population group. The Minister then simply shrugged his shoulders and said that he would not answer. I do not think that that is good enough. I wonder whether perhaps the hon. the Minister is not able to answer that question. He simply takes a population group, attaches to it a certain classification and when questioned about it refuses to discuss the matter. This does not concern only one or two people; it concerns thousands of people in South Africa. These are people whose whole future is going to be affected by this legislation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to reply to the question of the hon. member for Durban (North).

At the same time the Minister could perhaps explain an interesting fact in the wording of this clause. Every population group mentioned in this clause, is spelt with a capital letter except the white population group. Does that have any particular significance?

Mr. Chairman, what I do not understand about the definition in this particular clause is this. The Minister seeks to divide the three population groups, Bantu Coloured and White. These groups must not interfere in one another’s affairs. Then he puts the Chinese and the Indians together. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Indians are themselves divided into two groups. There are the Moslem Indians and the Hindu Indians, who have totally different beliefs, customs, etc. They are not a single group. Furthermore I cannot understand why the Chinese population group should be permitted to mix in the politics of the Moslem Indians or the Hindu Indians. Conversely, they can participate in the political affairs of the Chinese. These are the sort of things and this is the type of conclusion, which flows from this clause in the Bill.

What about the white Japanese?

Well, I am going to come to them. When the white Japanese come on to the voters roll, I should like to know whether they are going to be considered as Coloured and who is going to be permitted to talk to and listen to them.

But I want to come back to the definition of a political party.

Order! The point about the definition of a political party should be discussed under clause 3. Hon. members may not on this clause raise a point that is not mentioned here. This is purely a definition clause.

I accept what you say, Sir, and with respect I put it to you, that unless there is a definition in the definition clause it does not apply, because …

The hon. member may discuss that under clause 3.

But then we will have passed the definition. You see, Mr. Chairman, with respect, there is a deficiency in this clause. The whole backbone of this Bill depends on the definition of a political party, therefore it must be included here.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member has not moved an amendment to insert a definition of a political party, and therefore he may not discuss it.

On a point of order, Sir, the fact that a definition of a political party is omitted from this clause, which is in fact a definition clause, is going to affect the debate on every other clause in this Bill. Under clause 2, even, where the words “political party” comes in, we are going to be at a loss to know what it means, to know what the intention of the Government is when we discuss “a political party” in terms of this Bill.

That is not a point of order. If the hon. member wanted to discuss this matter, he should have moved an amendment defining a political party, which he did not do.

With respect, Sir, are we not allowed …

Order! I have given my ruling.

May I ask you a question Sir? On a point of order, are we not allowed to criticize this clause because it lacks that definition?

No. The hon. member may not do so. If there is a deficiency in this clause, he should move an amendment.

On a point of order, Sir, may I address you on your ruling? If one is entitled to vote against this clause, is one not entitled to advance reasons why it is deficient and therefore why one would want to vote against a definition clause?

The hon. member mentioned that in passing. He may not do anything more than that. I have given my ruling. Hon. members may not discuss a definition which is not here.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask to conclude my remarks. Will the hon. the Minister please tell the House why he is prepared to permit interference by Chinese with Hindus, Hindus with Moslems, Moslems with Chinese, and vice versa? Will he please tell us that?

Mr. Chairman, I can give the reply to the hon. member for Karoo. The hon. member is being silly. He knows what is contained in the Act. We in South Africa have repeatedly heard of a four-stream policy, which means that the four main race groups will each have its own political institutions. This is set out in the introduction in clause 1 of this Bill. The first of these groups is the white group, the second is the Bantu group, the third is the Coloured group, and, for the information of the hon. member for Durban (North), the Chinese group will not be included in this group. Then we also have the Indian group. These are the four groups which have some form of government or other to-day, although in the case of the Indians this is still on an advisory basis. This is the position as regards these four groups. The hon. member for Umlazi says he is opposed to this principle because this clause divides the people of South Africa into various race groups. Surely the hon. member ought to know better. After all, this is not the law which divides the people of South Africa into various groups; surely it is a factual and historical position. But, apart from this, we have another Act which lays down to which race group a person in this country belongs. Therefore it is not this Bill that the hon. member should criticize in this regard. The hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Houghton suggest that this clause entails the political isolation of the various race groups. Coming from the hon. member for Houghton, I can understand this, because she would naturally like to have one politically integrated structure. But the hon. member for Umlazi denies that he wants political integration. If this is the case, he should separate the various population groups from one another—not isolate, but separate. With the best will in the world I therefore cannot see what objection hon. members can have to this, the first clause in this Bill. All this clause does is to set out the various racial groups to which the future political structure will relate. I cannot understand why hon. members should come along with all kinds of minor points—such as, for example, the hon. member for Karoo, who now even wants to classify the Indians into various groups on the basis of their religious beliefs. I think the hon. member is simply making himself ridiculous.

The hon. member for Parow spoke about this being “the traditional policy” of South Africa. This is a matter which we argued in this House before and which has been rejected by us. The hon. member also mentioned a so-called traditional four-stream policy and claims that the four groups concerned are those set out in this clause. During the second-reading debate I raised a certain matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter on which he failed to reply. But, accepting the four divisions as laid down in this clause, we still have an anomaly here in the Cape Province where we have people, classified under paragraph iv who are presently registered as voters on a roll instituted for the election of Coloureds to the Coloured Council, Coloureds who, I presume, will represent people defined under paragraph (iii). How far then does the four-stream policy of the hon. member for Parow go as long as we have this anomaly? Let me pose my question to the hon. the Minister once more: What is he going to do about these people? Is he going to remove the Indians and the Chinese and other Asiatics who are at present on the Coloured voters’ roll in the Cape Province? Is he going to remove them from that roll? If so, where is he going to put them? Another point arises: What about the Indian people in Natal who are at present on the white voters’ roll? What is he going to do with them?

Order! What clause is the hon. member discussing?

Clause 1, Sir.

No. The hon. member said that under a particular law Coloureds and Indians were voting together. What law was he referring to?

I did not mention a law, Sir. That was a submission I made. I said they appeared on the same voters’ roll.

On what voters’ roll?

The roll for election of Coloureds to the Coloured Council.

But the whole scheme of Coloured representation in this House has been repealed.

I am referring to the Coloured Council, Sir. The roll of voters for electing the Coloureds to that council is still in existence. I submit that roll is in conflict with this clause we are dealing with now.

How are these in conflict?

I put these questions to the hon. the Minister and I think he should reply to them. What is he going to do about the fact that there are people in the Cape Province, people classified under paragraphs (iii) and (iv), who vote for one and the same representatives to the Coloured Council? What is he going to do about these? Similarly, in Natal we have people under paragraphs (iv) and (v) appearing on one voters’ roll and voting for one and the same representative. What is the hon. Minister going to do with these people?

We have some sort of ambiguity here. On the one hand we have the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who complains that there are too few classifications …

Nonsense.

Wait a minute. He wants us to keep, inter alia, the Chinese separate as well. He says we have too few classifications and that I am lumping together people who do not belong together or that I now want to tear apart people who belong together. The hon. member for Karoo, on the other hand, goes even further. The Opposition is essentially and in principle opposed to the classification of population groups because this is not in conformity with their policy of a multi-racial parliament. But now the hon. member for Karoo comes along and pleads that there should be even more subdivisions. He asked: What about the Chinese? As a group, the Chinese have never had any political representation. Like the Indians, they belong to the Asiatic group. If I do not classify them into this group, it will mean that the Chinese will be the only population group who will be able to interfere freely in the political activities of any population group, whether it be the white. Coloured, Bantu or Indian population group, It is for this reason that they are in fact being classified into these four groups.

Will the Chinese then be able to vote for representatives on the Indian Council?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) may think that he is being exceedingly clever, but he is playing the fool with the committee. I am not prepared to join him in doing so.

Mr. Chairman, what was said by the hon. the Minister is not good enough. It is no answer to what has been said in the debate so far, and especially to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). If we look at clause 1 of the Bill, we see that “population group” means someone who belongs to one of the following population groups: The Bantu, White, Coloured, Indian, Chinese and other Asiatic population groups. Definition (iv) of the same clause states—

This means that a Coloured person is defined as being a person who is not a white person and not a Bantu. That is a Coloured person. They are the Coloured persons, as defined—

Under section 5 of the Population Registration Act, 1950. “the State President may by proclamation prescribe and define the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons and Bantu shall be classified in terms of subsection (1) and may in like manner”—and this is important—“amend or withdraw any such proclamation, or any proclamation purporting to have been issued in terms of that subsection”. Is that not the real answer to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton as to why the words “from time to time” exist in the Bill—I say this because the hon. the Minister has the power to change, from time to time, by proclamation what ethnic group the Coloured people belong to. He can determine whether the Griquas are going to be Bantu. Coloured, or whether they are going to belong to this separate group.

In other words, the power resides in the Minister to determine from time to time whether those persons who are neither White nor Bantu will have political activities with the Coloured people or whether they will have political activities with those Coloured people whom he has proclaimed to be a separate group of Coloured people in terms of the Act. Is that not the case? What I am asking the hon. the Minister is this: On what basis is he going to determine this? How is he going to cull off from the general Coloured community, that is to say the Coloured people as defined, being neither White nor Bantu, those Coloured people whom he will proclaim to be a separate group of Coloured people? How will he decide which ethnic groups will have their politics with other ethnic groups? Here we have the position that pro tern the Chinese are to have their politics with the Indian and other Asiatic groups. The hon. the Minister can change this at any time. He might decide at any time that they must have their politics with, say, the Malay or the Griqua group.

With the Whites.

No, he cannot do that. In other words, with regard to persons who are neither White nor Bantu, the Minister can determine which groups shall have their politics with whom. I want to know on what basis he is going to act because he has specifically taken this power in the words “from time to time”. “From time to time” means “from time to time according to what proclamation has been issued under section 5 of the Population Registration Act.” Will the hon. the Minister please indicate to us what he has in mind; why he wants this power and whether he anticipates that he is going to juggle around with the persons who are not White and not Bantu into various political associations and, if so, why? Will he indicate what he is going to do?

I do not know where the hon. member for Durban (North) gets the idea that in terms of this Bill the Griquas can be declared to be Bantu. He knows just as well as I do that in terms of the Population Registration Act that is impossible. It is only the Coloured groups that can be divided into subgroups by proclamation, not the Bantu.

And the Bantu.

No, the Bantu cannot be proclaimed to be Coloureds.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said that Griquas could be proclaimed to be Bantu. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that it is not only impossible, but also ridiculous to make such a statement in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member did use those words. I sat here and took notes. The hon. member said that the Minister should say what the basis was in terms of which he would determine the groups, and he wanted to know whether there was a possibility of Griquas being proclaimed to be Bantu.

I did not say that.

We shall see tomorrow when the hon. member’s Hansard becomes available. I took notes, for I know that the hon. member is inclined to draw a red herring across the trail and then everybody has to run after that red herring. Of course, it is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, just to crystallize the various arguments now that the cloud of dust is lifting: The hon. member for Houghton’s objection is to the words “from time to time”. She concedes that it is possible for people to move from one population group to another, and if that is the case, the words “from time to time” are correct. That reflects in this measure the true position of other legislation, and then it is in point of fact not vague, but very clear to define “population group” as “the persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups …” There is the possibility of a small number of persons moving from Coloured to White, etc., and because such a possibility exists, it is very accurate to insert the words “from time to time” in this Bill. As regards the other hon. members, their objection is to the population groups, which are very clearly set out here as being the Bantu population group, the white population group, the Coloured population group and, finally, the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group.

But the latter group is defined as meaning “the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950, and are members of the Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act … i.e. the Population Registration Act, and not this measure. After all, the proclamation is made first under the Population Registration Act; then one has the various population groups, and these are the population groups to which reference is made in this Bill. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The whole idea of this Bill is to stop interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group, and if that is the case, then it is after all obvious that the various population groups must be defined, and they are defined in another Act. I simply fail to understand why hon. members now want to criticize “population groups” left, right and centre.

Let me explain to the hon. member for Prinshof what I meant. I did not intend to say, if I did say it, that the Griquas could be proclaimed as Bantu.

You did say so.

If I did, then I am sorry; I did not mean to say that. When someone suggested to me that the Chinese, for example, could be classified as a group which must have their politics with the white group, I said that they could not be so classified because there are the three groups, the Bantu, the White and those who are neither, namely, the Coloured. In terms of the Act there are those three groups.

There are four groups.

I am coming to the fourth group. There are three groups defined in the Act. There is the Bantu who is someone who is generally accepted as a Bantu; then there is the white person, in terms of the new definition of last year, and then there are the Coloureds who are defined as those who are classified neither as White nor Bantu. Those Coloured persons, in terms of this Bill, for the purposes of political activities, are described as the “Coloured population group” and the “Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group”. Let us look now at paragraph (iv)—

This is apart from the Coloured group—

Section five of the Act says—

In other words, all Coloured persons fall to be classified into a special ethnic group.

They can be.

They can be and if they are specified by proclamation—and that is all that has to be done—as falling into a special ethnic group, then they can be brought under paragraph (iv) and separated politically from the rest of the Coloured people. In other words, the Minister has the power to take all the Coloured people and classify them as he wants to classify them and separate them and prevent the one lot of people, classified as Coloured, by virtue of his proclamation, from taking part in the politics in which some other member of the group classified as Coloured may participate. You see, Sir, I remember that a little while ago the hon. member for Umlazi had in his constituency some people who were Zanzibaris. They were descendants, I think, of slaves or seamen who had come from Zanzibar. They were eventually classified as a special group in terms of this provision relating to proclamation. The hon. the Minister may specify the Griquas as a specific ethnic group. I think he has. Then there are the Malays, there are the Indians, there are the Zanzibaris and there are the Mauritians. He cay say, “Very well, if they are Coloureds then they are a special ethnic group.” Then there are the St. Helenas, etc. etc. In other words, in this clause the hon. the Minister is given the power to determine, as far as the Coloured people themselves as defined by the Population Registration Act are concerned, how they are to have their politics. I agree with the hon. the Minister that in fact this is absolute nonsense. There are white people, there are Coloured people, there are Indian people and there are Bantu people. But now he takes the power to determine, in the Coloured group, including Indians, who is to associate with Indians amongst the various Coloured groups, and who is to associate with Coloureds, including people who are not Indians, like the Chinese. Here he takes the power to do this, and that is why the words “from time to time” appear in this clause, because from time to time he may change the arrangement and he may change the association. Will the hon. the Minister please get up and tell us what he has in mind? We want to know. He is getting the power to do something and he will not tell us what he has in mind. Why does he want this power to change it from time to time? Surely this Committee is entitled to an answer from the Minister in regard to matters of this sort. This is an important matter of detail and I hope he will get up and tell us what he has in mind and why he wants this power, and whether he anticipates whether there will be a change in the alignment of these persons who are now allowed to take part in the politics, one of the other, amongst the people who are classified as Coloureds in terms of the Population Registration Act.

I want to go further. I want to ask the Minister now which groups of people are to participate in Coloured politics, and which are to participate in Indian, Chinese and other Asiatic politics. This Bill does not tell us. This Bill gives the Minister the power to determine in future what that alignment is going to be. Now, what is that alignment going to be, and what does the Minister have in mind? We are entitled to an answer and I hope the Minister will get up and tell us.

The hon. member for Durban (North) rose and actually commented on the reply I had given to the hon. member for Houghton. He did not say that the reply I had given her was wrong, but he said that it would have been a better reply if I had added what he had suggested, and that that would have supplemented the reply. Then it would have been a full reply. Now he gives, on my behalf, the reply I should have given to the hon. member for Houghton, and then he asks the same question again. Now, when was he sure of himself; when he commented on my reply or while he made his speech?

Somebody is confused and it has to be the hon. member for Durban (North). The intention with this Bill is not to grant more and greater powers to the Minister here in clause 1, for the Minister has, as he said, certain powers under another Act.

But this provision is here for the purpose of stating the factual position that exists as a result of regulations and powers which the Minister has under another Act. Now he talks about the words “from time to time”. Children are born and they must be classified. Later on they become enfranchised. People die. Their names must be struck off the Voters’ list. People who were classified incorrectly, are reclassified. This has to be rectified. Now the hon. member for Durban (North) wants me to state in this Bill that in terms of this legislation people will, for instance, be grouped according to their present classification—without any provision for the future supplementation of the various population groups—for the purpose of taking part in the political activities they have or may have in future; in other words, their whole future is being excluded and we are to confine ourselves to the present only. That is the first point. The second is that in the legislation relating to the new Coloured Council, which falls under another Minister and which is also under discussion now, it is provided very explicitly who will be entitled to vote for that Coloured Council. Therefore, this is simply a matter of asking questions. I think that people who do have the intelligence—regardless of whether it is much or little—the hon. member for Durban (North) has, should at least know that; it ought to be clear enough.

To my mind this is an attempt to see how much dust can be raised right at the beginning in order to oppose a matter which they would not like to see piloted through Parliament. And it will be piloted through, whether it is to-day, to-morrow, the day after or next week. But the Government has simply decided that we are going to put a stop to political interference as far as possible, not for our sake; it is the hon. member for Durban (North) who says that we want to prohibit political interference by one population group in the affairs of the others, since there is clear proof—and he is not the only one opposite who has said so—that up to now the Government has never succeeded in gaining the political support of the other population groups, particularly that of the non-Whites. If I want to argue along those lines, I might just as well say that hon. members opposite are opposed to the provision in terms of which political interference is prohibited, since they have always relied on the support they had obtained by means of their interference in the politics of the non-Whites, and that as a result they will now feel so much the poorer if we prevent them from retaining that very same support in the future. After all, that is logical. But what are we accomplishing now? Where does it lead us? After all, we are not discussing and furthering this matter. We are merely stating facts, and I have just as much right to make the statement that the United Party is opposed to this legislation because it will hamper them politically and give them less support from the non-White representatives in this House, or outside this House, as they have to say that this legislation and the prohibition of interference has been introduced because we do not have the support of the non-Whites in this country. And that does not bring us anywhere, for they know that they are wrong. When it comes to support, and especially in respect of interference, I can read out certain things here—I have already done so before—but I do not think that I ought to do so now under this clause. I have already done so during the second-reading debate. I shall not go so far as to say that the Coloureds are not divided, but I have no hesitation in saying that the vast majority of thinking Coloureds will welcome it if the Whites—irrespective of the political party to which they may belong, would leave them alone, without interfering and without exercising direct influence, without employing their political machinery for influencing the Coloureds to act in a certain way within their own political sphere—would keep out of their affairs so that they may prove themselves to be responsible people in the future.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked the Minister certain questions. He has dealt with some of them, but he has not told us for what reason or by what right he decided to allow the Chinese, for example, to interfere in the politics of the Indians. He has not told us these things, and that is what we want to know. Because in accordance with the groupings provided in this clause, this hon. Minister, if he is only going to stick to four groups of people, as seems to be the position here, must allow people to interfere in the political affairs of other people. And he says it here because he says the Chinese and the other Asiatics will interfere in the politics of the Indian people. His main reply is to say that he knows we will not support this Bill or this clause because we rely upon the support of the non-Whites and we want to interfere in their politics. But let me remind the Minister that we are discussing this Bill because his Government has failed to attract any support from these very people. That is why we have the Bill before us.

Order! What has that to do with the definition? The hon. member is now discussing something he may raise on clause 2, but not on clause 1.

I want a reply from the Minister to my question. I want to know. I want the Minister to reply and tell us what factors influenced him in deciding that the Chinese group should, I take it, vote for representatives on the South African Indian Council. I should like him to tell us what the reaction of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, was to this; whether he welcomes this “inmenging” by the Chinese in the affairs of the Indians, and what consultation took place in making him decide to include these people in the Indian group.

Then I want to know what the term “Other Asiatic population groups” includes. Who does the Minister visualize as “Other Asiatics”? There are a lot of other Asiatic races. Are all the Asiatic races, whether they are Indians or not, in the sense of the Indian population of South Africa, included? I want to know whether all other Asiatic races are included? I take it the Minister has the Japanese, the Chinese, the Burmese, the Ceylonese, the Siamese and so on, in mind. Are these people now going to vote, and this is pertinent, for representatives on the Indian Council? Because this is what the Minister says he is planning.

Order! This measure has nothing to do with whom people are going to vote for.

Are they going to meet together? Are they going to be allowed to discuss politics together? In other words, I come back to the point where I made a mistake and used the word “vote”. Are their politics going to be contained within the same water-tight compartment; are they all going to be thrown into that? Will all this fantastic mixture of people, with different thinking, different backgrounds, different traditions, different requirements, be thrown together for their political discussions and representation, and are they only going to be allowed to discuss politics with people in that particular compartment? If so, what made the Minister choose those groups and put them together? This is what I want to know.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the definition.

This is the definition clause, Sir; I am discussing paragraph (iv).

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi has just made a great fuss about the possibility of Indians, Chinese and other Asiatic population groups being thrown together for the purpose of exercising political rights, and he strongly objected to that. But, on the other hand, the entire argument of the United Party is that everyone, Whites, Coloureds, everyone, should come together. But the hon. member nevertheless objects to Indians and Chinese and other Asiatic population groups exercising political rights together.

The position here is very simple. We have four groups here. One must, after all, limit the number of groups one creates, and consequently we now have the Bantu group, the white group, the Coloured group and finally, in order to form one Asiatic group, we have “the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatics population group”. They have been placed in one group. The hon. the Minister is not being authorized, as the hon. member for Durban (North) wants to suggest, to decide what people may all belong to one particular group. That is laid down by another Act, namely the Population Registration Act.

But that falls under the same Minister.

That may be so. The point is: Divisions into population groups are made not only for the purposes of this measure but also for all other purposes, namely for the division of the groups in South Africa as a whole. They are not only divided into groups for the purposes of this particular Bill. When people have been grouped, this measure comes into operation and it provides that the people exercise their rights under the grouping made in terms of another measure.

The hon. member for Durban (North) wanted to know what people had been grouped together. It is clear from the clause that the Coloured population group includes the Malay or Griqua group. They are in that group. Under the Asiatics population group we have the “Indian or Chinese group or the group Other Asiatics …”. The principal objection of the Opposition is to the Chinese being classified with the Indians. Now I want to ask them: With what group do they want to classify the Chinese? Do they want to classify them with the Whites or do they want to classify them with the Bantu? Or do they want to classify them with the Coloureds? It is indeed logical, because they form a very small minority group, to include them in the Asiatic group. It is only logical to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Oma-ruru. His last point was that it is logical to classify the Chinese with these people. Now I want to ask the hon. member this question. If we want to discuss Chinese affairs in this House, under which Vote do we discuss it? Are we to discuss it under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs? This is the effect of what the Minister is doing. The hon. members for Durban (Notth) and Umlazi have put these questions to the hon. the Minister, and I rise now merely to say to the Minister: Please let us have an answer to the questions we have addressed to you. Can we ask the Minister to do us at least the courtesy of standing up and replying to the questions which we have put to him.

What questions?

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence would have been able to answer the questions. Obviously his intelligence is not above that standard. I want to get back to this point for the moment and deal once more with these Chinese. Who can address a meeting of Chinese in this county in terms of this Bill? An Indian, an Asiatic can.

What clause are you talking about?

Have you read the clause? Have you read the Bill? Here the groups are classified and further on we will discuss the question of members of one group addressing members of another group. I might as well advise the hon. member, because it is obvious he has not read the Bill, that later on in the Bill there is a provision which says that members of one of these groups shall not discuss matters of political importance with members of another group. Doesn’t the hon. member know that?

I want to come back to what the Minister said when he replied just now to what I had said. It was quite obvious that he had completely misconstrued what I had said. I credit the Minister with a degree of intelligence and I am sure I put my case in such a way that he must have understood what I said. I do not know whether he deliberately misconstrued what I had said. I pointed out to him the anomalies which exist to-day. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members on this side have pointed out the anomalies which can arise under this provision. But we have had no reply from the Minister. I appeal to the Minister again. Please, join in this debate; at least carry on a dialogue with us and let us have some reply to the questions which have been put from this side.

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of joining the debate on this clause, but having listened to some of the arguments I feel I must ask the hon. the Minister to explain some of the provisions of clause 1. I think you will agree, Sir, that the principles of this Bill will be determined by the courts in due course in terms of this definition clause, because it is one of the most important provisions of this Bill. The definitions contained in clause 1 of this Bill will guide the courts in determining what the intention of Parliament was in regard to this Bill generally. In paragraph (i) of clause 1 the Minister has divided the population groups in this country into four categories. There is the Bantu population group which is defined by the Population Registration Act. I have nothing to say in regard to that because there is clarity as regards that population group. The white population group is also defined under the Act, and again one cannot complain about that definition because I think the courts will lean towards the definition of the white group as contained in the Population Registration Act. Then there is the Coloured population group, and that is where we encounter difficulties. In terms of the original Population Registration Act the Coloured population group is defined as follows—

That is where we start getting into difficulties in regard to the Coloured population group. Now the hon. the Minister seeks to define the Coloured population group in paragraph (iii) of clause 1 as “the persons who are Coloured persons as defined in the Population Registration Act, 1950”. I have just quoted from that Act according to which a Coloured person is “a person who is not a white person or a Native”. He then goes on and says “and are members of the Cape Coloured, Malay or Griqua group or the other Coloured group as prescribed and defined by proclamation under section 5 of the said Act, including all persons who have in terms of the said Act been classified as members of the one or the other of the said groups”. I suggest that even that provision can lead to a great deal of difficulty as to who falls into the category of the Coloured population group. But when you go further to the fourth group defined in this clause namely “the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population groups” you come into real difficulties because there the hon. the Minister has sought to bring under one group different population groups, namely the Indian population group, the Chinese population group and the Other Asiatics population group. He seeks to bring them under one category in paragraph (i) (d) of clause 1. According to Government policy we know that in due course an Indian Council will be established similar to the Coloured Representative Council which will be established by a Bill at present before this House. We should like some clarification from the hon. the Minister—and this is a simple question because there are no politics involved in it—as to whether it is his intention that the Chinese and other Asiatics who are far removed from the South African Indian population, should be entitled to talk across the colour line with members of the Indian population group. Is that the Government’s intention?

Yes.

The hon. member for Omaruru says that it is. Is that right? I should like to hear the hon. the Minister say that. I should like a statement from the Government itself as to what is intended in this regard. Is it intended that once the representative council for Indians has been established, people who fall into the Chinese and other Asiatic population groups should be entitled to vote for this Indian Council?

No, not to vote, but to interfere.

The hon. member says that they will not be entitled to vote—and we shall see about that—but they will certainly be entitled to interfere. In other words, they will have the right to go to Indian political meetings, voice their opinions and influence the Indians to their own point of view. This will be proper interference. Is that what the hon. the Minister envisages? I think we are entitled to proper clarification as to what the intentions of the Government are in this regard. If the Committee is aware of the Government’s intention in this regard, we may be able to help the hon. the Minister to formulate a definition in regard to the fourth category which I suggest may have to be divided into two further categories. We may be able to help the hon. the Minister to formulate a better definition. I urge that we should not rush this matter. The hon. the Minister should give it very careful consideration because this provision is obviously going to be tested at some time or other. I feel that this clause which contains the definitions is so important that we should have absolute clarity from the hon. the Minister as to what the Government’s intentions are before we decide on a definition which will be part of the Act. I urge the hon. the Minister to give the Committee the benefit of a knowledge of the Government’s intention in regard to the important fourth category of population groups.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peninsula confined himself chiefly to the Chinese community, who is grouped with the Indian, Chinese and Other Asiatic population group in terms of clause 1 of this Bill. The hon. member said that to him it was quite clear what people would be included in the white group and what people would be included in the Bantu and Coloured groups, respectively. [Interjections.l As regards the Coloured group, it is clearly laid down what people will belong to that group, and that is done by clause 1 (iii), which reads—

I think that is clear. There was major disagreement amongst hon. members in this House when I defined the Coloured group so clearly that I even introduced the classification of someone’s parents as a determining factor in order to have clarity when someone falls within the Coloured group. Therefore I do not think that we disagree about this.

The hon. member is concerned about the Chinese group. The position is that the Chinese and Other Asiatic groups—and these may include Arabs or Japanese, because we are aware that a few of them are inhabitants of this country—are people of Asiatic origin, but people who, like the Chinese here, do not have the right to vote at political elections. But they have to be classified with some group. For the purposes of this prohibition on interference, we have to classify the Chinese, who are the only sizeable population group of this nature but who are nevertheless a very small minority group in this country, with the Indians. The Bill establishing the Indian Council clearly provides in clause 3 that no other person than an Indian shall be appointed to the Indian Council. A further provision is that he shall be resident in the Republic. Therefore he must be an Indian to be able to serve on the Indian Council. The hon. member then put this important question: In view of the fact that the Chinese are grouped with the Indians and Other Asiatic groups, does that mean that they may discuss politics with the Indians? They may not discuss politics with other groups, but they may do so with the Indians. Yes, they may do so because there is nothing in this entire measure which isolates one group from another politically to such an extent that there may be no discussion of political affairs whatsoever between one race group and another. If this is done with intent, however, it is prohibited. If it is done with the intention of promoting the position of a candidate, or one still to be nominated, or to promote the interests of a political party, the position is different. This measure is so wide that I feel inclined to agree with the statement of the hon. member for Karoo that one could drive a cart and horses through this Bill very comfortably. The provisions of this measure are very wide. They may have discussions, but Whites may also have political discussions with people of other race groups. But their discussions must be such that they will not be in contravention of these provisions. This is my first point.

Secondly, the time may arrive when I shall have to give consideration to making provision for the classification of the Chinese as a separate Asiatic population group. But we do not think it is necessary to do so now. However, the world does not stand still. It develops and moves on. Perhaps legislation which one is placing on the Statute Book today, had not even occurred to one a year ago. As circumstances present themselves, the State must be prepared to deal with problems which may arise. Therefore one is unable to say today what is going to happen in five or six years’ time. But if such a separation becomes necessary as a result of problems which may arise, I think the solution is to be found in what the hon. member almost indirectly said, and that is to proclaim and define the Chinese as a separate group.

Clause 1 of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—108: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt. J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engel-brecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—35: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L; Moolman, J H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wain wright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Before I put clause 2, I want to point out that this clause contains the main principle of the Bill. The principle was fully discussed during the second-reading debate and then agreed to by the House. I will only allow two speakers to repeat their opposition to the principle contained in the Bill and then I think the clause should be put.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, you have indicated, correctly, that this clause contains the main principle of the Bill. As my hon. Leader indicated during the second-reading debate, this clause is incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership in South Africa. This clause provides that there shall be no dialogue in political matters between members of different race groups. No longer is it permissible for the white man to say to non-white persons in this country what line he thinks they should follow and what sort of general direction he, as a white person feels they themselves should follow, except, of course, the Government. The Government may interfere. The Government may interfere on behalf of the Nationalist Party, but no one else may address a meeting in order to persuade the people at the meeting of the wisdom of his policy. In terms of this Bill it is an offence, for example for a Bantu Commissioner or for a Commissioner-General, to address a gathering of Bantu and tell them about separate development. It is an offence in terms of this law. It is laughable, but it is true.

Where do you find that?

Paragraph (c) says that no person who belongs to one population group may “address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority”—whatever that might mean—“belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party …”

For the purpose of “furthering the interests of a political party”.

You can tell them about the Nationalist Party’s policy but you cannot tell them about the United Party’s policy. What is the Government’s policy? Surely it is the Nationalist Party’s policy. But here we have a provision that it is an offence for anyone else to go and talk to people about any other ideas that they may have, but the Government can talk to them about Government policy. I have no doubt that a person, like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, will be allowed to address them too and he is going to go as a Government spokesman.

Not on behalf of any party.

Sir, is it possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development to go and talk to a gathering of Xhosas or Zulus about separate development without his talking as a politician? Surely, we have got beyond that! If he speaks to them in the same terms as he speaks here, then he is talking as a politician and he is furthering the interests of a political party, namely the Nationalist Party. So far has this gone, in any event, that there are even people who regard the Nationalist Party as the Government. That is the first thing that this Bill does. It is incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership. No longer may a white man go and talk to these persons and guide them unless it is a person propagating Nationalist Party propaganda.

It is all right to interfere as long as you are interfering as a Government spokesman. Sub-clause 2 (b) makes it impossible for us, the alternative Government in South Africa, to put our plans into operation if this were to remain the law. It is complete anathema to us on this side. How can we have any representation of non-Whites in this Parliament by Whites if this Bill becomes law? It would be impossible; it would be unlawful.

I go further, Sir. In terms of this Bill, the hon. member for Karoo sitting behind me, the present Coloured representative, will be committing an offence when he goes out and reports back to his constituents as to what he has done for them as a United Party man. He was elected as a United Party man; that was the platform on which he was elected. His life, in terms of another Bill, has now been extended to 1971 at the latest. He is now lawfully a Member of Parliament until 1971, but he is not entitled in terms of sub-clause (c) to go and report back what he did, according to his mandate, in Parliament, that is to say, as a United Party man and as a member of the United Party caucus. He cannot go and explain his doings in this House during this year or explain the basis on which he did it, because he would be furthering the cause of the United Party. Sir, this is the sort of nonsense for which hon. members over there are going to vote blindly when the division bells ring. Sir, we will vote against this clause.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister something else. He proposes to apply this subclause (b) to “any other law to which the State President has by proclamation in the Gazette applied the provisions of this paragraph”. What other law has the hon. the Minister in mind? What laws has he in mind other than those mentioned here? We would like to know. He takes this power and we presume that he is going to use it. We want to know in respect of what laws he is going to use it? Does he have in mind what is happening in Cape Town? Does he have in mind the election by white persons, for example in a place like Stanger, of an Indian to the Town Board? What does he have in mind? To which laws does he anticipate applying the provisions of this paragraph? I am sure that hon. members opposite would also like to know because I am sure that they would not like to vote blindly without knowing to which laws this paragraph is going to apply.

They would.

One hopes that they will not. One hopes that one of them would want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to use this power. Because he does not have to come back to this House and consult hon. members. He would merely do it by proclamation. Then, lastly, perhaps the hon. the Minister will answer this question: What is the “greater majority”? There is a majority and there is a minority. When do you have a “greater majority” of people of another race group at a meeting? You have a majority, I presume, when there is a majority of persons of another race group there; when 51 out of 100 people are members of a different race group. What is a “greater majority”? How on earth does the hon. the Minister expect the courts to interpret something like this? It is not an offence apparently when out of 100 people there are 51 members of another race group, but would 55 be a “greater majority”; would it then be an offence? or must there be 60 or 70 members of a different race group? This sort of mumbo-jumbo which one has in this clause is typical of the sort of mumbo-jumbo, dog’s breakfast this Bill is, and one hopes that the hon. the Minister will give us an answer to some of these things and a little better answer than the one he gave us on the last clause.

The hon. member for Durban (North) is speaking against his better knowledge if he suggests that in terms of this legislation there may not be any dialogue among the various races in future. He said that this legislation would have the effect “that there will be no dialogue whatsoever”. According to him no dialogue whatsoever will be permitted between the various races in future. This is the type of “mumbo-jumbo” claims the hon. member is making here. He knows that that is not stated anywhere in the Bill; he knows that that is not prohibited anywhere in the Bill. The hon. member says that the situation is now being created—a temporary situation, and it must be emphasized very strongly that it is a temporary situation—in terms of which the hon. member for Karoo and other representatives of the Coloured population will not have the right to report back to their constituencies. Where is it stated in the Bill that the hon. member for Karoo may not hold report-back meetings? After all, if the hon. member for Karoo holds report-back meetings, he does not go there to further the interests of a political party or to support the candidature of a candidate of a political party. If the hon. member for Karoo wishes to report back to the Coloureds in his constituency on what has been done in this House, and if he confines himself to his work, then there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it.

Read paragraph (c).

I am dealing with subsection (c). In this Bill there is absolutely nothing which prevents the hon. member for Karoo from making a speech in which he may tell his voters what has happened during this session of Parliament. Of course, he must remain within bounds; he may not take advantage of his position. Suppose the hon. member for Karoo waits until the elections for the Coloured Council are in progress and then suddenly has the urge to hold report-back meetings, which he never did in the past in any case, but wants to hold now; then he will have to be careful of what he says. He will have to confine himself to a report of the business of Parliament. That he may do, but he may not interfere with the elections under the pretext that he has come to report back. Like a commissioner-general for any population group the hon. member can go there to explain what integration is. Nothing in this Bill prevents him from doing that, just as a commissioner-general is not refused the right to explain to non-Whites what separate development is. This has no bearing on the furthering of the interests of a political party or the candidature of a candidate in an election. Furthermore, the hon. member wants to know whether the audience can be regarded as a White one, if 51 per cent of those present at the meeting are White. The Bill clearly refers to “the greater majority”. It was in fact worded that way in order to make it possible to do the sort of thing which the hon. member claims we are prohibiting. I want to give him an example. Suppose Sabra holds a congress and four, five or ten non-Whites—Bantu, Coloureds or Indians—are invited, and discussions take place there in regard to the policies of the various political parties. This legislation cannot do them any harm. The Bantu may attend that meeting, and this is irrefutable proof that the first claim made by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely that this Bill renders dialogue among the various race groups absolutely impossible, is nonsense.

What does “greater majority” mean?

A greater majority means a greater majority. It does not mean 51 per cent. If we were to state emphatically that no Whites or no Coloureds or no Bantu may ever attend a discussion or a conference of Whites, he would be the first person in this House who would fight it tooth and nail, because that would be a prohibition of all forms of dialogue. But it was for the very purpose of making dialogue possible that this provision was inserted in the Bill. The hon. member is therefore seeing imaginary dangers. The principle of the entire Bill, the point of the Bill, is improper interference in elections, and there is a protective clause in the Bill which provides that no prosecution will be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General. That is the safeguard contained in the legislation. This entire piece of legislation is based on interference in elections, the furthering of the interests of political parties and the furthering of the candidature of a candidate for an election. As for myself, I have no illusions about the fact that people who do not take advantage of their position, have every right to enter into dialogue with any race group, without their committing an offence in terms of this Bill.

Of course this brings us back to the same old discussion as to what is meant by political interference. The hon. member for Parow has one definition and I am sure I have another one, but of course the Bill does not define this for us at all, nor does it define a political party. I think it is truly cynical to suggest that it will be perfectly all right for non-Whites to attend a gathering such as a Sabra gathering where the majority of people will be white and that non-Whites can do so without in any way infringing the terms of this Bill. But of course it will be very difficult for the non-White to determine whether he is running a risk or not. Supposing the same non-White wants to attend a meeting of the Institute of Race Relations which does not advance the cause of separate development but rather stresses the shortcomings of separate development and pleads for integration in a multi-racial society. How many non-Whites will be able, without trepidation, to attend meetings of that kind? We are told that it requires the Attorney-General to institute prosecutions, but there is never any guarantee as to what prosecutions the Attorney-General will or will not institute. Of course this whole Bill advances the Government’s political ideology and prevents the advancement of ideology which is contrary to that of the Government. If this is democracy, then it is a new definition of democracy, as far as I am concerned, because I have always understood democracy to mean that one has the full right legally to oppose all the ideologies of the regime in power and to advance other ideas in the hope of persuading the electorate to change the Government of the day. [Interjection.] Of course there is a non-White electorate as well. But anyway, as far as this is concerned, obviously people are going to run the risk as soon as they attend a multiracial political gathering, irrespective of whether it is in aid of advancing the candidature of a candidate or not, because no one defines what is meant by advancing the aims of a political party.

If I stand up at a gathering where there are Whites and non-Whites present, even if the overwhelming majority or the greater majority of the people present are Whites, that meeting may change while I am talking. I can start off on a legal basis and halfway through, since I am a very boring speaker, half the Whites might leave the meeting and I am left with a greater majority of non-Whites. What am I going to do then? At that stage I have to sit down, or otherwise I infringe the terms of this Bill. The whole thing is fraught with difficulties for anybody who wants to have any dialogue across the colour line, and of course that is the aim and objective of the whole thing. Why we pretend that it is anything else is beyond me.

I am not going to discuss the principle because you, Sir, will not allow me to do so, and I think I have made it pretty clear that I am against the principle anyway. But for hon. members like the hon. member for Parow, who has just sat down, to try to pretend that there is really no difficulty at all about continuing dialogue across the colour line, is fatuous. I do not think anyone in this Committee is under any illusions. I want to give an example of the sort of thing which has been happening before this Bill was even introduced in this House. That is where another representative of a non-White group, a Coloured Representative in the Provincial Council, who stood as a Progressive Party candidate and was elected on that platform, attempted to address a meeting in his constituency in Kimberley and found himself in all sorts of difficulties, long before this measure could become law. The hon. member for Durban (North) was worried about the position of the hon. member for Karoo, who happens to belong to his party, and what he is going to do in future when he wants to address report-back meetings. I am equally worried about the position of the two Progressive Party provincial councillors who are representing Coloured voters in South Cape and North Cape, who would also like to enjoy the rights of discussing with their constituents what went on in the Provincial Council and willy-nilly may well be advancing the aims of a political party without even wanting to do so. Because if they stand up and criticize, for instance, the fact that compulsory education has not yet been introduced for the Coloured people in the Cape, and say that compulsory education should be introduced for the Coloured children in the Cape, then they are willy-nilly advancing one of the aims of the Progressive Party, which is compulsory education for the Coloureds in the Cape, and they definitely run the risk of being prosecuted under this Act. Is that fair? Those people were fairly and squarely elected; they are there until 1971 by the grace of this Government, and they should surely be able to report back to their constituents about what went on in the Provincial Council. Mr. Van Heerden on 19th April attempted to address a meeting in Kimberley on the subject of these Bills which are now before the House, which vitally affect the Coloured voters in his constituency. What did he come across? First of all, a certain captain in the Police Force, whose name I will not mention, communicated with the chairman of the Kimberley branch of the Progressive Party and told him that in terms of the Group Areas Act, mark you, a permit would be necessary for a mixed gathering which was to be held in the church hall in Kimberley. He was then informed, quite correctly, by the chairman that a permit was not necessary, because as the hon. member for Parow will remember, political meetings are not, for very good reasons obvious to everybody, considered to be public entertainment, because most of them are very dreary. But the point is that a permit was not necessary under the Group Areas Act, under Proclamation R26, but a member of the Police Force took it upon himself to try to prevent the meeting from taking place, although it was a perfectly lawful meeting. The meeting took place and it was very poorly attended, and on investigation it was found that the police had been busy in the Coloured township informing Coloured people that if they went to the meeting they would be committing an unlawful act. There were members of the Special Branch obviously present. [Interjections.] I can bring witnesses who will say that they were approached by the police.

There were members of the Special Branch present at that meeting, as I say, quite obviously taking down names and obviously observing who was there and who was not there. Indeed, during the course of the meeting a well-known person left the hall and was approached by members of the Special Branch, who demanded to know his name and address. Such a person is prepared to come forward and give sworn evidence. If this goes on before this Bill is even on the Statute Book, one can imagine what will go on when the police are in fact armed with a law which prevents multiracial political meetings from taking place. Under this broad provision anybody who advances the aim of a political party—and that can be any aim, as I say, ranging from compulsory education to universal franchise or anything in between, like mixed trade unions—will immediately run the danger of falling foul of this Act.

As I say, I am dead against the whole principle embodied in clause 2, which contains the real nub of this Bill, but what I am also dead against is members of this Committee attempting to mislead the Committee by pretending that the Bill is virtually innocuous, that dialogue will be permitted across the colour line, and that nobody need have any fear of taking part in any multi-racial political meeting, provided they adhere to the terms of this Bill. I believe that this provision is extremely wide and, what is more, I believe it has deliberately been worded in such a way as to make it extremely wide. From now on, whether the hon. member for Karoo sits in this House or not, representing the United Party as a Coloured Representative, or whether the two provincial councillors sit in the Provincial Council representing the Progressive Party, they are going to find themselves completely hamstrung in regard to reporting back to their constituents and having any dialogue across the colour line. I believe the same applies not only to these political representatives, but also to all the so-called discussion groups like Sabra, although I doubt whether they will be prosecuted, because they will of course be advancing the right political aims of the correct political party, as against bodies like the Institute of Race Relations and other discussion groups which do not advance the aims of the Government. [Time expired.]

There is great confusion in the Minister’s mind as regards the meaning of the word “meeting”, but I believe the confusion is as great when it comes to the meaning of another word in this clause, namely “agent”. May I read to you, Sir, the wording of the particular clause which includes this word? Clause 2 says—

Few things are clear about the meaning of this word “agent”, except this, that if you do act or get somebody to act as your agent and he is a member of another population group, then you are liable to a R600 fine or a year in prison.

Another thing is clear, and that is that the word “agent” here does not have the same meaning as “agent” in the Electoral Act. The hon. the Minister will remember how terribly confused he was during the second reading when he first of all stated that it did mean an agent under the Electoral Act, and afterwards he had to withdraw his definition. But now I have his new definition of “agent” here, and this is even less clear than the previous one. While my hon. leader was speaking, the hon. the Minister interjected to explain, and he said—

Now what exactly is meant by “an agent” in the broader sense of the word? The Minister tried to define it here and qualified it by saying it is someone who is paid by somebody to be his agent. But what happens in the case of a person who is an unpaid agent? Will an unpaid agent be allowed to act as such if he belongs to a different colour group? Will the Minister answer that?

You see, Sir, we have had some strange instances, even during the past few weeks, where one political party used a person of another population group as an agent. I should like to refer you, Sir, to Die Burger of 19th April, page 6. This was during the Swellendam by-election. During that election a meeting of the Nationalist Party was advertised in Monagu by a Coloured person.

Disgraceful!

This Coloured person’s name was Esau Kootjies. It was quite above board; I am not blaming the Nationalist Party for doing it. Esau Kootjies’s photograph appeared in Die Burger carrying a placard, and in his left hand he had a bell which he was ringing. He is generally known as the town crier of Montagu, and he is a Coloured person.

Disgraceful!

He was advertising a Nationalist Party meeting. I should like to know what is going to happen to this very good old Coloured person, Esau Kootjies. Die Burger goes further and says “Hy is net bereid om vir die Nasionale Party te dra”. He must be a Nationalist then. Die Burger also says “Hy is waarskynlik die bekendste man op die dorp Montagu”. Here we have the case of the most well-known Nationalist in Montagu, being refused a job, in future, through this Bill. He is subjected to one year’s imprisonment if he continues with the work he has been doing for the Nationalist Party.

It shows one how ridiculous one can get, unless one has some sort of definition as to what the word “agent” means. Is a Coloured chauffeur who brings and goes to fetch a member of the family to the polling booth, an agent? I mentioned the case, to which the hon. the Minister gave a reply, of the express messenger service which we had in Johannesburg. This service is made use of by all parties. It is a business which is owned by a European, and he uses Coloured people and Bantu as his agents to distribute pamphlets, or anything one wishes. These messengers are often used during election times, by all parties, to distribute their ordinary political pamphlets and election material. This is what I asked the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate—

The hon. the Minister of the Interior then said, by way of interjection, that—

Here one can see the terrific implications of this Bill.

That is nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says “nonsense”. What is nonsense? The interjection? It is serious for a person who has a good business, and for an organization which has been doing good work during election times, without, in any way, compromising the racial purity of any of the parties using it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen to that man. If any member of a political party is no longer allowed to make use of express messengers of another racial group, I want to ask whether one can use as one’s agent for distributing pamphlets and election materials the Post Office department of the Government, who have Bantu and Coloured people distributing pamphlets? Am I allowed to distribute my pamphlets in envelopes addressed “To the Householder” in my consitutency? Will any other member be permitted to do so? Is the definition of an agent, a person who is paid? It is the case with this firm Express Messengers. What is going to happen?

These are some of the problems, and it is essential that the hon. the Minister should give us some idea of what an agent is. He is not an election agent, but he must tell us whether an agent is one who is paid, and whether one can have unpaid agents. Can one have a white agent, and then have Bantu or Coloured subagents, unpaid or paid, to assist him? Can one use one’s garden boy to distribute a few pamphlets in a certain street which was overlooked when pamphlets were distributed originally? Can one have one’s Coloured maid to insert pamphlets in envelopes? Will she be acting as an agent? Will the Native girl who makes tea in an election office be an agent? I suppose it depends on what purpose the steam in the kettle is used for. Unless the hon. the Minister can give us some genuine definition of what is meant by an agent, this whole Bill is utterly ridiculous and foolish.

Mr. Chairman, I presume there is some misunderstanding. The hon. member for Houghton stated that if she were a Native she would not be allowed to attend a meeting where there were Europeans present. She said she would not know whether there might be a majority later on. But this measure does not deal with a person attending a meeting, it only applies to any person who addresses a meeting, so that point does not arise.

With regard to the reporting back by an hon. member representing Coloureds, the position is as follows. An hon. member may report back but not for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person. In the first instance, the person reporting back will not be furthering the interests of a man’s candidature because this European member will not be able in future to represent the Coloureds in Parliament. So that argument falls away, unless the person distinctly furthers the interests of a Coloured candidate, which he is not allowed to do.

With regard to furthering the interests of a party, the mistake is made in that “interests” are assumed to mean the same as “aims”. The idea is that the person should not further the interests—in Afrikaans, the “belange”—of the party. Therefore, if an hon. member reports back to his constituents and he explains the aims of the different parties, that would not land him in any trouble because he will not be furthering the interests of his party. It is difficult to see how a court would consider the interests of the United Party, for example, would be furthered by an explanation of their aim, policy and approach in this Parliament to Coloureds, where Coloured representatives will not in future be elected to this Parliament. Because the interests of a political party are served by having representatives in this Parliament. After all, that is the ultimate aim of any political party. Where this is not the aim or the purpose of the particular member reporting back, in other words, he does not try to get representatives into the highest legislative body in the country, namely Parliament, the courts will never interpret the reporting-back to the Coloureds as furthering the interests of the political party. Therefore this measure will not prevent an hon. member from reporting back to his constituents.

Another point raised was what is meant by “greater majority”. I must concede it must be very difficult for any court to decide when there was this greater majority. It would be easier to decide if the phrase read “the majority”. The hon. the Minister may perhaps consider such an amendment, which, of course, will make the law much more strict. However, it will be easier for a court to decide whether there was a majority, in contrast to a “greater majority”. However, there may be some reason why the Minister considers the words “greater majority” to be more appropriate in this Bill. I myself, none the less, cannot see why it should read “greater majority” instead of plain “majority”. It may he that an audience might be very small and the Minister felt that one or two more on the one side would not mean much. As I say, though, if the word “majority” was used, it would be easier for the Court to decide. I must point out, though, that the court is well in a position to decide what a greater majority means. The courts have had to consider similar wording, for example in the case of a “substantial amount”. There was a 1933 Appellate Division case between De Wet and the Union Government and the Court had to decide what was a substantial amount. It had to be decided whether an appeal should be allowed to be proceeded with, and according to the Magistrates’ Courts Act an appeal could only be proceeded with if a “substantial amount” was involved. The Court held that £75 was a substantial amount, in other words, not a trivial amount. In the same way, a trivial majority of say one would not be a substantial majority, depending, of course, on the size of the meeting. At a meeting consisting of ten persons, for instance, three would be quite a majority, where at a meeting of fifty persons three would not be a substantial majority. That is how I would consider it, [Interjections.] As I say, it is not impossible for a court to decide, but it is, of course, more difficult to decide. It is a tricky matter to decide. But ‘the court could decide, as it has done in the past in other respects.

Then there was the question of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Deputy Minister reporting back to a meeting of Bantu. The same applies as applies in the case of a Member of Parliament reporting back. He would not be there to further the interests of a political party or the candidature of a candidate. I concede he could incidentally further the interests of his party, but that would not be his object, and the court must decide what his purpose was in addressing the meeting in question. That is what the court has to decide. If a speaker incidentally furthered the interests of a party, he would not be contravening this measure.

The further point about an agent was also raised. I wish to point out that in regard to legislation of this kind, this legislation dealing with political interference, we have legislation which is breaking new ground. It is very difficult to frame legislation to cover every particular incident or occasion and therefore, in order to make it effective, it is necessary to draft legislation as widely as possible. In this way an effort is made to cover all possible instances. That is why the word “agent” is used here. Whether he be paid or not makes no difference. The agent must be appointed—that is essential. A person cannot assist of his own volition and then call himself an agent. An agent must be appointed by someone to act on his, the principal’s behalf. If he is appointed to act as agent, and he does what he may not do in terms of this measure, then he will be contravening it. The hon. member who sat down just now mentioned some far-fetched circumstances. Someone could perhaps be called an agent in the wider sense, but strictly in law he would not be an agent. It is exactly for that reason that this subsection 4 (2) was substituted so that “No prosecution in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except on the express direction of the Attorney-General concerned”. This is provided for because a measure of this nature cannot be worded in such a way as to cover only certain circumstances. The Attorney-General must use his discretion to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Omaruru, who incidentally is a legal gentleman, and who has had a lot more legal training than I ever had, this afternoon advanced an argument here concerning furthering the interests of a political party. During the second-reading debate this hon. member also raised the same question, but this afternoon he has come to a different conclusion. Towards the end of his speech here this afternoon he touched on what he had said during the second-reading debate. I do not have his Hansard but I have notes I made during that time. The argument he advanced at that time was this. He said if the hon. member for Karoo, or any other member of a political party, goes to address a meeting with the express purpose of furthering the interests of a political party, then he will be committing an offence in terms of this measure.

Yes.

He went further and he said it must be proved that the accused went to the meeting with the express purpose of furthering the interests of a political party.

Yes, that is correct.

He went further and gave examples and he said that if a politician went to address a meeting on any particular subject—for instance, flying to the moon or why cheese is green—and then for some reason or other, because of questions asked or because he is led astray, he was to get on to political subjects which could be construed as furthering the interests of a political party, he would not be guilty of an offence, because he did not go to that meeting with the purpose of furthering the said interests.

No, I did not say that.

This is what the hon. member said during the second-reading debate.

No, I did not.

At the time when he spoke. I got the impression that what he was saying was, that if a member decided to …

Order! The hon. member is discussing the principle again. The principle was agreed to at the second reading. I must point out that the principle of this clause is not to be discussed any further.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. May I just point out that I am trying to get to the point of showing that in this House we have heard so many different interpretations. The point that I want to make, to which I am building up, is that this clause is impossible of performance at law.

That was also discussed and agreed to at the second reading. I am not prepared to allow any further discussion on the principle contained in clause 2.

I accept your ruling, Sir, that we cannot discuss the principle any further, and I therefore go on to what the hon. member for Parow had to say. Incidentally, the hon. member for Omaruru tried to correct what he had said, and that made matters worse. That is with regard to this term “the greater majority”. I must support the hon. member for Omaruru that there is no such thing as a “greater majority”. There is a majority or there is not a majority. I want to support his plea to the hon. the Minister to drop this word “greater”. “Majority” means the greater number. It is making this provision even more impossible of interpretation by the court, namely by inserting the term “greater majority”.

While we are on the question of terminology, I also want to discuss for a while with the hon. the Minister the way this Bill has been drafted We have here one of the most shocking examples of bad drafting, namely where it is stated “no person who belongs to one population group”. I want to know what person belongs to anything. I certainly do not belong to anything. I belong to nobody. I might be a member of a population group, but I most certainly do not belong to a population group. [Interjections.] Let me say to my hon. friends who are laughing here: Do they consider that “hulle behoort aan” a population group?

Yes!

Do they not believe, Sir, that a better term might have been “verbonde aan”? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at this wording. Let us get something amended here. This is shocking terminology.

I want to go further and speak to the hon. the Minister again, and just remind him of what he said when he introduced this Bill at the second reading, when he said that he admitted that the Bill is not watertight. Let me say to him that this is a masterpiece of understatement. It is not only not watertight, but it has already sprung a few leaks. It is vague, uncertain and bad in law. I feel that it is shocking to think that we as legislators should be asked to pass a Bill in the terms in which this Bill is drafted.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the whole Bill again. I wish to point out that clause 2 is under consideration.

Sir, there is so much noise here that I cannot hear a word of what you are saying …

The hon. member may discuss the details of clause 2, but nothing further.

Let us discuss then the detail of clause 2. Clause 2 (a) provides that “no person”, as it is put here, “who belongs to one population group, may be a member of any political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group, is a member”. A political party is not defined, and we have heard arguments here asking that it should be defined. But there is also the question of membership. Membership is not defined. How is the court to decide whether a person is a “member”, as it is written in this clause, “of a political party”, once they have decided what is a “political party”? Is a member a fully paid-up member, a person who has paid an annual subscription fee? Is he only a member if he is not in arrear in his subscriptions? Is he a member only if he has signed a membership card? Is he a member if he merely subscribes to the policy of that political party, or, once again, is he going to be construed as a member if he makes donations in response to an appeal for funds made by a political party? These are the questions which I am asking. This is what is going to make it absolutely impossible for the courts to interpret this law at all. The hon. the Minister himself admitted it, when he accepted the statement of the hon. member for Karoo when he said that one can drive a span of oxen with a waggon through this Bill. We are being asked, as responsible members of Parliament, to pass such legislation, which, as I say, is going to be impossible of interpretation and application by the courts.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The first difficulty he had, is that he does not know what a “member” of a political party means. A “member” means a person who belongs to a party but apparently, because the hon. member does not know what “belongs” means, he would not be able to know what “member” means. He first needs to know what “belong” means. The hon. member seems to have difficulty with the word “belong”. “Political party” is quite capable of definition by the courts. [Interjections.] I grant hon. members their little joke, and when they have finished, I shall be able to carry on. The word “political party”, just for the edification of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), means “a body of persons united in a cause or an opinion …”. This is from the Oxford dictionary. That is a party. It is “a body of persons united in a cause or an opinion”. “ ‘Political’ means appertaining to the state, government or policy.”

Read on further from that book.

The hon. member does not expect me to read all the words in the Oxford dictionary? One must take the meaning that one is looking for, not all the meanings the word may have. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that it is quite possible for the courts to define not only “a political party”, but also a “member”.

I should now like to deal with the hon. member for Orange Grove regarding the word “agent”, and this particular argument of his, namely, that if the Post Office uses a Coloured person to carry one’s pamphlets, he is an agent. That is a fatuous argument. That would obviously be an agent of the Post Office, not your agent. [Interjection.] Now give me an opportunity of arguing this. Then the hon. member can start talking again. He has two more opportunities. The word “agent” is capable of construction, and indeed has been constructed by our courts. It has been defined by our courts in the case of Petterson versus Burnside, in 1941 in the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. Something was said about the matter which might be apposite in this particular case. It was said that—

This is the test, I think—

It is clear that from that it would be possible for our courts to define the word “agent” in this particular Bill. Therefore there can be no possible argument against it.

The arguments of the hon. member for Houghton I do not think really merit any consideration at all. She came forward with the usual little sob-stories, the heartbreak stories of the Progressive Party’s political meetings, and what the members of the Security Police do there. But I do not think that that is germane to this issue at all. The only arguments I think that do merit dealing with, are the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (North), who first said that clause 2 was completely incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership. But surely the hon. member will agree with me that the maintenance of white leadership really depends on whether there are white members in Parliament, and that the policy of the party on this side of the House will be able to maintain white leadership, whereas the policy of the other side of the House will not be able to maintain white leadership. Then the hon. member said that there would be no dialogue whatsoever in terms of this clause. No white man may say to any black man what policy he should follow. Then in the next breath the hon. member asked us what is meant by a greater majority. In other words, he refutes his own argument about there being no dialogue at all because he says that he realizes that there can be a political meeting but he wants to know what the “greater majority” of the population group really means. It is quite clear that a meeting can be held as long as there is a minority of members of another population group at that meeting and not a majority. That is the very point the hon. member raised. It refuted his argument about there being no dialogue at all.

He also said that the Government may interfere on behalf of the Nationalist Party. I am going to assume in favour of the hon. member that when he referred to the Government he was actually referring to the ministerial benches and not to the officials. He and I have already had words about the officials of the Government. I was under the impression once before that he had insinuated that the officials of the Government would propagate the policy of the Nationalist Party. I say that that is a terrible suggestion to make. I cannot help it that those hon. members today occupy the position of the Opposition but a governing party is quite entitled to explain its policies. If the hon. member wants to do that, all he must do is get on to this side of the House. He must stop talking about it and do something about it. He also said that the hon. member for Karoo would not be able to report back to his constituents. That is absolute nonsense. The hon. member for Karoo will be able to report back but he will have to tell the Coloured people what he has done for them. He will not be able to make the kind of speech he normally makes, not only before the Coloured people but in this House as well. I refer to the racialistic attitude with which he always starts his speeches.

That is censorship.

No, it is not censorship. It is common sense and the search for peace.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also asked us what laws were referred to in clause 2 (b) of the Bill by the words “any other law”. Surely that could apply to the Indian Council which is not specifically mentioned. The Indian Council is not specifically mentioned in this Bill and this may be affected by these words. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for Durban (Point) who is mumbling behind his fist would get up and make a speech, we would be able to listen to him. At the moment we cannot hear the mumble-jumble that is going on.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asks us what a greater majority is. A simple majority is half plus one and therefore a greater majority would probably be a half plus two. I think that that answers all the arguments raised by hon. members on the other side.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. member for Prinshof has provided any more clarity on this matter than there was before he spoke. One saw the curtain fall just slightly over what in fact hon. members feel this Bill has as its aims. I hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with what the hon. member for Prinshof said. The hon. member for Prinshof said that the hon. member for Karoo would still be able to report back to his constituents but that he would not be able to make the same speeches as he makes here. What exactly does that mean? He will not be able to make the same speeches as he makes here. But he will be able to read his speeches out of Hansard. I want to say that when he reports back and tells them what he has done, what he will be telling them is what he did as a member of the United Party caucus. He will therefore be explaining what the United Party did. In doing so he will be furthering the cause of a political party.

But the hon. member for Prinshof raised another point. He said that the Government is entitled to explain its policy. But what will be the purpose of explaining its policy?

It is to administer its policy.

Yes, but in terms of the wording in this clause the object of doing so is to further the interests of the cause of separate development, or whatever it may be called at that particular time. If that is so, it is furthering the cause of a political party. I want to say to that hon. member that I go so far as to say that a Commissioner-General would be doing precisely that. But he would not be prosecuted.

Now I should like to answer an argument which was raised by the hon. members for Prinshof, Parow and Omaruru, namely the fact that the Attorney-General is there and that no prosecution can take place unless the Attorney-General gives his certificate, is protection for all the odd and sad cases that might arise. But is this in fact so? Mr. Chairman, imagine yourself as the Attorney-General. Here you have a Bill which is by no means of the kind that the Attorney-General normally handles. You have to decide whether you have to prosecute. What is the purpose of this Bill? It is not necessarily aimed at the maintenance of law and order. The object of this Bill is to further the aims of the Nationalist Party’s policies. This Bill has not been introduced for any other reason. It is there to further the aims of the Nationalist Party’s policies. It is a means of forcing their policy through. The Attorney-General, a man completely outside politics, is faced with a Bill like this. He himself has to look at every single case and decide whether a prosecution should take place. It will be a prosecution in terms of a Bill intended to further the aims of a political party, the interests of the Nationalist Party’s policy. This is the position in which the Attorney-General is being placed. It is quite the opposite of what the hon. member said. I want to ask especially the hon. member for Prinshof what the Attorney-General is going to do. How can he decide whether a prosecution should take place when the object of the Bill is political? Its object is not to prevent the normal unlawful behaviour. It is a Bill to foster and further the Nationalist Party’s policies. Why should the Attorney-General be placed in that position? I want to go further. He will have a case reported to him and receive a docket from the Police. He will then have to decide whether he will prosecute. How does he decide this? There are no definitions in the Bill and he has to decide whether someone has tried to further the interests of a political party. I want to go still further. I want to cast no reflection on the Attorney-General or this hon. Minister but the decision that has to be taken by the Attorney-General is a political one, and not a legal one in the normal sense in which we understand it, nor is it within the normal use of the powers of the Attorney-General. We all know that section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that every Attorney-General “shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and directions of the Minister, who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such function”.

Is that the Minister of Justice?

Yes.

What are you suggesting?

I am not suggesting anything, but the Attorney-General acts under the direct instructions of the Minister of Justice. Here we have a Bill which casts upon him the onus of deciding whether a prosecution shall take place under an Act, the purpose of which is to further the political interests of the Nationalist Party. I say that he should not be placed in a position where he has to make that decision. If a political decision has to be made, the proper person to make it is the Minister. I am sure the hon. the Minister would concede that.

The Minister will not do it.

What is the Attorney-General going to do? In the first place, how is he to know whether he should prosecute; what sort of policy is the Attorney-General expected to adopt in terms of a Bill like this? The Attorney-General is steeped in the traditions of the law, and he is there to implement the laws, but the laws which we put on the Statute Book are put there for the common weal. The Attorney-General is concerned with the maintenance of law and order; that is his job. His job is not to fiddle around with this sort of thing and decide whether or not he should prosecute and thus further the cause of the Nationalist Party or some other political party. That is the job of a politician. But so long as that power resides in the Criminal Procedure Act, this hon. Minister and therefore the Cabinet and therefore the Nationalist Party, have the power to determine who will be prosecuted under this Act. That is my point. They will have the power to determine it.

The hon. the Minister is a man of good faith and if he says that he is not going to do it, then I accept it, but we may not be so fortunate as to have this hon. Minister. It may become necessary as a matter of Government policy to enforce this Act strictly in all cases; it may become a matter of Government policy, and the decision will therefore rest with the Minister of Justice, acting, of course, as a member of the Cabinet with collective responsibility. This is where it eventually ends up; it becomes a political decision to threaten someone. Looking at this law, it is difficult to know whether in fact you have committed an offence. The hon. member for Karoo, in my humble opinion, could have a very genuine doubt as to whether he could go back and address his constituents and tell them what he and his caucus did during the Session, because they elected him as a United Party man. Is he expected to go to the Attorney-General and say: “I am about to go and address my constituents and this is what I am going to say; do you think I will be committing an offence under the Act?” The Attorney-General, of course, would not answer; that is not his function. It is not his function to give people indemnities before the event, before they commit an offence. He has to decide afterwards.

The discretion is only exercised after the offence has been committed. The Attorney-General has to exercise his discretion and it has to be exercised having regard to something. Having regard to what? Having regard to the fact that this is bad for law and order or bad for society. How can the Attorney-General make a political decision like that? Sir, this is absolute nonsense, if I may say so, and the hon. member for Karoo is put in an impossible position—a quite impossible position. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice will indicate to us some of the difficulties that might exist in this regard and how he would interpret this provision. Sir, the hon. member for Parow said something very, very interesting. He said that the words “the greater majority” were put in because it was intended that a dialogue should not be excluded altogether, because it was intended that a dialogue should take place. I hope the hon. the Minister, when he has received the briefing which he appears to be getting from the hon. member for Prinshof, will tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Parow that the words “the greater majority” were inserted because it is intended that there should be dialogue between the different race groups in respect of political affairs. [Time expired.]

I am sorry to cross swords with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban (North). I rather feel a little reassured over this Bill because of an interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he said that he would not intervene with an Attorney-General in the exercise of his discretion as to whether or not there should be a prosecution.

I have not done so in the past and I shall not do so in future.

I am glad to hear that. Sir, I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to accept the advice given to him by the hon. member for Prinshof and not to amend this Bill, because of the situation which I am sure is going to confront any Attorney-General who is called upon to give a decision in this matter. We have had discussions here this afternoon on clause 2, and it is clear from these discussions that many of the terms used in this clause are very vague. Many of them have no clarity whatsoever and have no meaning whatsoever in law. I think it is quite wrong for us to try to remedy that situation. The hon. member for Prinshof has indicated that in every instance this is a matter which can be interpreted by the courts and by the Attorney-General. I want to deal with some of his examples. Hon. members on this side have drawn attention to the fact that the term “member” in clause 2 (a) has not been defined. They have drawn attention to the fact that a “political party” remains undefined in this Bill. They have drawn attention to the fact that the term “agent” has not been defined. The hon. member for Prinshof has tried to introduce a definition from some dictionary, but the term is not defined in this Bill and he is hoping that the courts will interpret the word according to the definition given in the dictionary. Hon. members have drawn attention to the fact that an “election committee” of a “political party” has not been defined in this Bill. When we go on to paragraph (c) we find that there is no definition of what a “gathering” is under this clause. We find that there is no definition of “an assembly of persons” under this clause. There is no definition of the term “greater majority”. There is no definition of this at all, except the definition offered by the hon. member for Prinshof and the definition given by the hon. member for Omaruru.

The hon. member for Omaruru says about three out of ten!

Finally, there is no definition in this clause of what is intended in this Bill by the term “interests” of a “political party”. We are told that it does not mean the “aims” of a political party; that there is some other meaning attached to it.

It is obvious that all these terms are used in the most vague fashion. It is obvious that there is no clarity whatsoever about any of these terms. In the circumstances, therefore, I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept the advice given by the hon. member for Prinshof and not to define these terms; not to introduce any further clarification but to leave it to the Attorneys-General. I for one have great confidence in the decisions made by our Attorneys-General and by our courts. I suggest that an Attorney-General, confronted as he is going to be by these vague terms, which are meaningless in many instances, and without any definition as to what Parliament really intends in using these terms, will decline to prosecute in any of these cases. From the point of view of the liberty of our people I would prefer to see the Bill left in these terms and to leave it to the Attorneys-General to apply a legal mind as to whether there should be a prosecution. Sir, I have come to the considered conclusion that it would be impracticable to give effect to the provisions of clause 2 of this Bill. I am leaving the principle alone, but on the wording of this Bill it would be impossible to give effect to the terms of this Bill, and for that reason I propose to vote against this clause.

I want to start by crossing swords with the hon. member for Prinshof on the definitions given by him. I can accept his definition of a “party”, but he started by giving us the definition of “political” as given in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, and he did not finish it. He knows full well that it goes on to say that the meaning of the word “politics” is too wide of interpretation to be defined.

Order! Where is the definition which the hon. member is discussing?

There is no definition in the Bill.

As the hon. member says, there is no definition in the Bill.

That is the very point I am talking about.

The definition was dealt with on clause 1.

There is no definition there of “political”.

Order! It is therefore not under discussion.

On your own ruling, Sir …

On a point of order, Sir, when we were discussing clause 1 the hon. members wished to deal with definitions which were not in the clause, the ruling was that they could be discussed on the subsequent clauses. That was the ruling given from the Chair.

If I remember correctly, I said that the definition of a political party could be discussed on clause 3, not clause 2.

Very well, Sir, I will abide by your ruling. We will discuss the question of a definition of “political party” under clause 3. Sir, I want to go on where the hon. member for Peninsula and the hon. member for Durban (North) left off as regards the question of the interpretation of these terms by our courts. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he intends that a conviction should be secured of a person who is allegedly a member of any political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group is a member. The common law onus of proof …

Order! That point has been made already. The hon. member is now repeating arguments already advanced.

With submission, Sir, I think the points which I wish to raise have not been raised.

Order! That is for me to decide. That particular point has been made.

May I put it to you this way then? I submit that there are two elements attached to this offence. The one is that the prosecution will have to prove that the person is a member of a political party, and secondly the prosecution will have to prove that there were members of that political party who were members of some other population group. These are the points I wish to make.

But they have been made.

I do not know who made them; I did not hear them made.

The hon. member should have been here throughout the debate.

I was here. Sir, and I submit that they have not been made.

Those points have been made over and over again; they were made in the second-reading debate as well.

Maybe in the second-reading debate but not in Committee, Sir.

They have been made by the hon. member for Durban (North).

On a point of order, Sir, I have certainly not made this point about proving that a person is a member of a political party. With great respect, Sir, this is a new point in this debate in Committee.

The hon. member made the point that it would be impossible to convict anybody under this clause.

Yes, Sir, but not for the reason which the hon. member is now giving. With respect, Sir, this is a new point.

Order! The hon. member may continue but I am not going to allow any further repetition.

Sir, the common law onus of proof has not been disturbed, and it will be incumbent upon the State to prove beyond any doubt any contravention of this Act. This being the case, how is the Government going to give effect to the prohibition which is being created here? As I have said, there are two elements which will have to be proved. The one is that the accused is a member of a political party, and the other is that that political party has members who are members of another population group. How is it intended that the State will adduce this evidence, evidence which is positive enough to obtain a conviction? Either the State will have to subpoena duces tecum the various responsible officers of a political party to produce their record cards and membership lists, or the Crown will have to issue search warrants.

Who will have to issue it?

The State. I am afraid I am still thinking of the days when I sat on the Bench. [Interjection.] While some of those hon. members were still at school, I was sitting on the Bench in a court of law. This might shake the hon. members opposite. Just the thought of these two alternatives is abhorrent to us. But irrespective of which course is adopted, it is implicit that the State will have to use a political party to secure the conviction of one of its members. In other words, somebody must be produced who will be able to speak to the fact that he is a member of a political party and also that he is a member of a population group other than that of which the accused is a member. Now, it is trite law that nobody can be called before a court to give evidence which is calculated to implicate himself. If he gives evidence that he is a member of a political party and that he is a member of a population group different from that of the accused, then he exposes himself immediately to a possible charge under the identical provision in terms of which the accused himself is being charged. I am sure the hon. member for Prinshof follows my reasoning here, and I hope the hon. the Minister does, and that he will give us an answer, because I cannot see that it is practical that in any court of law any person can be called upon to give this evidence which, as I say, will render himself liable to prosecution under the same conditions in terms of which the accused is being prosecuted. I hope the Minister will give us an answer to this.

I do not want to spend much time on this point, but something the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof told the Committee has obscured the matter even more for me. It is in connection with what is “a majority”, and what a “greater majority”.

That point has been made 20 times.

Not the point that the hon. member for Prinshof made. No reply has been given to that. The hon. member for Prinshof said a majority consisted of one-half plus one, but a greater majority consisted of one-half plus two. Let us examine the implications of that. Suppose a white person addresses a mixed meeting of 100 people. If 50 persons in the audience are Coloureds and 50 are Whites, everything is in order. If one-half plus one, in other words, 51 out of 100, are Coloured, then it is still in order. But as soon as one Coloured is added, making it 52 Coloureds and 48 Whites, there is trouble.

Order! That point has already been made.

I do not think it has been made …

Yes, it has been. In fact, I remember the same figures having been mentioned.

May I ask whether the point was made after the hon. member for Prinshof gave the definitions of a majority and a greater majority?

Order! The hon. member is repeating himself.

Very well. Sir. Then I shall resume my seat and we shall accept the definition of a greater majority as being one-half plus two.

When my time expired the last time I spoke …

The hon. member’s time never expired. I did not tell him that his time had expired. He sat down of his own accord. But the hon. member may continue.

I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Parow, which was that the reason why the words “the greater majority” appear, and not “majority” was that it was intended that some dialogue should take place and that all dialogue should not disappear. This is a very interesting answer; it is the only answer we have had from the other side so far. If that is the answer, it means that you may address a meeting if there is a party of numbers or even an ordinary majority for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person. If that is the hon. member’s answer, then that is what it means. It means that you may do this, but you may not do it where there is an overwhelming majority or a greater majority. If that is so, it means—and we are waiting for the Minister to confirm it—that there will be political interference in the affairs of one group by another, provided that the majority of the audience is just a majority of the other group and not the greater majority.

That point has already been made by the hon. member himself.

This is now something new. If this is the answer of the Government, it means that you may have persons addressing a meeting where there is a majority of the other groups, for the purpose of furthering the interest of a political party or the candidature of anyone. That is the answer we got from the leading spokesman opposite. He said that we wanted the words “greater majority” because we do not want to avoid dialogue altogether. Now “dialogue” means dialogue in this context. I hope the Minister will get up and say whether he agrees with the hon. member for Parow or not, because if that is so I will go on to my next point.

The hon. member is making his points over and over again.

Then I go on to my next point. If that is so, it means that a discretion will reside with someone as to whether this should or should not be allowed, depending on what one’s interpretation of “greater majority” is.

That point has also been made by another hon. member.

My point is this. With whom does that discretion lie in the end?

That point has also been made.

In the end it rests with the Attorney-General, but in the meantime where does it rest? Surely it rests with the Police to decide whether or not to forward that docket to the Attorney-General, to decide whether or not there is a case to present.

But that is always the case.

Yes, in all crime cases, but this is not the ordinary sort of crime. That is my point. Here we have the situation where you can have political interference provided there is an ordinary majority which is not a greater majority. That is what the hon. member for Parow said. The Minister has not once got up. I hope the hon. the Minister will now tell us what in fact in his view the intention of the Bill is, as opposed to the explanations of those other hon. members opposite.

I shall just reply briefly to this debate about what I consider to be the basic clause of the Bill. Let us be honest now. The intention of this clause and of the legislation is to make it difficult, as far as possible, for political interference by one race group in the politics of another to take place. There are two courses open to one. You can follow the course in regard to which the hon. members are criticizing us now, namely this course of going to the extreme in defining and putting it as clearly as possible with as little latitude as possible for anyone, in other words, also with the greatest possible interference with the freedom of the individual. You can even bring in the Press and make it much more restrictive than the Bill that was before the Select Committee. What we are trying to do here is to curb that absolute freedom on the one hand which was exercised and misused on occasion during elections by political parties, without going to the other extreme. Now, I suggest that hon. members are not reading this Bill properly. Let it be vague; it is vague, but it is deliberately vague. It is vague with a purpose I agree, and I want to thank the hon. member for Peninsula for the fact that he, as a lawyer, has a higher opinion of the Minister of Justice and of the administration of justice in South Africa than the hon. member for Durban (North) has. The impression created by the hon. member for Durban (North) was that, because those powers which the Minister of Justice has under another Act and has had all these years and still has—he did not say this directly—may be abused or have been abused, and because this is an offence in connection with politics, there is naturally a greater danger that the Attorney-General may be influenced or dictated to by the Minister of Justice as to what action he must take. The hon. member could just as well have quoted examples of ideological legislation, as they call it, having been contravened, and he could have said that the Minister of Justice had influenced the Attorney-General. I am sorry that he has cast this shadow of doubt, discredit and lack of integrity on the courts and the Attorney-General, and on our administration of justice as well. But now we come to the question whether a white party may put its point of view in public when Coloureds are also present. I say: Yes, it may do that, and not only the National Party, but the Opposition and the Progressive Party may do so as well. They need not do it only by word of mouth; the newspapers may publish it in their reports of political meetings. Both non-Whites and the Whites may be kept informed of the thinking of political parties, and there is nothing to prohibit this. But why do people want to do this? When a white political party…

And if one is invited to do so?

Invited or not, if a white politician decides that he wants to address non-Whites mainly, surely he must have an object; and if that object of his is to explain to those non-Whites the policy of his white political party for South Africa and its entire population, and he does this where there is no political party amongst the Coloureds or the non-Whites that is pursuing the same objectives, and he does it in an objective way, I say it will be very difficult to say this man has now interfered in Coloured politics. But there are many ways of doing something. If, for example, there is a United Party or a Progressive Party, as is indeed the case, or some other party, call it a National Party, amongst the non-Whites, and we are aware of its existence, and a Nationalist, for example, goes there and addresses a meeting under the chairmanship, on the same platform, of a leader or a candidate who is going to speak on behalf of such a political party which may perhaps subscribe to the policy of the Government, and he does not only put the facts, but also recommends that this party of the Coloureds is the right one to support, then, in terms of this legislation, he will be contravening the law. The Attorney-General need not even entertain any doubts, when he has the documents before him, as to whether an offence has in fact been committed. On the one hand the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side want much stricter measures, there must be more definitions, and on the other they want no restrictions whatsoever. They do not want any restrictions on free interference in the politics of another race group. But one is not prohibited from propagating one’s own political point of view. One may hold a meeting and interested non-Whites may come and listen. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned such an example. She mentioned the following hypothetical case. Say she is addressing a Progressive Party meeting and she is stating the policy of her party. Non-Whites attend the meeting to listen, and later on she sees from the platform that the non-Whites are apparently beginning to be in the majority. She wanted to know what she must do in such a case. She originally went there to state her party’s policy to the Whites, but the meeting changed gradually so that eventually a greater majority of non-Whites was present. Well, then the hon. member shall have to change her theme, and if she does not do so, but continues with her speech and refers, for example, to the Progressive Political Party of the Coloureds and to a candidate or some other person, and recommends him, she will be contravening this measure, and she knows it.

Since we are separating the politics of the non-Whites and the politics of the Whites, people will no longer have a direct interest in the politics of another race group. I can understand that people would like to influence those people as well in order to oppose the ideal policy of the Government and its entire policy of separation in all fields, also in the political field, and to influence the people. But I say that this influencing can be done by holding meetings in white communities, amongst your own race group and population group, and by means of the publicity that will be given to that. It was none other than the hon. member for Houghton who said once that the Coloureds were not so stupid. They read many newspapers and let me tell the Opposition I think the Coloureds generally read more English newspapers than Afrikaans ones. They need therefore have no fear that the views adopted by them will not become known amongst the Coloureds.

It is true that this measure is restrictive, but I can make it much more restrictive. However, I shall follow the advice of the hon. member for Prinshof, as well as that of the hon. member for Peninsula, not to do this. If people tell me that “political party” has not been defined, it is very easy for me to move an amendment and to describe it, for example, as any organization or party which I, the Minister, declare by regulation to be a political party. Would that satisfy the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side? No one would vote for that. No, they would say that I was becoming far too dictatorial; that I was taking too many powers. If I do not do this, I am criticized and if I should do it, I would probably be criticized more severely. This is the position we are faced with. Basically not only this clause, but the entire Bill is objectionable to the Opposition. Basically it falls within the framework of the policy of the present governing party, and that is why this measure has been introduced.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—105: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—32: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 attempts to provide the machinery whereby there can be control over the receipt of financial assistance from abroad into the Republic. I think I must make it clear again at the outset that we, on this side, as was indicated by my hon. Leader during the second-reading debate, accept the principle contained in this clause, and that is that it is undesirable for such money to be sent here and ways and means should be found, if possible, to prevent financial resources from coming into the country to assist in party political activities in the country. We believe that party political activities are of a domestic nature and should be free from financial or any other interference from overseas.

During the second-reading discussion of this Bill certain questions were posed to the hon. the Minister which we believe are material in determining the effectiveness or otherwise of this clause, and it was indicated to the Minister that we would raise these matters in more detail during the Committee Stage. Answers have not yet been given to these questions. We have had a discussion on some, and I will deal with that later.

The first question is this. What is intended by the Minister with the words “to combat any aim or principle of a political party”? Is that limited to the activities of a party which is actively concerned in the elections of representatives to this House, or to provincial councils, that is a combating of the aims or principles of a political party? If some organization of an educational nature were to be opposed, for instance, to certain aspects of the Government’s educational policy, or if some labour movement were to be opposed to the question of job reservation, will any funds received by those organizations be funds received for the purpose of combating an aim or principle of a political party? Sir, there have been various attempts at replying to the second question which was posed to file hon. the Minister.

The second question which was posed to him was “what is a political party”? We must face the fact that every reply which we have received in the course of the discussions in the Committee Stage, is that there is vagueness and we must leave this matter vague. But the clause as drafted contains a provision that a political party shall not receive certain funds. If a political party, in the concept in which it is understood by members of the Government, receives funds, who is to be prosecuted? Every member of that party? Who is to be prosecuted: the treasurer who finds the amount deposited to the credit of the political party’s bank account which has received funds from overseas? We believe that this receipt of money from overseas for party political activities, as we know them in this country, should be stopped, but how is it to be stopped when there is a vagueness, as we find in this clause as it is drafted?

The third question which arises is whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient means, and that there are sufficient means at the disposal of the Government, whereby they can control the movement of finance which might be directed towards these purposes. We are trying to find means for closing the gap. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient procedures available to him in order that there can be a control of the movement of money for these purposes? We on this side believe that this is an evil and we want to see it stopped, but we wonder whether the Minister is setting about it in a practical way, in the form of this clause which is before us at the present time. The hon. member for Parow has made it clear that what is intended throughout this Bill is concerned with political activities, as he put it, especially in elections; he talks about activities directed towards an election activity.

It is for that reason that I have attempted to draft an amendment to this clause which I believe gives expression to what is intended where money is received from abroad for the purposes of influencing our politics. For that reason the amendment which is on the Order Paper on page 305, is directed towards fixing a responsibility on the person who receives money from outside the Republic, or brings or causes it to be brought info the Republic, money “which is intended to be used directly or indirectly to further the interests of the candidature of himself or any other person”—in other words, is directly concerned with an election or a potential or possible election.

Thirdly, it refers to “any other person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for any election referred to in section 2 (b)”. If the intention of this clause is to deal with election activities, then this is the way in which it can be done. If it is an attempt to stop organizations which one might regard as subversive, or might be considered or be proved to be subversive in the general political sense, there are already sufficient powers to control those parties, without having to bring them into what is of essential application to political activities, that is to stop outside interference in our domestic party political activities in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (1) No person shall from outside the Republic receive within the Republic or bring or cause to be brought into the Republic any money which is intended to be used directly or indirectly to further the interests of the candidature of himself or any other person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for any election referred to in section 2 (b).

Mr. Chairman, I also have an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper. The purpose of my amendment is to limit the effects of this clause. As the clause stands, it is far too wide. Nobody knows the meaning of the last phrase in this particular clause, to which the hon. member for Green Point has referred, namely “to combat any aim or principle of a political party”. A lot of organizations do research work. They put out publications. They sell those publications abroad. They are not political parties, but the publications may definitely criticize certain aspects of Government policy. It seems to me that, as this clause stands, organizations like that, research organizations and others, might very well fall foul of this legislation. The penalties laid down here are not even discretionary penalties, but the discretion of the court in fact is excluded. I believe that this clause is far too wide. I do not know to which political party the hon. the Minister was referring when he inserted this clause in the Bill. He did not give us any information about this when he spoke in the second-reading debate. He certainly gave us no details about this clause.

For all I know, he might be referring to the hon. member for Innesdal, who might be getting some funds from the John Birch Society in order to advance his aims, or rather in order to combat some of the “verligte” aims of the hon. the Prime Minister. I really do not know what the hon. the Minister is intending by this particular clause. All I do know is that, as it stands, with the inclusion of this particular phrase in subsection (1), the ambit of this clause is extremely wide. It may apply not only to political parties, but to any persons, organizations, research bodies, trade unions, student organizations and, in fact to anybody at all who happens to receive money from overseas, not for the specific object of combating the Government, but as part and parcel of the ordinary objectives of such bodies, which might include publication of pamphlets, etc., which happen to counter some of the aims of the Government. The hon. the Minister could not have intended, I believe, this clause to be as wide as this. I would ask him to consider the amendment which I now move, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, but I can accept neither of these amendments. The reason for this is, briefly, the following. This clause makes it an offence if money is brought in from outside the country to further the aims of a political party by the political party itself, or by a person, any person, or by an organization, with the object of furthering the specific interests of specific political parties within the country itself. Now, it is my view, and I think the Government holds the same view, that we are certainly not one of the poorest countries in the world. I cannot see why we should allow money, even if it is given by way of a donation, and with whatever good intentions, to enter South Africa from abroad for the purpose of having the influence of other persons exerted on our domestic political life as a result of the financial resources they may have at their disposal. That is why this clause has been framed so widely. We do not want to limit it to a political party, because then money can still enter the country via a member of a party. Then it does not come to South Africa via the party, but only via a person. If a party and its members are restricted, the money can still enter the country via an organization. In terms of this clause an organization wanting to further these aims is also not allowed to receive such money. In other words, if you close the door, you must close it completely. I may add that I know of a donation offered to the National Party from abroad by someone who believes that the National Party’s policy is the right one for South Africa. But in terms of this Bill we shall have to forfeit it. There is no discrimination against one party at the expense of another. They are all treated the same. I believe that this clause will check this form of interference. The hon. member for Green Point asked me whether I was satisfied that we had sufficient effective ways and means at our disposal to stop such practices completely. This the future will show. I maintain that every piece of legislation placed on the Statute Book, no matter how watertight it is—and the Minister of Finance will also be able to attest to this as regards the flow of money from one country to another—can be circumvented, because people who want to contravene laws are always able to find loopholes. But if these persons are caught, they will be severely punished in terms of this Bill. I cannot promise you that we shall be able to trace all donations. But all who try to influence our domestic politics and determine our future by means of the money they want to send here, will be denied that right.

Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this matter a little further with the hon. the Minister to gain some clarity. Supposing there is an organization that does welfare work and at the same time happens to be an organization which opposes the Government. Supposing further that this organization receives a donation from overseas for welfare work. This money then goes into its coffers in the ordinary way. Then in the course of doing this welfare work the organization issues publications or its members address meetings from an anti-Government platform. Will such an organization then fall foul of this Bill because it has received a donation for welfare work from overseas? As the clause is framed at present, it is very difficult to distinguish between the purposes for which the money is received and how one actually sets aside such money for the various objectives that one organization may be following.

Secondly, supposing a member of a party happens to be living overseas, or has gone to live overseas. He is still a South African but he is residing and earning his living in London and he wants to send an annual donation to the party that he belonged to when he lived in South Africa. Would that be forbidden? Would it be forbidden even if he is only living overseas temporarily?

Yes.

I think that this measure is ridiculous. I have never heard of anything so absurd. Why should, for instance, an official of the Government who happens to belong to the National Party and who has been sent to South Africa House in London or to Washington and who would like to remain a member of the National Party, be prevented from sending money to South Africa? He may wish to send a small donation to the Nationalist Party to show his ordinary affiliation with that party. I think that this is ludicrous. [Interjections.] Could I just for one minute, have the hon. the Minister’s attention instead of having that of the hon. member for Parow? I wish he would devote himself to somebody else for five minutes. Does the hon. the Minister seriously mean to tell me that in such a case the National Party would have to send that donation back to avoid breaking the law?

Yes.

Well, then I think that this is the most ridiculous clause and I certainly intend to vote against it. The hon. the Minister has already replied to my second question, but would he please tell me what the position is in regard to the first example I mentioned?

Mr. Chairman, I think I owe the hon. member a reply to her first question and perhaps to the second one as well. My reply to the first question is that welfare organizations or charitable organizations must confine themselves to their welfare and charitable work. If I say they may receive money from abroad because they are welfare organizations, and that money is used for furthering the political aims of various political parties, be it the National Party or any party whatsoever; then the door will simply be opened and precedents will be created and we shall not know whether we are coming or going. If we want to prevent money coming here from abroad for political purposes, then it does not matter whether it comes from a citizen of this country temporarily residing abroad or living there permanently. I think we shall find enough money here in South Africa to keep our political affairs in order.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the Clause up to and including “2 (b)” in line 25, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—106: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J;. Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J, C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.;

Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M.J; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A,; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G. Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and G. N. Oldfield.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray, dropped.

Question put: That all the words after “2 (b)” in line 25 to the end of subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. j F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenhei* mer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. G; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, G; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, G J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and G. N. Oldfield.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived.

Clause, as printed, put.

Division called for.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member should remain seated if he wants to raise a point of order during a division. (See subsequent ruling, Col. 4320).

Very well, Mr. Chairman. The point of order which I want to raise is that the hon. member for Brits must either sit on this side of the House as he came in late, or he must withdraw from the Chamber. That hon. member only entered the Chamber after you had appointed the tellers for that side of the House.

The hon. member could not have come through the door, so he must have been inside the Chamber at the time.

The hon. member resumed his seat only after the tellers for that side of the House had been appointed. I therefore submit that he should sit on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall handle the matter myself. Where was the hon. member?

I was just on my way to my seat when you were speaking.

Was the hon. member not on the opposite side of the House when I appointed the tellers?

No, Mr. Chairman, I would never sit on the United Party side.

The hon. member may remain where he is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a further point of order. The point of order is whether or not a member must rise to take a point of order while there is a division. I submit that Standing Order 168 does not state that a member must be seated. Therefore the general rule applies and a member who wants to raise a point of order, should rise to do so.

The rule was always that a member must remain seated while there is a division, and that a member must remain seated when raising a point of order. (See ruling below.)

That was the old Standing Order, Sir.

When the rules were revised in 1964, S.O. 168 was amended to read:

The Standing Order does not say that members must rise. I now rule that it is permissible for a member either to remain seated or to rise when raising a point of order during a division.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. G; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. G; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koonhof, P. G.

J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLach lan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C, J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—30: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name—

I do not think that I need talk at length on this amendment. I think it is self-explanatory. The idea, of course, is to restore the discretion of the courts of law and also, of course, to reduce the penalties provided for in the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Minister has not only removed the discretion of the courts in laying down minimum sentences, but that he has made the sentences excessive in the event of somebody being found guilty of infringing this law. For instance, he has gone well beyond the penalties laid down for infringing the Electoral Act and what I am trying to do more or less is to reduce the penalties to bring them into line with the penalties prescribed for infringement of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act provides for a fine not exceeding R100 or imprisonment not exceeding three months for wilfully interrupting, obstructing or disturbing proceedings in connection with the conduct of elections. Under other sections of the Electoral Act, if a person is found guilty of a corrupt practice such as treating, etc., he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R1,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years or both. In general I would say that the penalties for illegal practices in an election are in the neighbourhood of a fine not exceeding R200. I cannot see any reason why the hon. the Minister has seen fit to impose such heavy penalties in this particular bill. The penalty, in the case of a first conviction, is a fine of not less than R300 or more than R600 or imprisonment for a period of not less than six months or more than 12 months, or both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine of not less than R1,000 or more than R2,000 or imprisonment for a period of not less than one year or not more than two years, or both such fine and imprisonment. Irrespective of the fact that no prosecution can be instituted except on the express instructions of the Attorney-General concerned, I consider these penalties far too high for an infringement of this measure. And, most important of all, I take the strongest exception to yet another instance where the discretion of the courts is being removed. Sir, I want to quote the words of no less an authority than the hon. the Minister of Justice when he was addressing the Congress of the National Party in Durban only last year. Apparently some more vociferous members of the Congress were demanding that stiffer penalties be imposed for certain crimes and the hon. the Minister of Justice had some very important and, I think, sensible things to say in this regard. He said—

I am in full agreement with the very wise words uttered by the hon. the Minister of Justice about leaving matters in the hands of the courts and not extending any further those instances where the State has already seen fit to take away the discretion of the courts and to prescribe minimum punishments. For these reasons I move the amendment standing in my name.

I rise merely to indicate that we support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. As hon. members will know, it has long been a principle of this party that the courts should have an absolute discretion when imposing penalties. This is particularly true of this Bill. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice is here. I am sorry that he is engaged in conversation at the moment …

With your Whip.

I would only have hoped that the hon. the Minister of the Interior would have consulted the hon. the Minister of Justice before he came with a provision like this which goes right against the sort of direction in which the hon. the Minister of Justice is moving at the present time. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have proper regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. It does nothing more than to leave the discretion with the courts. I would like to add that in this particular and peculiar Bill—it is peculiar in the sense that it has no forerunner—offences are created which, as hon. members on the Government benches have already conceded, could arise in an unusual way. All sorts of unusual offences can be committed and under all these circumstances it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to say here what sort of punishment should be meted out when you have regard to the fact that there will be a hundred and one different circumstances in which these offences can be committed. I do not think it helps to say that the Attorney-General must first give his say-so before a prosecution can take place. The fact of the matter is that the circumstances of each case are quite different, and it is for the courts to determine what the sentence should be. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton and that he will agree to it or that he will indicate at least that he is prepared, with a view to acceding to the amendment, to redraft this clause before the Bill goes to the Other Place.

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, and that I, consequently, cannot accede to the plea advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to admit that the Government does not like the idea of laying down minimum penalties. We do not like it. We are dealing here with a peculiar type of legislation, which is so vague, as hon. members opposite described it themselves, that it probably facilitates offences because it is so difficult to pin down the offender. If one did not have a strict penalty provision, I think one would greatly weaken the effect of the law. I feel that people should at least be deterred also by having this strict penalty provision in the clause. This is why we are deviating in this respect from what we should otherwise have liked to do. But we are of the opinion that contravention of this Act could have serious and far-reaching consequences in regard to disturbance of race relations among the various population groups in our country as well, whereas what we want is just the opposite, namely good co-operation and friendship.

If the hon. the Minister wishes to say that the object of this provision is to make the courts realize that the Legislature regards this as a very serious offence, then what he should do is to increase the maximum penalty permissible and leave the matter in the discretion of the court. This is how one indicates to the court that the Legislature takes a grim view of it. In some cases one leaves to the judge the discretion to pass the death sentence, but that is the highest you can go. There is only one instance which comes from our common law where the death sentence is compulsory as far as the judge is concerned. In all the other cases it is permissive. You indicate to the court how seriously you regard the matter by saying, as you could say in this case, that the penalty will be a fine of R500, or R1,000, or a year’s imprisonment, or whatever it may be. You set the maximum to indicate to the court how seriously you regard the matter, and then you leave the matter entirely to the court. Is the attitude of the Minister not in fact tantamount to a vote of no confidence in our courts? I hope the hon. the Minister is listening. This attitude is, in effect, a contempt of the court. What the Minister is saying is that he wants the courts not only to take a serious view of this, but he is going to say what the courts must do in every single case. This does not make sense. The Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, defined a democracy as being a country in which regular elections were held and in which there was an independent court. This does a great disservice to our courts. It ties the hands of the courts. One hopes that the Minister will have second thoughts about this. What the Minister is saying in effect is this: We take this matter seriously, but we do not expect the courts to take it seriously because it is not a matter about which one can be serious. Is that not in fact what is happening? He therefore says the courts must impose a certain penalty. Let the Minister cast his mind over the clauses of this Bill and imagine some of the things that could happen. The hon. member for Houghton indicated what could happen, namely, when one is addressing a meeting which at that time has a minority of non-Whites among the audience. As one talks the white people gradually walk out, until eventually there is an overwhelming number of non-Whites. In that process one commits an offence. One might be talking so enthusiastically that one does not realize that in fact they have all disappeared and that the majority has now changed, and so one commits an offence. Someone may take a photograph showing an overwhelming majority of non-Whites, and that shows that an offence has been committed, and that person must get a compulsory fine although he began by doing something which was quite lawful. Take the case of someone who blatantly goes along with the object of offending against the provisions of this law. He has to get exactly the same punishment because there is an absolute minimum penalty for both. How can one do this? [Interjection.] He might get the maximum penalty. That is the whole point. The Minister only allows a discretion from a certain stage. There is no discretion up to a certain point, and thereafter there is a discretion. This is not the way the law works. I hope that before taking this Bill to the Other Place, the Minister will talk to his coleague, the Minister of Justice. I am sure the Minister of Justice will persuade him that this is not the way to treat our courts and that this is not the way to try to enforce a Bill, especially such as this one.

Question put: That the word “less” in line 31 stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting.)

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed in my name—

I am doing so to meet the criticism of the Opposition and to bring the short title in line with the long title.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. the Minister has done this. We would rather he had amended the long title of the Bill, because it is the meaningful part of the measure. Rather than see the short title agree with the long title, we would prefer to see the long title agree with the short title. Another one of my difficulties is this. We would like to see in the long title, which is a meaningful part of an Act, the word “improper”, so that it reads, “Bill to prohibit improper interference …”, and if the Minister persists with his amendment, then we will be unable to move the amendment of which I have given notice, I believe. We will not be able properly to discuss the matter, and the Committee will not be able to give its attention to the question as to whether that word should appear in the long title. That is one of the difficulties.

The short title does not really mean a thing. Therefore I hope the Minister will not persist with this amendment. The short title means nothing at all; it is just a name. It does not matter what name is given to an Act, one can call it what one likes; it is just the short title. It can be called “Alice in Wonderland”, or “Through the Looking Glass”. It does not matter what it is called, because it has no value. If this amendment is accepted by the Committee, then, as I understand the position, we will be prevented from moving an amendment to the long title to include the word “improper”.

The long title is an important part of the measure. In this regard I wish to quote from “Die Uitleg van Wette” by Dr. L. C. Steyn, the Chief Justice of the Republic. Referring to the long title, he writes as follows—

Then he goes on to cite all the various authorities in this regard, and says the following—

Order! I think I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude to discuss the long title under this clause.

Yes, Sir. If I may crave your indulgence, I am about to come to the point, of what I was leading to in quoting from “Die Uitleg van Wette”.

Then the hon. member must come to the point immediately.

The learned author goes on and refers to the case of Bhyat v. Commissioner for Immigration, 1932 A.D., and quotes the following portion of the judgment—

The author continues and says that in R. v. Magano and Madumo, 1924 T.P.D., the Court said that—

I think it is fair to say that the provisions of this measure will be regarded as being ambiguous or obscure, and I think the discussions we have had in Committee alone would indicate that and indeed, there have been concessions by hon. and learned members of the Government benches to this effect as well.

I therefore would ask the Minister rather to make the long title agree with the short title, instead of vice versa, inasmuch as the short title makes no difference whatsoever to the contents of the Bill. I want to ask him whether he will not agree at this stage to withdraw the amendment he has moved so that we can discuss properly the amendment to the long title, which will have some effect in law, alternatively, would the minister not consider leaving the word “improper” and inserting the word “political” instead of substituting “political” for “improper”. That is another suggestion which I make which I feel would be in order. He could then accept an amendment to the long title so that it contains the word “improper”, when it will agree with the short title.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot drop this amendment. The hon. member for Durban (North) is one of the hon. members who, during the second reading already, objected very strongly to the difference in the wording of the long title and the short title. He said that there were sinister motives involved. Their objection was not that the long title only made mention of political interference, but their main objection was that the short title made mention of “improper interference”.

I was not the one; I did not say that.

Yes, you did. More than one hon. member opposite adopted that standpoint. I then made them the wonderful concession, because it suits me better too. Let us be very frank now; I think that the only assistance which that side offered, was to say that I should bring the two titles into closer conformity and that I should nowhere speak of “improper” but only of “political interference”. As the short title will now read, I think it will also be clearer for the courts which must interpret the measure when cases come, before them which relate to crimes under this measure.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (North) has advanced some highly technical legal arguments about the interpretation of the courts depending on the manner in which the long title of this Bill is worded. Personally, I do not care two hoots how this Bill is worded, I do not think it matters at all. We have had so many examples in the past in this House, of Bills bearing names which do not remotely reflect the contents of the Bills. Therefore I do not really think it matters very much. We have had the Abolition of Passes Act which did not abolish passes at all. We had the Extension of University Education Act which certainly did not extend any university education, as far as I was concerned. In fact, it diminished university education. We have had the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, which abolished the three Native representatives in this House, inter alia. Therefore, whether we call this Bill the Improper Interference Bill or the Political Interference Bill or the Abolition of What-ever-you-are-going-to-abolish Bill, does not matter at all as far as I am concerned.

What does interest me are the motives behind the hon. the Minister’s removal of the word “improper” from the title of this Bill, because it bears out exactly what I said right at the beginning of the discussion of this Bill and at the second reading. As I said, this Bill has nothing to do with improper interference at all; in other words, it has nothing to do with the so-called irregularities which were quoted to this house ab initio when this whole long, sad story opened its first chapter. That was when the first Improper Interference Bill was introduced in this House, when the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition got together and decided to remove the Bill from this House and send it to a Select Committee, later a commission. It had nothing to do with the so-called irregularities, with cleaning up the voters’ roll, with all the terrible corruption and evil practices that are supposed to have taken place at the time when the Provincial Council elections for the Coloured Representatives took place in 1965.

The one and only sole objective of this measure is to see to it that no political party which opposes apartheid has got any lawful right of extending its political communication across the colour line. It is as simple as that, whether the so-called “inmenging” is proper or improper does not mean anything as far as the government is concerned, except that any anti-apartheid propaganda or any antiapartheid party should not be allowed to continue to advance its aims, its objects, its cause among the non-Whites of South Africa. This National Party is not worried about outside interference any more; it is not worried about the African states any more, although I do not think they ever really posed any threat at all; it is not worried about boycotts. No, the Nationalists are worried about one thing, and one thing only, namely about any sort of political co-operation across the colour line against the Government, against apartheid. That is the only remaining threat to its entrenched power that it fears.

Therefore, whether it is called “proper interference” or “improper interference”, or whatever the title of this Bill is, it has one object, and one object only, and that is to see to it that no anti-apartheid party has any ability to advance its platform, or that there are any lawful means of co-operating across the colour line in an effort to persuade the white electorate to change the Government of the country, or to have put into this Parliament further voices to attack this Government.

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

I have finished with what I wanted to say, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I have kept out of this debate right the way through, but I must admit to a sense of shock when I read the Minister’s amendment to the short title. What happens to the case which he has built up over the days? Surely the short title of a Bill means something? The use of the word “improper” has been the constant motive all the way through the debates. But now the Minister blandly removes the word from the short title, at the very end of the debate. All that is before us now is virtually the third reading and then the matter is disposed of. Here during the Committee Stage, which is the last opportunity we have of changing the measure, the Minister comes along and blandly proposes to delete the word “improper”. What is left? No substance whatever is left in the whole of the Bill as soon as the Minister says he is not interested in retaining the word “improper” in the title of the Bill, but that he is going to put in the word “political” instead, so that it will read “political interference”. It can be the most proper kind of political interference; it can be the most necessary kind of political interference, but the moment the word “improper” is removed, what is left? The whole case, all the quotations taken from the evidence before the Commission, the whole history behind that and behind all the speeches made by the Minister and the Government side, the whole lot slides into discard, completely finished and ended. There is nothing of any substance left whatever.

This is a most extraordinary situation which has developed here. I must say quite frankly I felt the Minister was floundering right from the very beginning, but he hung grimly on to the central fact that he was going to stop improper interference by one racial group in the affairs of another. That was the one point he hung on to, that was his sheet-anchor: Come what may, he was going to stop improper interference. Yet he now comes along and smashes his own sheet-anchor without a qualm, without an apology; without any kind of explanation whatever he simply destroys the whole of the case which he has been building up so assiduously right from the first reading of this Bill. I cannot understand it, I cannot fathom it at all. I do not know why the Minister does not now withdraw the whole Bill and be done with it. There is no kind of a foundation left whatever. All his own arguments are completely destroyed, not by words, not by the Opposition, but by his own proposal now to remove this word from the short title. The Minister is adopting a most inconsequential attitude, and I would say a most improper one towards Parliament and his legislation. His is a most irresponsible attitude. Either there was some substance in the Bill, in his complaint about improper interference, and all the speeches in that vein meant what they said, or else there was no substance in the whole case. The Minister proves now that there was no substance in the case, there was nothing in it at all. I appeal to the Minister now to withdraw his Bill and bring to a decisive end an issue which he has himself destroyed in so far as it ever had any moral foundation or ground whatever for being introduced here in Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, in the second-reading debate the hon. the Leader said, inter alia, the following. He referred to the fourth reason furnished in the minority report and according to Col. 3607 of Hansard of 8th April, he said the following—

In Col. 3615 he said the following—

He had nothing against the long title; he was very clearly against the short title, and I am accommodating him now. The hon. member for South Coast was not here then. He does not feel very happy about his party’s standpoint as regards this matter. I do not blame him for not feeling happy about it; I am glad that there is at least one hon. member who has an appreciation of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that abuse is no argument.

I did not abuse him.

Of course you did. You say the hon. member for South Coast does not agree with this party on this issue and therefore he has not taken part in the debate. That is absolute nonsense. How does the Minister read the speech of my hon. Leader on that very issue? The hon. member for Durban (Point) has already told him we intend amending the long title to make provision for the words “improper interference”, and that is what my Leader mentioned in his speech. He wanted the Bill to make it quite clear that it deals with improper interference.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.