I move—

We support this Bill. In our opinion it is necessary that this assistance be granted to the Baster community. We consider this necessary since we want the relations between the Baster community and the white community to improve, and we also consider this to be in the interests of South West Africa as a whole, as it was put here by the hon. member for Windhoek. We consider it necessary for such a Bill to be passed. On the other hand, all of us are aware that the relations between the Baster community and the white community are poor. I do not wish to go into this matter again. We should like to see what we can do in order to improve those relations. We on this side thought—honestly thought—that our amendment to grant the Baster community a small measure of representation on the board of directors of the corporation would help to improve these relations. We believe that it will in fact improve the relations and we think that it is necessary, and the sooner we improve those relations, the better for everybody. We find it a great pity that the hon. the Minister does not view this matter in the same light we do. We are sincerely convinced that it would be in the interests of everybody, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this amendment. If he thinks that we are right— and I believe that he should think so—then he can effect the necessary amendments in the Other Place. I want to ask him to reconsider the matter seriously. In spite of what the hon. the Minister said, we believe that this would help a great deal to improve these relations in the interests of all concerned.

I am very pleased with the spirit of understanding which has characterized this debate. This spirit of understanding which has characterized the debate, has definitely given rise to the possibility that this Bill will be implemented with much greater ease than was envisaged. Despite the difference in opinion between us and the United Party in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Gardens, we are basically agreed that this is an essential measure. I have no hesitation in saying that in passing this Bill to-day, we are really rendering the Baster people a service for which their descendants will still be indebted to this House. Since the exclusive object of this measure is to help the Baster people along their road to development, I really believe that in the course of time it will definitely be possible to obviate by means of this positive action which forms the basis of this measure these bad feelings to which the hon. member for Gardens has just referred.

That will take a long time.

Yes, it will take a long time. Fortunately we are sober-minded people. We cannot expect a feeling which over a century has become deeply ingrained in the mental make-up of those people, to be obliterated overnight. I think that this measure is in point of fact the first positive step taken by an authority to remove that prejudice.

Since one has often heard about the agitation launched against this measure by the Baster Council in particular, many people may have gained the impression that the Baster people as a whole are opposed to this development plan. I should like to repeat what I said during the Committee Stage yesterday, i.e. that this is not the correct impression. Nor do I consider it to be fair towards the Baster people that the impression be created that as a whole or to a large extent they are opposed to these development plans. Several of their leaders told me during the time I spent there that the majority of them are in favour of a development scheme such as this one. In fact, several of their leaders told me that they estimated the number of Basters who would welcome this development at 75 per cent. Therefore I do not have any doubt that this corporation, once it gets into its stride, will be instrumental in removing the worst part of this suspicion. My only regret is that it will not be possible for this corporation to start functioning immediately. I say that this is a pity since this is an essential instrument which one would like to put into action immediately. But, as hon. members can appreciate, we must first of all find the directors for this corporation. It will not be an easy task to find people who are prepared to give up time to serve on the board of directors of this corporation. This will also take time for us to do. Subsequent to that it will be the task of the board of directors to advertise for a general manager and for the other officials who have to be appointed. But I want to express the hope that the board of directors which will be appointed will, simultaneously with advertising for a general manager and other officials, work out a scheme for helping the agricultural industry. Since this is such a high priority, I trust that the board of directors will immediately attend to this matter, in view of the fact that such a scheme for helping the agricultural industry, just as is the case in regard to all other schemes, still has to be submitted to the Minister for his approval before it can be put into operation.

Because of this procedure it will unfortunately take several months before this corporation will in fact come into operation. At the same time I want to appeal here to-day to the Basters in general to avail themselves in no uncertain manner of the opportunities afforded them by this Bill, not only in the form of loans which are being offered, but also in the form of managerial participation. True to the plea made by the hon. member for Gardens, who wishes to grant these people representation on the board of directors, I want to tell the Basters that in the future I shall afford them every opportunity of displaying their managerial abilities. They are going to be afforded the opportunity of serving on the committees, where they may hold positions equivalent to those of directors. They are going to be afforded the opportunity of not only being shareholders in their burgher companies, but also of electing their own directors, and I trust that they will avail themselves of this opportunity of participating in managing the affairs of their fellow-Basters.

I should like to express here a further wish of the Government, i.e. that we are looking forward to the day when the Baster people will be able to take over the management of this corporation, when they will be able to take over the board of directors and the administration of this corporation without any outside assistance. When that day arrives, it would be a red-letter day for this Government to be able to hand over to them the management of this corporation. Since this is our sincere intention and the object we wish to achieve by means of this corporation I want to say that it is my firm conviction that the passage of this Bill to-day does in fact usher in a new era for the Baster people, an era which may still bring them a great deal of joy in the future. I do not doubt that, as the well-intentioned objects of this corporation become clear to them, so we shall gradually notice and find a better disposition on their part. As they see what this corporation does, as they realize what the benefits of this corporation are, as they see that in establishing this corporation it is not our intention to take their land away from them, but, on the contrary, to help them to develop their land more effectively and to make it more productive, and to make their Baster country a proud possession for them, I believe that the disposition to which the hon. member for Gardens also referred, will gradually improve.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government is contemplating the gradual inclusion in the board of directors of members of the Baster community, as soon as they are capable of serving on it, or whether it is the Government’s intention not to appoint any of them until such time as they are eventually capable of taking over the whole enterprise?

We shall have to see how the development takes place in the committees. We are now affording them the opportunity of serving on the committees along with other directors. We shall have to see first how willing they are and also what their capabilities are, and then we shall gradually take the necessary decisions in regard to those matters.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to express once again my appreciation to this whole House for the support which has been given to this Bill. I think the support given to this measure by both sides ought to be an indication to the Baster people of the goodwill of the white nation and of this whole Parliament. It ought to be an indication to them that as far as their advancement is concerned, we wish them only the very best.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

We will support the Third Reading of this Bill, because we believe it is not only in the interests of the building societies but also in the interest of those people who look to the building societies to help them to obtain their own homes. But there is one matter which I think should be brought to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

A fear has been expressed in some quarters that because of the new avenues of profitable investment the building societies will now have as the result of the passing of this Bill, less money than ever will be available to the person who previously looked to the building societies for his bond. It works in two ways, the one being that the man who wants to buy a property may find it more difficult than ever to get a bond, and secondly, that the man who wants to sell his property will discover that he cannot find a buyer because the buyer is unable to get a bond. I have no doubt that this matter was taken into consideration by the hon. the Deputy Minister in the discussions he had with the building societies, and I am also quite certain that not all the funds of the building societies are going to flow into the new ventures now made possible by this Bill, but we know that the position in regard to the building societies is very serious. They have told the public that for the next three months no new bonds will be available, and even if part of the funds they do receive over the next few months are going to be diverted into new ventures, it is naturally going to affect the people who want bonds for the normal purpose of acquiring houses.

Then of course we come back to the 64 dollar question of where the building societies are going to get the funds to provide the man in the street with a house. We were pleased to see that when the hon. the Minister of Finance replied to the debate on the Appropriation Bill he indicated that a technical committee was going to be set up to investigate the question of the building societies. We hope that this technical committee will be set up at a very early date. We hope that we will have a report from it at an early date, and we hope that the Minister of Finance will be able to tell the country also at an early date what steps he proposes to take to see that the building societies increase their inflow of funds. As I said in the Second Reading of this Bill, I believe that much will take place in connection with building societies over the next few years. We have already had a number of steps introduced in this House to help the building societies; we all acknowledge that the building societies are essential in this country, because they are the organizations which enable the small man to buy or to build his own house. This service must continue and we now hope that the Government and the technical committee and the building societies themselves will do all in their power, and that there will be co-operation between the building societies and the Government to take every step possible, to ensure that funds are available to continue the services that the building societies have rendered and are rendering to the smaller man.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

I should like to make use of this opportunity to elaborate a little on certain uncertainties which arose in the Committee Stage. Yesterday there was an argument about the interpretation of clause 2. and more specifically the new section 6 (1) (a) (iv), in which provision is made for an offence in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. The argument that arose here, was mainly between the hon. members for Houghton and Durban (Point). The hon. member for Houghton then said repeatedly: “Ask the Minister.” It gave me great pleasure to hear that she wanted to appoint me as arbitrator. It seems to me we are making progress. I want to tell the hon. member now that her conclusion was incorrect, but it will probably give her pleasure to hear that her conclusion was incorrect, because she was dissatisfied about the conclusion she arrived at. On the other hand I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that his conclusion was correct, but that he based his argument on a wrong subsection of section 6. These new amendments which we are introducing in the new section 6 (1) (a) (iii) provide for ordinary offences in the case of which imprisonment is imposed without the option of a fine. Previously a certain period had to elapse after the expiration of the period of punishment and only then could a person be registered as a voter again. We have now done away with that period, and at the expiration of the term of the sentence he can register as a voter again. The new sub-paragraph (iv) provides for an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act. This provision is different in the sense that when a person has been sentenced to imprisonment and that imprisonment is put into effect, he loses his right to vote, and then there is no provision for getting it back. In this respect sub-paragraph (iv) differs from sub-paragraph (iii). The hon. member for Durban (Point) yesterday referred to a clause in the General Law Amendment Act, 1969, which makes provision for the Coloured elections, and he correctly argued that the amendments being effected in this amending Bill are being effected to bring it into line with our own law relating to our own elections, as set out in section 6 of the Electoral Act. The relevant section on which the hon. member for Durban (Point) argued, is section 6 (2) and it reads as follows: “For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) …” That is the provision to which I referred just now, namely in the case where a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. It reads—

The hon. member referred to that subsection and based his arguments on this, that in the case of a suspended sentence a person can still register or does not lose his right to vote. If I may mention a practical example here, it will be the following. Suppose a person is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, but as a result of good conduct he is released after two years of imprisonment, and he therefore gets a remission of a year. This does not mean that after he has been released from gaol he can go and register as a voter. This section provides that the full three years must first elapse before he may register as a voter. But the hon. member was quite correct when he said that in the case of a suspended sentence —not a remission, but in the case of a suspended sentence—the man is not disfranchised, or in the case where he is not registered, he may register. Provision is made for that in the following paragraph (c), which I shall now read you—

If I may again give a practical example, suppose a person is sentenced to a year of imprisonment which is suspended for three years, then it obviously means that he is not going to gaol. Suppose he were to commit an offence during the period of three years, then this sentence of imprisonment which was imposed will come into operation. Suppose this sentence of imprisonment was suspended for three years and that after one year he committed an offence which put this sentence of imprisonment into operation, then it would mean that from that date this sentence of imprisonment would be put into operation, and only from that date can the returning officer take note of this offence and the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed. It is only from that date that he loses his vote or may not be registered as a voter. By implication it means that when a person has been given a suspended sentence, the returning officer can do nothing. Nothing can be done. One then has to wait and see whether that suspended sentence is put into operation. If it is not put into operation, and nothing happens in the course of time, it means that that person’s right to vote, his right to be registered or the possibility of becoming disfranchised is not affected.

Does the argument also apply in sub-paragraph (iv)?

Yes. Sub-paragraph (iv) is a sub-paragraph of paragraph (a). In the principal Act it will be section 6 (1) (a) (iv). The sub-paragraph which I read a moment ago refers to paragraph (a), of which sub-paragraph (iv) is a sub-paragraph. Therefore it also applies to the sub-paragraph referring to the Suppression of Communism Act, namely the sub-paragraph the hon. member for Houghton has referred to.

If the sentence of imprisonment is imposed, and all but four days are suspended, in other words if a person has served the sentence, what will be the position? I must say this sub-paragraph is ambiguous because it should have read “has served his sentence” and not “has been sentenced”.

The whole period of imprisonment has to be suspended. If the whole period of imprisonment, be it a day, a week, or a fortnight, is not suspended, this provision does come into operation.

So it does affect the person …

No, not necessarily, only when the whole sentence is not suspended.

*I should just like to refer to clause 4, in which section 13 of the principal Act is amended, and to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred. It seems

ERRATA

Col. 7841:

Line 8: For “Income Tax Amendment Bill", read “Income Tax Bill”.

to me as if there are defects in that clause and as if the door has in fact been opened a little too wide. I undertake, if circumstances justify it, to amend this clause in the Other Place.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily, but there is a reply outstanding to a question which was put by the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown. It concerns an article which appeared in the Sunday Times. According to their interpretation the article testifies to a departure from the policy. They asked me what my standpoint was in regard to this article. During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Pinetown drew my attention to an article in last Sunday’s edition of the Sunday Times which dealt with the taxability of profits accruing to someone upon the sale of shares. He requested me to state unequivocally whether the point of view of a senior official of the Department of Inland Revenue as reported in that article was a pointer to a new policy in respect of profits of this nature. It will be remembered that I stated that although I was aware of the article I had not yet read it. I undertook to do so and to inform the House about the matter afterwards. Since then I have studied the contents of the said article. I want to confirm that this article does nothing more than to outline the existing legal position. It must not be construed as an indication of a new policy as far as the taxability of share profits is concerned. It does not mean that all profits derived from the sale of shares are going to be taxed indiscriminately in future. As the hon. member knows, our courts have laid down certain norms over the years for the taxability of profits of this nature. It goes without saving that each transaction must be considered in the light of its own facts in order to determine whether it was entered into as a profit-making scheme. The Department cannot disregard these norms. But at the same time I want to give hon. members the assurance that it is not the intention at all to tax incidental profits from share transactions. A person who makes a business of it, or whose intention it is to speculate with properties and shares, falls in the same category as any person who practises a trade, and cannot expect to be treated differently for the purposes of taxation. Of course, where profits are taxed, it follows that losses will be granted. I also want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that taxpayers are not without recourse as far as this matter is concerned. They have the right to appeal and to lodge objections in terms of the Income Tax Act if they are of the opinion that any such profit should not be taxed. Hon. members will appreciate that as a direct result of the amendment of the Income Tax Act it is essential that the income tax form should be adjusted accordingly. Although the 1970 tax return form has not yet been prepared, the assurance is given that it is in no way the intention at present to compel taxpayers by way of a new question on the form to furnish details of share transactions which they were not obliged to give in respect of previous years. The official with whom the Sunday Times had an interview did not make an official statement, but merely gave his personal opinion.

Before sitting down, I should just like to reply to another point. During the debate yesterday the hon. member for Pinetown also referred to the enormous opposition, as he heard, to the clause about the share options. I should just like to quote hon. members proof of the contrary. It so happens that I received a letter late yesterday evening from one of the greatest industrialists in the country. I shall not disclose his name here, because I do not have permission to do so. But hon. members may accept that he is one of the greatest industrialists in South Africa. Of his own accord he wrote the following to me—

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—-

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been unfortunate since it was first drafted. It could easily have been foreseen then that it would be amended in this House shortly afterwards. At that time the Act was welcomed toy doctors, dentists, the public and also by medical schemes. Those of us who read it carefully could see that it solved no problems, but that it created others. It was the brain child of a veterinary biochemist. The extent to which a biochemist, and especially a veterinary biochemist, can have had experience of medical schemes, is a little difficult to envisage. At the best he could only have been a patient, but for him to be the author of a Bill which came before this House and which with very little amendment left this House as an Act, is incomprehensible. What knowledge could he have had of co-operative prepaid medical services? It was easy to foresee that trouble would arise. From that Act’s promulgation it ran straight into trouble and within a short period of time the majority of practising medical practitioners, on the advice of their Association, which was their official negotiator, opted out. They decided not to cooperate with the National Association of Medical Schemes. The Medical Association had before the passage of this Bill through Parliament warned the hon. the Minister that the tariff of fees at that time was outdated and that they would ask for a revision immediately after the introduction of the Bill. At that time the hon. the Minister was well aware of that fact and the Bill was accepted on that understanding by the Medical Association and passed through Parliament. This was because the Medical Association, representing the doctors and dentists, were anxious to get the medical schemes going. They hoped that after a trial period these difficulties would be ironed out. But the main difficulty was, however, not the fees which can always be subject to negotiations, but the almost dictatorial powers over professions which the original Act gave to the medical schemes. Under the leadership of its author the medical schemes did not hesitate to use these powers. Speaking in this House during the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, on 5th May, 1967 (Hansard, Volume 20, column 5441), I said:

This statement has turned out to be true.

In this new Bill the hon. the Minister has after long and patient negotiations solved most of the disputed points. He has set up a much improved and more economical method of fee negotiations and he has arranged that negotiations must take place at least every two years. This is a sound provision. Some of the more dictatorial powers have also been eased, but not completely. There is still a danger of further trouble, because of this dictatorship. Also, unfortunately, the hon. the Minister has created, as we pointed out last night, certain other problems for himself. He has already by means of this Bill, if it goes unchanged through the House, started trouble with the dentists, who are actively opting out. We on this side of the House tried to help the hon. the Minister last night, but he did not see the light. I am sure that sooner or later he will have it brought home to him. I think that we should all learn a lesson about medical schemes and that is that they worked well before they were brought to Parliament. The greatest trouble was that some of them were not audited. Sometimes the promoters ran away with the funds. In Australia medical schemes are subject to limited control by the Government. All the Government does there is to audit the schemes. In other words, they fall under the control of the Controller and Auditor-General. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will take this arrangement into consideration to see whether he cannot simplify these two Bills so as to reduce control other than financial. I say this because, firstly, he cannot control illness and, secondly, he will find it difficult to control dentists and doctors. We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for saying that this amended Bill has solved most of the disputed points in regard to medical schemes. I think that that leaves us with two points on which we differ slightly. I should like, first of all, to put the facts right. I want to say to the hon. member that this Bill is not the brainchild of a veterinary biochemist. As the hon. member will know, both the Snyman Commission and the Coertze Commission submitted this particular Bill. I want to say quite frankly to the hon. member that one must have expected some difficulties because, after all, this is a completely new development as far as medical schemes and medical services are concerned, as it brings the two together. I want to be quite frank and say that I am not so naive as to believe that all the problems will be solved by this Bill. I do, however, think that it is a vast improvement on the first Bill. I should also like to say to the hon. member that there is no question of dictatorial powers over professional men in this particular Bill. The Medical Association has also acceded to this view in full. I may also point out to the hon. member that the difficulties we encountered over the past two years will be, I think, greatly solved by four factors which I included in this Bill. Firstly, the registrar is now responsible to the central council, which was hot the case before. Secondly, the membership of the central council has been changed slightly and, I think, for the better. Thirdly, from the experience we have had over the past few years and judging from the tremendous amount of goodwill which is at the moment present on all sides, I do think that we can look forward to a much calmer time. I should like to repeat my appeal to all professional men and to the medical schemes to give this Bill a trial run of a few years.

The hon. member also stated that already this Bill has started trouble as far as the dentists are concerned. I do not think that there is any truth in that because, after all, the resolution taken at the dental conference in Durban has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The resolution which was taken in Durban is based on a clause in the old Bill which has not been changed at all. It is, therefore, not the Bill which is before us to-day which has started this difficulty.

Do you not think that the introduction of maximum benefits is the cause of the present difficulties with the dentists?

No, not at all. Even the dentists have stated quite clearly that that is not the cause of what I would call their slight dissatisfaction. Having mentioned this maximum clause, I may point out to the hon. member that clause 41 of the old Bill, dealing with this particular matter, reads—

And then we have this change—

Now, the hon. member will realize that further on in clause 41. in regard to the making of regulations, the following is stated—

I want to state quite clearly now, that I as Minister will not be prepared to accede to such regulations before I have seen all interested parties who would like to interview me on such a matter. I think it is only fair that I should make that clear.

*I should now like to make a brief statement for the sake of clarity. I should like to say that for the sake of greater clarity and in order to eliminate any misunderstanding I deem it advisable to make it clear that the Medical Schemes Act of 1967, together with the amendments that are now being effected, makes provision for two systems of medical schemes, i.e. the aid system and the benefit system. This is in agreement with the findings of both the Snyman and the Coertze Commissions. The aid system makes provision for the members having a free choice of doctor, for the scheme paying the full account to the medical practitioner and recovering a certain portion of it from the member, over and above his membership fees. The benefit system, on the other hand, makes provision for members having to make use of the services of doctors appointed on a full-time or part-time basis, who receive a fixed monthly salary or per capita payment. The aid system is usually applied by schemes the members of which are dispersed fairly widely or over the entire country, while the benefit system is applied by schemes the members of which are concentrated in certain areas, such as in key industries, for instance the mining, steel and similar industries. There are approximately 450,000 such members. According to the findings of the said two commissions, i.e. the Coertze Commission and the Snyman Commission, the benefit system is the ideal system where large groups of homogeneous workers are concentrated in one area. While I have previously appealed to medical practitioners and schemes to give the new measure a reasonable chance and I want to repeat this now—in order to judge its efficacy, and to accept the tariff of fees, it goes without saying that it includes an appeal to doctors to continue to render services to aid schemes and not to interrupt services under that system, especially in view of the fact that the larger aid schemes have now introduced certain restrictions in order to curb abuse of the services of medical practitioners. I am convinced that the schemes concerned are prepared to eliminate hitches where these may possibly occur, if they are approached in that regard by the holders of individual appointments. Further to this I also want to make a very earnest appeal to the dentists of South Africa not to abuse the clause that makes provision for operating outside the tariff of fees, the so-called contracting-out clause. I want to tell the dentists of the Republic of South Africa that no other profession, medical or otherwise, has derived more benefit from this legislation than precisely the dental profession. Very few of the schemes made provision for dental benefits prior to 1966. As a result of the introduction of this legislation, there are a number of such schemes which are to the benefit of the dentists now. It is the intention that many more schemes will make provision for dental services. Eventually all of them will make provision for such services. I want to make this earnest appeal to dentists to give this legislation a chance to run its course, because the danger for the dental profession is that if this legislation fails in regard to dental services, the only alternative, for which there is already a strong demand, will be the clinic service system, which is nothing but a State dental system. I shall oppose it as far as I can, because I do not believe in the principle of a State dental or medical service. But then I need the assistance of the profession as well. I specifically need the assistance of the dental profession in this matter. That is why I am making this earnest appeal, in their own interests. I hope that they will take due note of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause, which deals with the amendment to the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, seems to be a clause which endeavours to restrict persons who are members of such an institution from contributing to a scheme under the authority of that Institution. The new section 3 (1) (c) reads as follows—

Here mention is specifically made of the Technical Colleges Provident Fund, whereas in the preceding subparagraph it is specifically stated that, with the approval of the Secretary, it will be possible for a person who is appointed to the service of an associated institution, to contribute to the University Institutions Provident Fund. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why a person who is a member of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund is permitted to contribute to the University Institutions Provident Fund, whilst persons contributing to the Technical Colleges Provident Fund are dealt with on a separate basis.

Another point I should like to raise under this clause, relates to the question of group insurance schemes. The new subsection (2) states—

Subsection (3) then specifically states that this will not prevent these persons from, on a voluntary basis, paying premiums to a group insurance scheme, provided that it is approved by the Minister. The proviso to subsection (3) (b) then states that contributions shall not be paid from moneys appropriated by Parliament. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what measure of control he will have to ensure that these institutions, these associated institutions, are not using funds that have been appropriated by Parliament for payment towards these premiums, or to make a contribution for those members who might voluntarily be contributing and paying premiums to a group insurance scheme which they wish to utilize to supplement their ordinary pension funds and their contributions to the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. It appears that there is some difficulty about implementing the control to ensure that these people are in fact abiding by the provisions detailed in this clause.

This clause deals mainly with universities and the so-called associated institutions. Experience has shown that the provisions of the existing section 3 of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act has caused some degree of confusion among those institutions. For that reason it is necessary that the intention of section 3 be stated more clearly and, at the same time, to prohibit such institution to compel members to contribute to schemes other than those mentioned in the Act. However, a member is not prohibited from participating on a voluntary basis in a group insurance scheme approved by the Minister; neither is an institution prohibited from contributing on behalf of a member, provided such contributions are not defrayed from public moneys. A distinction has been drawn between universities and technical colleges because, in the case of universities, specific provision is being made for the possibility that temporary staff may be appointed. There is no such provision as far as technical colleges are concerned. For this provision is being made elsewhere.

As regards the second point raised by the hon. member, I just want to point out to him that this has already been provided for by existing legislation; there is no need, therefore, for provision for this to be made again in this legislation. As regards the question of control, I want to say immediately that it is not easy to exercise control at this stage. However, we appeal to the people to deal with this matter in the manner they have requested. However, there is no effective control at the moment. But we accept that we are dealing here with people who, as far as this matter is concerned, will in fact co-operate with us.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

This clause makes provision for the addition to section 6 (13) of the Government Service Pension Act of a further paragraph (f). Subparagraph (ii) of this new paragraph (f) deals with past pensionable service commencing from a date prior to 24th June, 1955. Evidently this is the date of the coming into operation of the new fund. They were, therefore, subject to the conditions pertaining to the old fund. The retirement age differs between the old fund and the new fund. Under the old fund it was 60 years and under the new fund 65. Will those who were under the old fund still be entitled to retire on reaching 60 years?

Yes. Since persons who have been transferred from another pension fund to the Public Service Pension Fund are now deprived of the right to forfeit their previous service and since they are now compelled to retain such pensionable service, it follows logically that while they were entitled previously to retire at an earlier age than the compulsory age of 65 years, that right should in all fairness be protected, at least to the extent to which members of the Public Service Pension Fund who have the same period of service, are entitled to such earlier retirement. The insertion of this new paragraph (f) to ensure that, since the pensionable service of such members who have been transferred, commenced prior to 24th June, 1955, they will have the same right to retire at an earlier age as members who have been appointed after the date already have.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

This clause, which is a lengthy one, deals with the transferable rights of an employee who was in the employee of a local authority and he then transferred to the employ of the Government. There is one aspect about which I should like the Minister to give us more information. This concerns the transferable value of the pension earned by the employee whilst in the employ of a local authority. Where this amount is in excess of what is required by the Government Service Pension Fund it is provided, on top of page 14 of the Bill, that a male person from the municipal pension fund will have this excess transferred to the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. If he is not permitted to become a contributor to this fund, the excess could be paid out to him. Then the question of the transferable value if it is less than the amount which would have been so payable, is dealt with. Provision is made for, in such an event, an amount equal to the deficiency to be paid from Revenue to the Public Service Pension Fund. This is dealt with in subsection (4) of the proposed section 22A. Then we come to subsection (7) of the proposed section 22A. This subsection specifically refers to subsection (4) and says that if such a person should die before his retirement from the Public Service without leaving a dependant in respect of whom a benefit is payable, or resigns voluntarily or is discharged on account of misconduct, etc., “there snail be deducted from any amount payable to his estate or to him … an amount equal to the amount so paid to that fund”, i.e. the amount paid from Revenue to the fund at the time of his transfer. I should like to have further clarity on the necessity for this provision; also whether it is of vital importance whether the person concerned leaves a dependant or not. I should like to know from the Minister whether the question of the dependant is fully covered. “Dependant” is not defined anywhere in this Bill. If there is to be an amount which has to be paid from Revenue to the Government Service Pension Fund and the person concerned dies without leaving a dependant his estate will be called upon to repay that amount to Revenue, on the same basis as the person who resigns voluntarily or who was discharged—in other words, penalized. As far as this aspect is concerned, where he dies without leaving a dependant, it is not quite clear why he should be penalized virtually on the same basis as the person who resigned voluntarily.

Then, Sir, there is the case of the person who is transferred to the Government Service fund and who is also a contributor to the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. If this person ceases to be a member prior to his death, he is entitled to be paid out an amount equal to the additional amount that was in excess of the transfer value of his transferable pension service from the municipal fund. It would appear that the excess is held by the fund, and if he ceases to be a member of the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund prior to his death, he will be paid out this amount. Under subsection (10), if the person dies without leaving a widow, he will also have added to any other benefits that may be payable to children or step-children or legally adopted children, an amount also equal to the amount that was paid into the fund in respect of himself, so this is the additional amount that is involved where he has an excess of transferable value of pensionable service. It would appear that this money would be paid to him in terms of subsections (9) and (10). I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this amount is paid without adding any interest whatsoever. If the person is transferred at a young age and this amount has been standing to his credit for about 30 years or more, he should be entitled to some interest since he is not deriving any other benefit from his membership of the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. However, he has this excess amount which has been paid into the fund and it would appear that if he ceases to be a member of the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund by virtue of death, or if prior to his death he ceases to be a member of the fund, he will not receive any interest on this amount which might have been held for many years and which is standing to his credit as being in excess of the transferable value of his municipal pensionable service.

The main principle contained in clause 13 is, in fact, to protect employees of municipalities where a whole section of the municipality is taken over by the State as often happens. It happens from time to time that the Government is compelled or deems it advisable to take over certain institutions or services from local authorities. The pension laws do not make any provision for the transfer of pension rights between State and municipal pension funds, and every time such a take-over is effected it is necessary to make special statutory provision for the transfer of the pension rights of the staff concerned. What is being intended with this clause, is to make general provision for such transfers of pension rights, something which will facilitate and expedite negotiations. Persons taken over in this manner, will be in a position to become members of any other pension or provident fund instituted by the State for its employees. Moreover, provision is being made now for the retention of previous pensionable service.

The hon. member asked me a few very specific questions. I just want to give him the assurance, in the first place, that the dependent widow is fully covered in this case. In the second place, the hon. member referred to the question of interest. Interest will definitely not be paid in this case. The widow’s funds do not make provision for the payment of interest; it operates on the same basis as an insurance scheme and under the circumstances no interest is paid. In the third place, the hon. member wanted to know what the position was in case the person died. As I have said, his widow is completely covered. As a matter of fact, the dependants are not fully covered under any of the funds, except where specific provision is being made as, for instance, in subsection (10). With that I think I have replied to the three questions the hon. member has put to me.

There is just one point on which I would like further information and that is under subsection (7) where the estate of a person is required to repay these amounts to Revenue if he dies before his retirement from the Public Service without leaving a dependant. To me this would seem to be a severe step. He is being dealt with here on the same basis as the man who resigns voluntarily or who is compelled to resign. I should like to know why this provision is being inserted in the case where the member dies before retirement, without leaving a dependant, where his estate is then called upon to pay back to Revenue any amount that has been paid to him where there has been a shortfall in the transferable value of his municipal service when transferred to the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund.

The position is that when he retires in such a case, he retains the full benefit, but when he resigns or dies before he reaches retirement age, he or his estate is not entitled to receive the money paid in by the fund on his behalf or which he did not pay in himself. For that reason provision is being made here that the money will, in fact, be paid on his retirement, but in other cases only the money he has paid in, will be refunded to him.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

This clause provides, inter alia, that widows of members of Parliament will receive a pension of at least R800 per year, and in the case of the widow of a Prime Minister, a minimum of R1,200 per year. We have no objection to that. The widows will receive this pension whether they marry again or not and we do not have any objection to that either. Sir, a few days ago we discussed in this House the case of widows of war veterans who had married again and lost their pensions. At that time we pleaded here that their pensions should be given back to them.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that point under this clause.

May I just indicate to the hon. the Minister that we are going to remind him of this principle when we come to this House next year or in subsequent years to plead for other widows. We welcome this principle.

Order!

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

This clause, which makes provision for certain allowances and bonuses to be paid to civil pensioners, specifically deals with the question of the consolidation of the 5 per cent, which was previously part of the bonus, into the basic pension. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the word “allowance” is used in the singular in subsection (1), line 49. I should like to know whether this also covers the other allowances which are paid to civil pensioners, such as the temporary allowance, the supplementary allowance and the special supplementary allowance which is paid in certain circumstances. The amount of the bonus is not specified here; it is merely stated that a bonus may be paid which is equal to such percentage of the pension as the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may from time to time determine. I would like to ask the Minister why it is considered necessary to make provision for this in clause 22, which is a very long clause indeed and in terms of which various adjustments are made to the bonus payable. As a result of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, a certain degree of confusion has arisen as to whether the 10 per cent to 20 per cent additional bonus will be provided for by regulation, or whether the Minister is satisfied that that bonus and the various allowances are fully covered under this clause.

I want to start off by saying that the term “allowance” in subsection (1), line 49, refers to all the various allowances; this is a general word covering all the various allowances. In the second place, certain of our pension funds and pension schemes are covered by specific regulations, while others are not covered by regulations. This clause is a general, umbrella clause to cover all funds which are not covered by the necessary regulations in order to enable us to act legally under the whole scheme. This is a general, umbrella clause and for that reason it is essential.

Since this matter has been raised here, I nevertheless deem it necessary to furnish a special explanation to remove any possible misunderstanding which may have arisen out of a misinterpretation of the Budget Speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I just want to make quite clear what we mean here; this concerns the question of the 10 to 20 per cent increase we announced. I should like to give the following specific explanation for record purposes. In his Budget speech on 26th March, 1969, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed the following concessions in respect of civil pensioners, which had been announced previously: (i) that the minimum pensions would be increased; and (ii) that the existing bonus percentages would be increased by 5 per cent with effect from 1st April, 1969. It was also announced that: (i) the consolidation with the basic pension of 5 per cent of the existing bonuses, which were already payable from the funds, had been approved; and (ii) it had been decided to grant specific relief to persons who had retired prior to 1st October, 1958, by increasing their pensions with a bonus varying between 10 per cent and 20 per cent, depending on the date of retirement.

It should be kept in mind that all four of these concessions came into operation on the same date, i.e. 1st April, 1969. The question now arises in which order these concessions should be applied to allow the pensioner to derive the maximum benefit, as there is an interaction and the one concession affects the other.

Let us take, for example, a case of minimum pensions where the basic pension is small. Any increase of the bonus is merely of a technical nature in this case. I take as an example the case of a married person. A married person in any case receives an increase of R6 per month as a result of the increase of the minimum pension from R94 per month to R100 per month. Because the bonus is increased at the same time, it merely amounts to this, that the increase of the supplementary amount, which would have amounted to R6 per month, will be somewhat less, but that the total increase in bonus plus supplementary allowance will amount to not less then R6 per month altogether.

In the case of pensioners who retired since 1st October, 1958, and who are receiving fairly large pensions, and who fall outside the limits of the minimum pension scheme, the order in which the concessions are applied is also important. The concession in the case of these persons is twofold—i.e. they receive a bonus increase of 5 per cent and at the same time the first 5 per cent of the bonus is consolidated with the basic pension. In this case it will be to the pensioner’s advantage if consolidation takes place first and the bonus is then calculated on the consolidated amount.

The third group of persons to benefit further is the pensioners who retired prior to 1st October, 1958. It is the intention to grant these persons, who are generally in receipt of small pensions (they had retired before the cost of living allowance was consolidated with salaries), a minimum increase of 10 per cent and a maximum increase of 20 per cent.

The order in which the relief was announced in the Budget Speech may be misleading. The fact of the matter is that none of these people will receive a bonus increase of less than 10 per cent altogether. The order in which the concessions were announced was merely of a technical nature, but the order in which they are applied is most important.

Persons who retired prior to 1st October, 1958, are classified into four groups for the purposes of payment of the bonus, as follows: Prior to 1.10.1944; from 1.10.1944 to 30.9.1946; 1.10.1946 to 30.9.1953; and 1.10.1953 to 30 9.1958. Prior to 1.4.1969 the first three groups received a bonus of 30 per cent each on their basic pension, while the last group received a bonus of 25 per cent. It was decided to increase the bonuses of the group prior to 1st October, 1944, from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. The bonus of the group 1st October. 1944, to 30th September, 1946, has been increased from 30 per cent, as it used to be, to 45 per cent. The third group, i.e. the group of 1st October, 1946, to 30th September, 1953 has been increased from the 30 per cent it used to be to 40 per cent, and for the group 1st October, 1953, to 30th September, 1958, there is an increase of 25 per cent to 35 per cent, which again guarantees the minimum of at least 10 per cent. From this it is evident that they have received a bonus increase of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent throughout. At the same time, however, it has been decided to consolidate 5 per cent of these bonuses with the basic pension. The new bonuses which are payable from 1st April, 1969, therefore amount to 45 per cent, 40 percent, 35 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, on the consolidated basic pension, while the 5 per cent has already been consolidated in the new calculation. An interesting fact is that because the increased bonus is payable on the consolidated amount, the total benefits these people receive are in fact more than the 10 per cent to 20 per cent which was announced. Thus a person who retired between the period 1st October, 1953, to 30th September, 1958, in practice receives an increase of 11.5 per cent instead of 10 per cent, while the person who retired prior to 1st October, 1944, receives an increase of 22.25 per cent instead of the 20 per cent. I have purposely made this announcement in detail because there may be possible confusion among pensioners arising out of the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance.

I would just like to express our thanks to the Minister for clarifying the position.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

This clause deals with the International Development Association. The Minister gave us some general information last night, but can the Minister give us an assurance that we will get a copy of the report of I.D.A.?

I am afraid I cannot give hon. members a copy of the report. We receive only one or two copies. It is a fairly thick report which we get from the Association every year. I am prepared to reply to any questions put to me by hon. members in regard to that report at any time, but we do not get sufficient copies to supply members with copies. They only send us a few, for the use of the Government.

The Minister may get only one or two reports, but cannot he make that available to this side of the House? Then we would be better informed than we are at the moment.

T am quite prepared to make the report available to hon. members of the House, but I cannot do it by laying it on the Table. I could make it available privately, or put it in the Library. I think that would be the best way.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

This clause deals with the Post Office Savings Bank moneys which go into the Post Office Fund and later on are transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The system set out in this particular clause has our approval, as far as I can judge the position from the contents and from the memorandum, but I would like to know from the Minister when these savings accounts go into the so-called “dead account”, what happens to the funds afterwards, if after the seven years mentioned a person rediscovers his Post Office book. I take it he can get the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not from the Post Office Fund, but would he be entitled to interest on the amount in his Post Office savings book?

When the account becomes a dead account, the money and the interest go to the Consolidated Revenue Account. When the account becomes alive again, when the saver or his representative turns up, he is paid out everything, including interest, by the Post Office, which gets the money back from the Consolidated Revenue Account.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Yesterday the hon. member for Durban (North) made, inter alia, the following statement—

The implication of these words is that we are dealing with a measure here “which is subverting the normal process of law and democracy”. That is what his allegation means, and I am now, owing to the great amount of publicity which has been given to his words, obliged to react to it. This morning a morning newspaper published an article under the headline “Government urged to curb B.O.S.S.” Mr. Speaker, the word “B.O.S.S.” is derived from Bureau of State Security but the implication of the word “B.O.S.S.” here is that we are creating a new boss in South Africa, and the implication is that this boss has now done certain things for which it should be curbed or restricted. And further, arising out of the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (North) there is a quote in black capitals … [Interjections.] I really do not have the time to reply to questions now. After that headline there was this headline as well, and these words were also used by the hon. member for Durban (North). It reads as follows: “The power of this secret body is monstrous”. The hon. member used the word “monstrous” here and arising out of this excessive language on the part of the hon. member these headlines were published.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to quote from a newspaper dealing with a debate during this Session?

Sir, I am not quoting. I am referring to what happened outside the House as a result of what was said inside this House.

On a point of order, Sir, it is either Rule 124 or 128, if my memory serves me correctly, which says that one may not refer to a newspaper report of a debate in a current session.

Order! Rule 120 reads as follows: “No member while addressing this House shall read any report of or any comment on a debate of the same session in this House: Provided that the provisions of this Standing Order shall not apply to the official reports of the debates of this House, nor to reports of or comments on a Budget speech of a Minister or the proposals contained therein”. The hon. Deputy Minister may continue.

I just want to say that this article was published as a result of the reaction to these outrageous statements on the part of the hon. member for Durban (North). Accusations are from time to time made on this side of the House to the effect that we have a bad name overseas owing to the excessive language of the Opposition. I am now obliged, in reply to that this afternoon, to point out that there is no such thing here as a “subversion” of the normal process of law and democracy”, for this legislation which we are dealing with is as old as 100 years as far as the British common law and as far a sit has been applied in British courts is concerned. I want to state emphatically this afternoon that not a single principle of this legislation is not already contained in our statutory or our common law.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. If the hon. member knew anything about law in South Africa, he would not say that, and I shall prove that to him now. The contentious clause 10 is a repetition of section 3 (2) (a) of the Official Secrets Act, a provision which in its turn is a repetition of the British Official Secrets Act, which applied in South Africa up to 1956. Our Official Secrets Act of 1956 was supported at the time by the Opposition in this House, and that was done because it was a repetition of the British Official Secrets Act. Section 3 (2) (a) is based on the provisions of the British Official Secrets Act. Section 3 (2) (a) of the Official Secrets Act made it an offence for any person to publish military or police matters in a way or with a purpose prejudicial to the security or the interest of the Republic. That is in fact part of the Official Secrets Act of England. This section 3 was accorded the wholehearted support of the Opposition during the Committee Stage in 1956. They did not even move an amendment to it. I continue, Mr. Opposition. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to reflect on the Chair? [Laughter.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister must address the Chair and not the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I humbly beg your pardon. It was really a reflection on the Chair to refer to you in such a way. At the beginning of this Session the military security division, as well as the intelligence sections of other departments and the security section of the police were combined into the Bureau of State Security. I think I can just quote what the Minister concerned had to say about this matter on that occasion—

After that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied, and he supported it. He even expressed a pious wish. He said—

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that there were people who felt that—

He was referring here to people, and I want to say that he was referring to his own people, because they are the people who find this to be so. Then he said: “Sometimes it is difficult to persuade these people”. I find it particularly difficult to persuade the hon. members of the Opposition that there are some things which should be withheld from them in the national interest. He went on to say—

That is the specific reason the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put forward. He said it was difficult to keep this back, but for the specific reason that it should be a secret he supported the legislation. Now we are coming forward with a measure to implement that specific Bill. However we hear from hon. members that it is a “subversion of the normal law”.

We are talking about this Bill, not that Bill.

You will not get out of it that way.

You are surely the biggest intellectual in the Nationalist Party.

What a pathetic effort.

Order!

It is obvious that the provisions which make the disclosure of secrets of the divisions of other departments, but particularly of the military and police security sections punishable, should follow. They are made punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. There they protect any secret in respect of military and police matters. Now this is being conferred to this new bureau. Surely it is obvious that as far as we are concerned those matters which were transferred to the bureau should protect this new bureau by means of precisely the same section which the Opposition approved in 1956. Now what on earth is wrong with that? That is all that is being envisaged with clause 10.

Apparently hon. members are not in agreement with the definition of a “security matter”. They criticized it, as it is contained in paragraph (b) (ii). These definitions in paragraph (b) (ii) comprise three things. Firstly it must be a matter with which the Bureau is concerned. These are still all the matters with which all the sections of the other Departments dealt. Now the Bureau deals with them. The Departments are protected there, and there is probably no objection to the fact that the Bureau should also be protected now. Secondly, it is a matter which relates to the Bureau. This Bureau is after all a body which has been co-ordinated with all the other Departments. After all, matters related to the activities of this Bureau must surely be protected in the same way as those of the other Departments if the Bureau wants to carry out its functions. Thirdly, reference is made to a relationship between an individual and that Bureau. This can obviously refer only to the relations of service between its officials and agents. It is a relationship between these persons and the Bureau. But even if these matters were of general and as wide-ranging, as hon. members suggested in their flights of imagination yesterday evening, then the disclosure thereof and even the innocent disclosure thereof, as the hon. member for Durban (North) put it, would not be punishable. Then I still say that he is not committing an offence, because in terms of clause 3 which forms part of our existing law, this must take place in a way or with a purpose prejudicial to the security or interest of the Republic.

Where is that stated?

Did the hon. member not read the Bill? Surely the hon. member has read the first part of clause 10?

Yes.

It is stated very clearly there. Now I must also emphasize that an offence in terms of section 3 (2) (a) of the British Official Secrets Act applied, as I said, here in South Africa since the British rule was established here. It is defined in precisely the same words as that measure. I must also emphasize that section 3 (2) (a) in our Official Secrets Act, i.e. which protects a police matter was accepted in 1956 by the Opposition in precisely the same words. I may just add here that since 1956 there has not been a single wilful or malicious action in terms of that Act. In fact, there has not even been one prosecution in terms of that Act since 1956. I find it highly inconsistent that the Opposition agree that these matters in regard to security should be taken over by the Bureau for Security, but that they do not want to afford that matter additional protection as it was protected as a police matter in the 1956 Act. As far as I am concerned, that is, to say the least, very irresponsible conduct on the part of the Opposition. What we had here yesterday I want to term as being nothing else but mere politicking. It is an example of the Opposition’s ambiguity. For the Nationalist-inclined, they want to say that they were in favour of the Bureau of Security matters, and for the liberalists they want to say that they were opposed to it. That was the gist of the game which was played here yesterday. I regard the amendment as proposed yesterday by the hon. member for Durban (North) as being without substance and without any sense. The provisions of the Bill do not have any of the effects that the hon. member for Durban (North) alleged they would have. The original provisions have existed for donkeys’ years, in the same way as the donkeys’ years of the other side of the House. Particularly the provisions “interest of the State” have existed for many years. I want to repeat that I cannot see that the word “security matter” which we are now inserting here, a matter which was formerly protected as a police matter, should not be granted further protection now simply because it is called a security matter. The hon. member for Musgrave also attacked this clause. I asked him to be in the House this afternoon but I do not see him here. I would rather not say what I think of him. I just want to say that a “pukka English gentleman” would say that his behaviour “discloses a lack of breeding”. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should rather withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw them.

Offer an apology as well.

I shall not offer an apology.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I must also deal with the position in terms of clause 29. I am in fact sorry that hon. members have linked clause 29 to clause 10. [Interjections.] I am sorry that I am getting underneath the skin of hon. members.

Order! I am asking for order now. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

As far as clause 29 is concerned, which is the second clause which was attacked, I am in fact sorry that hon. members upon the insistence of the leading article of The Star, linked it to clause 10, because in fact its inclusion has nothing to do with clause 10. It just so happens that it has now become necessary to codify the matter which is dealt with in clause 25 owing to uncertainty which arose as a result of certain court decision. This happened quite by chance, but I do not want to say that they are not related. I just want to say that it is simply coincidental that these two matters are being dealt with in the same Bill. There is a connection because clause 10 creates an offence for the protection of the security and the interest of the State, while clause 29 governs the furnishing of factual evidence prejudicial to the security and interest of the State. I also want to emphasize that clause 29 has not been included in this measure as a result of clause 10. Because it has been said that there is a “subversion of the law” here, I just want to point out that the substance of clause 29 has been contained in our law for a long time. I want to refer hon. members to volume 1 of “South African Criminal Law and Procedure” by Gardiner and Lansdowne (6) Edition. On page 520 the following is stated—

I do not want to read the entire paragraph because it is a long quotation. Then the following is said—

The concept “the interests of the State”, is therefore very well known in our law. Gardiner and Lansdowne refer to this with an entire series of findings. Lower down on the same page the following is said—

This is a well-known section of our law.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Is there anything in Gardiner and Lansdowne which provides that an accused may be prevented from giving evidence in his own defence on the certificate of a Minister?

I shall deal specifically with this matter which the hon. member has now raised in a moment. I quoted to hon. members from Gardiner and Lansdowne that “State interests” are a well-known rule of our law and of our law of evidence. Since this elucidation by Gardiner and Lansdowne the matter has been raised in the Appeal Court. That is the case which was quoted by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, i.e. the case Van der Linde v. Calitz. There the Chief Justice showed that matters affecting the security of the State can never be disclosed in a court by evidence. The case Van der Linde v. Calitz was exclusively concerned with the question of State interest. The Chief Justice then demonstrated that there were divergent rulings in regard to what State interest was, what could be disclosed and what could not be disclosed. The Chief Justice described the documents which were in the public interest as “generic documents”. He dealt with two British cases, namely the Robinson case, which was a decision by the British Privy Council, and the Duncan case which was a decision by the House of Lords. In certain respects these two cases were in conflict. Then the Chief Justice also dealt with the conflicting rulings in South African courts in the case Van der Linde v. Calitz. As a result of the uncertainty which was revealed by this decision of the Chief Justice, and the case Van der Linde v. Calitz, we tried to codify the position in order to obtain more certainty in regard to it. However, hon. members saw so many sinister intentions in the provision that one wonders whether they considered the entire background of the question with which we are dealing here. If they are legal men as they want to imply they are, one wonders whether they are aware of this and whether they studied the case. So, for example, the hon. member for Transkei, who is laughing so much now, dragged in the so-called smear letters by the hair and asked whether this was also an investigation in the public interest. I want to repeat what I said last night. The security bureau, the police, or any similar Government body can investigate any matter under the sun. However, I do not think that they will ever do so, for I do not believe that they will waste their time in this way.

They have done so already.

If they have investigated the smear letters, or anything else for that matter, then the disclosure of the findings of their investigation can only take place in an offence in terms of clause 10 if the State proves that it is prejudicial to the security or the interest of the State. Therefore, even if the Secret Police have instituted an investigation in regard to any person, and even if he had disclosed such information, he cannot be found guilty unless the State proves that it was prejudicial to the security of the State or the interest of the State. I think that is very clear.

What is the interest of the State? What did Minister Lourens Muller then say?

The hon. member for Musgrave asked in a very dramatic way whether there was any law whatsoever which would prohibit a person from disclosing facts in his own defence. I do not know how to reply to that because the concept is so elementary. Surely any person who poses as a legal expert cannot ask a question like this. That question is an impossible one. Surely the hon. member knows that if he is acting on his client’s behalf in a court, he will not reveal in advance to the State what his evidence is. He is not going to state in advance what his defence in that case is going to be. How on earth must the State know what evidence he is going to produce so that the State can prohibit it. How on earth can the State prohibit it if it does not know what evidence is going to be produced.

The prosecutors do in fact know.

There is no question of that. I cannot even imagine such a position. A legal man can at any time produce such evidence. The State will not have advance knowledge of it unless the State does not know about it, how will the Minister be able to issue a certificate to the effect that that evidence may not be produced? [Interjections.] The hon. members of the Opposition can ascribe a great deal to this legislation, but they cannot ascribe this supernatural power to the Minister. They cannot invest the Minister with the ability to read the minds of accused or their attorneys in order to find out what they are going to plead or what evidence they are going to produce. Mr. Speaker, surely I need not go into this ridiculous assumption any further.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, it was simply the old story as before. Once again she acted as spokeswoman and intercessionary for certain elements. I almost said subversive elements, but you will not allow me to say that, Mr. Speaker. To point out to her that clause 29 has been customary in English law of evidence for the past century, and that we are simply codifying it here, is to cast pearls before the swine. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I can only quote the words of one of our poets: “On her old little guitar, only one string left now, she plays in the moonshine, any old how.”

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—88: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. 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.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Janson. T. N. H.; 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.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. T.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs. G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray. L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher. D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell dropped.

Question then put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped. Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Judging by the publicity this Bill has already received in the Opposition Press, and arising from the comments which hon. members opposite made on this measure and which also appeared in the Press, we may most definitely expect an interesting altercation to take place in this House between the Government and the Opposition. Contrary to what has been said, and what is being thought, this Bill is not aimed at a curtailment of human rights. In any case, the times in which one only had to be a white person in order to have an identity of one’s own now belong to the distant past. Under the present Government’s policy the Whites, Coloureds, Indians, Bantu, etc., are proud of their own identity and all of them are enjoying those benefits to which a South African citizen is entitled.

In the main this legislation merely seeks to put beyond any question the object of the 1967 amendment to the Population Registration Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950), as amended, and to give effect as far as possible to the will of Parliament, and consequently that of the nation as well. In the 1967 amendment to the principal Act the concepts “appearance”, “acceptance” and “descent” were accordingly defined further and more clearly, and “descent” was determined as being the decisive factor. Further to the concept of descent it was accordingly provided in a new section 5 (5) that children had to follow the classification of their natural parents if both natural parents had been classified as members of the same ethnic group. In addition to that indications were given as to how children had to be classified if their parents had not been classified as members of the same ethnic group. Furthermore, it was provided in the 1967 amendment that the objections lodged by third parties, about which the Opposition originally made such a fuss, would fall away completely, as would pending lawsuits. It is not peculiar how they vehemently oppose something at first, as they did in 1950, only to defend it as anxiously when they discover that it suits their purpose, as is once again the case now?

You are making a political speech.

Sir, what I have just said is no more than a statement of the truth. In 1950 the Opposition was opposed to third party objections. In 1967 they were the champions of third party objections. That is all I said. It was also made very clear that all those amendments which were proposed in 1967 would be put into operation with retrospective effect as from the commencement of the principal Act, i.e. 7th July, 1950, so as to effect a uniform register and to eliminate the formation of dual population groups.

How many amending Bills does this make now?

That is not relevant here. There will be many more, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize very strongly that the amendments which are being proposed now do not introduce any new principles into the principal Act or the subsequent amending legislation, and that the basic principles of those concepts are by no means being altered. However, since it appears that the courts are still experiencing problems in interpreting these intentions of the legislature, it is now being deemed necessary, in order to solve those problems and to furnish the courts with explicit guiding principles in that regard, to effect amendments to the existing provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with the proposed amendments. I do not consider it necessary to deal with each of them in detail, since they are so self-evident and the Bill has already lain upon the Table for such a long time that everybody will have examined it closely by this time. Therefore I am only going to deal with those amendments which are really important.

I expect the Opposition to level this hackneyed and stale accusation once again, i.e. that on such an important amending Bill as this one no White Paper was laid upon the Table; that is why I want to say right now, in anticipation, that I did not consider it necessary, firstly, because this is an amendment Bill and it is not customary to submit White Papers on amending Bills, and, secondly, because the amendments in the long title have been set out in such a detailed manner that it is an explanatory memorandum in itself.

I shall now proceed to deal clause by clause with this amending Bill:

Clause 1

The most important amendments in this clause are contained in—

1. (a) Paragraph (b), in which the words “person employed by the State or the holder of a post in the Public Service” are substituted for the word “officer”. The object of this is merely to make it clearer that persons employed by the State under a delegation from the Secretary for the Interior could have effected and can effect classification. In fact, this is a great deal clearer than the designation “officer” is.
2. (b) Paragraph (c), which only seeks to remove a conflicting provision and which does not affect any existing rights of any person. To be more specific, it is in conflict with section 19 (1) of the principal Act.

As hon. members have probably noticed, I have already had an amendment placed on the Order Paper to the effect that during the Committee Stage I shall move that paragraph (d) be omitted; therefore hon. members need not concern themselves about that any further. By doing this I may already have succeeded in eliminating a point of dispute.

1. (c) Paragraph (e): As far as paragraph (e) is concerned, it may be stated that the reference to an identity card was written into the Act on the occasion of the 1967 amendment, and the inclusion thereof in this subsection is merely a consequential extension. However, the presumption which in this subsection is being created in the principal Act, is in fact refutable, and in my opinion nobody can object to it in law.

Clause 2

In this clause amendments are being proposed to subsections (4) and (5) of section 5 of the principal Act as incorporated in 1967, and in this regard I wish to explain that, as indicated previously, in 1967, further to the concept of descent, provision was also made in a new section 5 (5) for the manner in which children were to be classified if their parents had both been classified as members of the same race or group, as well as the manner in which they were to be classified if their parents had been classified as members of different races or groups.

For the sake of clarity this section is now being extended so as to provide that a person shall not be classified as a white person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu. I take it that this is logical and understandable.

It is being provided further that a Coloured person is to be classified as a member of the ethnic or other group of which his natural father has been classified as a member.

It is also necessary to provide that for the purposes of section 5 (5) the classification of a parent shall also apply even after the death of such parent, because my Department and I have encountered strange, if not ludicrous interpretations in this regard.

It is now also being stated clearly that notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, persons are to be classified in accordance with the imperative and dominant provisions of section 5 (5). Apparently the boards and the courts have doubts in this regard, and we do not wish them to have any doubts.

It is deemed expedient to define more clearly the Secretary’s powers of review, as contained in the existing section 5 (4), and accordingly it is being provided that—

1. (a) he may alter the classification of a person after such person has been given notice specifying in which respect his classification is incorrect and has been afforded an opportunity of being heard;
2. (b) he may, if he has any doubts as to whether the classification of a person is correct, after notice of the person in question refer the case to a board; and
3. (c) he may at any time alter the classification of any person with the concurrence of such person.

What we particularly seek to achieve by these means, is to accommodate the persons in question in cases with absolute merits, but it has to be appreciated very clearly that this decision and initiative will be left to the absolute, final and explicit discretion of the Secretary, and if it is interpreted differently it will have to be omitted from the legislation.

I may just explain further that the provisions of subsections (5) to (9) of section 11 shall now apply to cases which the Secretary in terms of the preceding provisions referred to a board for decision, but in any such case an appeal shall only lie against a decision of a board if the classification of the person in question is altered by the board.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the preceding provisions have always been the intention of the legislature, but in view of the fact that some people are always looking for a loophole, they are merely being phrased in more explicit—and I hope more comprehensible— terms so as to serve as guiding principles for the courts, as well as to eliminate incorrect interpretations by the public. I hope and trust that they will achieve that end.

Clause 3

The amendments proposed in this clause include the following:

In terms of the existing provisions it would appear as though minors are being discriminated against in that they are excluded from being able to object against their classification in terms of section 5 (5), whereas it would appear as though majors may lodge objections under the same circumstances.

The provisions of section 5 (5) are in fact imperative when the facts concerning the parents of a person are correct, but a person may allege that the persons whom the Secretary regards as his parents, are not his parents, and in such a case it would be unfair to deprive such a person of the right to take his case to a higher court. The proposed amendment in paragraphs (a) and (b) seek to remove this incompetence on the part of minors.

As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, it may be stated that although the courts have an inherent power to grant condonation for the late lodging of an appeal, this may, however, be taken to absurd extremes. For instance, in the case Sithole v. Secretary for the Interior, 1960 (4) S.A. 105 (T), condonation for appealing to the Supreme Court was granted approximately five years after the decision of the board had been given. Recently there was a similar case once again. If similar applications were to be granted in future, they would disrupt the administration and implementation of the objects of the Population Registration Act and prevent finality being reached. The amendment does in fact seek to effect a curtailment of the powers of condonation of the courts, but this is not considered to be unreasonable since any person who considers himself aggrieved by the decision of the board may reasonably be expected to lodge an appeal within a reasonable period subsequent to such decision having been given, while the circumstances of the lawsuit are still fresh in his memory.

Clause 4

This clause contains an amendment to section 13 of the principal Act and merely constitutes a change in a procedure. In terms of the present provisions it is the duty of the Secretary to issue as soon as practicable an identity card to any person once he has attained the age of 16 years. In spite of that it is the duty of a person in terms of section 16 to furnish the Secretary with two photographs. These provisions do not tally, and it is proposed that the person himself should be put under an obligation, as soon as practicable after he has attained that age, to make application and to furnish the photographs, subsequent to which the Secretary has to issue an identity card.

Clause 5

In these amendments the Secretary is, in the first place, being empowered to seize an identity card in certain circumstances—under the circumstances as set out in the relevant section of the principal Act, this may only be done by a Bantu Commissioner—and, in the second place, provision is also being made for the steps the Secretary has to take upon receiving an identity card which has been seized. We shall definitely need this in future.

Clause 7

The reasons for the amendments proposed in this clause, are as follows—(1A): As a rule it is difficult for my Department to refute an allegation that a person is accepted as a member of some or other race or group. The amendment which is now being proposed, places on the person concerned the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case, and this is not considered to be unreasonable. (1B): This amendment creates a presumption to the effect that on the date on which the document in question was completed, a person was accepted as a member of the race or group stated on his behalf or by him on that form. However, this presumption is refutable. At present it is for the Department to prove that on the date in question that person was accepted as such. (1C): It often happens that an objector makes unconfirmed allegations to the effect that an ancestor was a member of a certain race, and usually it is impossible for my Department to refute such allegations in regard to descent, and the object of the amendment is that such hearsay evidence has to be substantiated. This is also considered to be reasonable.

Clause 8

Mr. Speaker, now we have finally come to that clause which will really—at least, this is what I think and anticipate—prove to be the major point of contention, and that is why I want to deal with it very fully. As hon. members will notice, it concerns the question of the retrospective effect of the 1967 Amendment Act. In accordance with the amendments contained in that legislation, the right of any person to lodge an appeal against the classification of any other person (except in respect of a minor of whom such a person is the guardian), i.e. the third party objection, was abolished.

Furthermore, the object was, and this was made very clear, that not only this amendment, but all the amendments contained in that measure, would have retrospective effect as from 7th July, 1950, the date on which the Act came into operation.

This object was clear to both sides of the House. In order to refresh the memory of hon. members I want to quote the amendments which the Opposition proposed during 1967 through the mouths of the hon. members for Durban (North) and Green Point, respectively. I shall start with the hon. member for Durban (North)—a lawyer. This is what he proposed—

Now we come to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point—another lawyer. This is what he proposed—

More explicit, or rather more deadly, proof to the effect that the Opposition had no doubts and agreed that the provisions of the 1967 legislation were of retrospective effect, one would definitely not be able to find.

I am therefore perfectly justified in stating without any hesitation—without fear of contradiction—that there was therefore complete unanimity that the amendments contained in that amending legislation would in all respects be fully retrospective as from 7th July, 1950. However, since then the courts have nevertheless ruled that those provisions do not apply to objections which were pending before the commencement of the amending legislation, be they objections by persons against the classification of other persons, or objections against their own classification. Now I ask: Is it unfair that we remedy this?

While dealing with the question of retrospective effect, I also want to refer to the proclamation whereby the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons are to be classified, were prescribed and defined.

In terms of sections 5 (2) and 5 (3) the State President was granted the power to validate by proclamation every classification which was invalid owing to the annulment of a previous proclamation, and such a proclamation may be issued with retrospective effect as from 7th July, 1950. Proclamation No. 123 of 1967 provided for all these provisions.

In spite of that the courts hold that, although Coloured persons are deemed to have been classified in terms of the latter proclamation, such classifications are not valid as from the date on which Coloured persons were classified originally, but that they once again have the right to object against their classification within 30 days as from the date on which the provisions of Proclamation No. 123 of 1967 came to their attention, irrespective of the period that has elapsed since the commencement of that proclamation.

This is indeed an untenable position, and in order to put these matters beyond all doubt, it is now being provided: (1) that the provisions of this Act as they exist immediately after the commencement of this amending legislation and the provisions of Proclamation No. 123 of 1967 shall apply—(a) in considering, for the purposes of section 5 (4), the correctness or otherwise of the classification of any person, and in classifying any such person in terms or by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection; (b) for the purposes of every decision given by a board after the said commencement, irrespective of the date on which the case concerned was referred to the board; and (c) with reference to the classification of any person in any other case; (2) that an appeal against a decision of a board given prior to the commencement of this amending legislation shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of this legislation as they existed on the date on which the relevant decision of the board in question was given, but without having regard to any retrospective effect of any provision of this legislation, and in accordance with the provisions of Proclamation No. 123 of 1967; (3) that no objection by any person against the classification of any other person (save an objection by any person against the classification of a minor of whom he is the guardian) shall be considered by any board or any division of the Supreme Court of South Africa or, if it has been considered by any board or any such division, further considered or decided on, irrespective of the date on which such objection was lodged with the Secretary; and (4) that any classification made prior to the commencement of Proclamation No. 46 of 1959, and any classification made in accordance with the provisions of the said Proclamation No. 46 and Proclamation No. 27 of 1961, shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of Proclamation No. 123 of 1967 and on the date on which it was made.

In clause 8 it is being proposed further that (i) if the name of any person has been included in the register and an indication of the race or group to which he belongs is given therein, he shall be deemed to have been classified in terms of section 5 as a member of that race or group; and (ii) a classification deemed to have been made in terms of section 5 (1) shall not be invalid merely on the ground of the fact that the person by whom such classification was made, was not duly authorized thereto.

The reasons for this are that recently it has been argued, albeit merely on technical grounds, that all classifications which have already been made, may not be valid. If it were in fact possible to prove such a thing in a court beyond all reasonable doubt, and a court were to give such a judgment in confirmation, it would create an untenable state of affairs and cause chaos. Therefore, in order to prevent this—and this is necessary—these amendments are being proposed so as to legalize all the classifications that have been made. We must bear in mind that the persons classified in this manner, had a right of appeal which they could exercise if they were dissatisfied with their classification.

The majority of our population have already been classified and are satisfied with their classification, and it would therefore be absurd and unnecessary to start afresh.

Clause 9

Mr. Speaker, in order to make doubly sure that doubts will not arise once again as to the retrospective effect of this Amendment Bill, we are in addition providing explicitly in this clause—which is also the short title of the Act—that this Act shall be called the Population Registration Amendment Act, 1969, and the amendments thereby effected to the principal Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the seventh day of July, 1950. Any person who does not understand this provision and to whom it will not be clear or who will have doubts as to the object of this provision, would have to be extremely obtuse.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize I therefore wish to repeat and emphasize very, very strongly that this legislation is not a new piece of legislation, but mainly a confirmation of the intentions of the legislature in regard to the principal Act and the subsequent amendments— particularly of those extremely important amendments which were written into the principal Act in 1967.

What was the intention with the subsequent amendments? Nobody knows.

If it is still not clear to the hon. member what the intention was in 1967, then he is one of those obtuse persons to whom I referred a moment ago! I pointed out that the intention of the legislature was very obvious from all the Hansard reports since 1950, and that in this regard there had never been any doubt in this House. In spite of that the courts have since then not been interpreting that provision of the legislature in this way. That is why it is once again necessary for us—as I have in fact said repeatedly—to furnish them with guiding principles in respect of that intention of the legislature.

Consequently I trust with all my heart that from now on there will be no doubt or ambiguity, and that everybody who has to deal with the Act will take cognizance of this.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I just want to state that this House and also the people outside know and realize fully that the basic difference between this side and that side of the House, is that of separate development and peaceful coexistence of the various population groups, to say it in plain English— segregation and integration.

The legislation relating to population registration is one of the corner-stones—if not the most important corner-stone—for the realization and implementation of this policy, and whereas all my predecessors said and repeated on several occasions that we would continue to amend this important legislation until we achieved what we had set out to do. I also want to repeat that this is my approach, object and aim.

If the people are dissatisfied with the actions and legislation of the Government of the day, they would not hesitate to put another government into power, and if we should have the tragedy of the U.P. being returned to power. they would be welcome to remove this legislation from the Statute Book—if they should want to take such a risk.

However, while the nation is still taking us into its confidence and, in fact, expects us to safeguard the continued existence and preservation of the Whites, as well as to ensure and consolidate the peaceful and independent development and upliftment of our non-Whites, we shall continue to give effect to the will of the nation. This is our bounden duty towards the descendants of all the race groups, and we shall adhere to the course laid down for us by our esteemed leaders—also those of the past. By those means alone we shall realize our ideals and show the world that our policy is right and will succeed. We are and remain honest towards ourselves and towards all the inhabitants of our country.

In the course of the debate on my Vote I said I realized that this Population Registration Act was not an easy Act to administer. Furthermore, I know that on many occasions it is not pleasant to administer this Act, but I also know that it forms the corner-stone of our policy of separate development and that we have to give effect to it, for the eventual benefit and in the interests of all our various race groups.

Consequently it gives me great pleasure to submit to the hon. House this legislation, which is another solid pillar on which we may build.

The hon. the Minister in introducing this legislation has indicated that one of his excuses for introducing it is that he wants to see that the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Hansard in 1967 was carried out. Sir, the hon. gentleman is far too good a lawyer not to know that Hansard cannot be quoted in interpreting a statute. If you wish to interpret a statute, you have to interpret what is in front of you, and not what the Minister said he intended when he introduced the Bill. As evidence of what I am saving, I would like to quote from Hansard, Column 4733, of 24th April, 1967. There was an altercation between the hon. the Minister at the time and myself. There was a quotation by the hon. member for Durban (North) to the Minister, to the effect that the Minister had said that—

Now, Sir, what did the hon. gentleman mean? What the Minister to-day says he means, or what the hon. gentleman thinks the Minister meant at the time? You see, Sir, the Minister has given us a number of other interesting reasons. He says this legislation is not designed to limit people’s rights; all groups in South Africa are proud of their identity. Sir, when you move from one group to another you find your rights are very different. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that. He knows very well that if somebody classified as White is now going to be classified as Coloured, or if he deprives somebody from being classified as White, who might have been classified as White before this legislation, he affects that person’s rights, and affects them very materially. He has told us that there are no new principles in this Bill. No, Sir, its object is just to block the loophole that they were too incompetent to put on the statute book last time. That is what it is all about. Then the Minister says he is faithfully following the old leaders of the Nationalist Party. Sir, can you imagine the late Dr. Dönges accepting definitions of this kind in regard to the population register, when he talked of five million Coloured hearts beating as one with the Whites in South Africa? And when he stated that his tests were what the man looked like and whom he associated with? Where have we got to now? What did we have from Minister De Klerk in 1962? He said—

Now which leader is he following? The Minister should tell us. He says he is following his old leaders. He has also told us that the people want it. I wonder just what the people do want. Here we have once again another example of a pattern of legislative action which has been taken, with amendments, over the past 19 years in an attempt to classify what General Smuts described as the “unclassifiable”, and always the object has been the same—never to make it easier for the man who objects, but always designed to prevent those with the slightest infusion of Coloured blood from crossing the line into the white group. As the result of this legislation, even if a man is over 90 per cent white, he will be classified as Coloured, and his children and his descendants thereafter.

Where do you want to draw the line?

The Minister asks where I want to draw the line. I want to draw the line in the same place as Dr. Dönges. I want to say: Leave it to appearance and acceptance, as we have done for 300 years. But no. these people are now so clever; this Government can produce better tests, and what a mess they have landed in! Is this not the eighth time the Population Registration Act is being amended in this House?

Are you concerned about the white people or about the Coloured people?

I am very concerned indeed about the white people because I believe that if they make enemies of the people who should be their greatest friends, they do mince up Africa, and that is what they are doing with legislation of this kind.

What is all this fuss that is being made about in this legislation? How many people does it really affect? I have been at pains to go into questions put in this House as to the numbers of objections to classifications with which the Minister’s Department has been concerned since this legislation was put into operation. According to answers to questions in this House, it seems that since 1950 there have only been 1,157 objections to classification, and yet we are amending the legislation now, I think, for the eighth time. Of the 1,157, only 530 were dealt with by classification boards or the Supreme Court, and of those, 330 were successful and about 200 were dismissed; and of the 330 who were successful, 234 were upheld as a reclassification from Coloured to White, and as far as I know none were upheld from White to Coloured. The balance were out of the Coloured grouping and the Bantu grouping. I believe that in these 19 years there have only been 39 cases in all before the Supreme Court, but we are amending the legislation for the eighth time. Sir, has this House nothing to do? What is the matter with this Government? One asks oneself, why all this fuss about this tiny group of people who are suffering most bitterly because of the uncertainty, and suffering because they know what reclassification may mean to them? Can they possibly have an affect on the whiteness or otherwise of the white group in South Africa? If the whole lot were classified as White, do you imagine that they would not be lost inside a generation? Why all this fuss? Is it that the Government has insufficient staff to cope with the objections? Is it because the Government is just getting irritable and it realizes that it has introduced legislation which it cannot administer, or is it that this question of colour has become such a fetish to the Government that it is now trying to prevent the slightest infusion of Coloured blood, regardless of what has happened over the past 300 years in the history of South Africa? One cannot help asking oneself why all this fuss.

The Bill itself is a bad measure. It has certain proposals which I can only describe as vicious, and I will give my reasons for saying that. We have many objections to individual provisions. The first one I want to deal with is this question of retrospectivity. It arises from clause 9, read with clause 8, because as the result of these provisions the Act is made retrospective. And what is the Minister’s reason for making the Act retrospective? He said that was the intention in 1967. Has he not in the two years in between seen enough hardship to make him realize that it might be wise to forget about the retrospectivity? This retrospectivity is especially harsh in respect of reclassifications being considered by the board at the present time. These appeals to the board have been lodged and have been proceeded with for some considerable time. It is also especially harsh in respect of reclassifications by the Secretary himself, mero motu, in terms of clause 2 of this Bill. Appeals from the decision of the board given prior to this Act would of course go to the Supreme Court in terms of the law existing at the date on which the decision was given. That is Bell’s case. The decision of the Appeal Court in regard to this case was as follows:

Where it is pending before the court, the law at the time the appeal is lodged, applies. Where it is pending before the Classification Board the law suddenly changes overnight. These people have already appealed before the Board. They have already briefed counsel or attorneys. They have already put their papers in. They have already been waiting for months and months to have their reclassification appeals heard. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and changes the law contrary to the provisions of our common law as set out by the Appeal Court. He has not the courage to do so when it comes to the Supreme Court. There he accepts the old law. Why is there the difference between the two? What are the reasons for this step? Surely it would have been fairer to draw the line at the passing of the Act and let the new law only apply thereafter? The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that many people have started litigation and have been involved in it. They could incur considerable expense. Many may have made preparations to change their entire way of life, only to find that this legislation deprives them of the fruits of their efforts, of legal advice and the money they have spent over the last couple of years. What can the reason be? How many appeals are outstanding? What is the hon the Minister afraid of? Unless I am wrong there are only 140 cases pending before the boards at the present time.

Fewer than that.

I am told it is fewer than that. Let us accept it at 140. It was that the other day, despite the fact that one gets the distinct impression that officialdom has been dragging its feet in referring these cases to the board. This Bill is before Parliament to affect 140 people. Is this reason for legislation of this kind? Think of the bitterness and the disappointment which this can cause! All this effort to create what? 140 people who will never forgive this Minister or the Government for what they are doing. Or is the Minister obsessed with the same idea as the last Minister, namely that he is determined to stop any possible single case of what he calls “creeping integration in South Africa”? I have never heard anything more ridiculous. Are we dealing with human problems or are we dealing with what Mr. Justice Hiemstra described in a recent case as “barren legalisms”? Our first objection against this Bill is, therefore, its retrospective effect.

My second objection is that third-party proposals are to become null and void whether or not they are already in process of hearing by any board or any division of the Supreme Court or the Appeal Court. It does not matter how far that process has advanced. There may be a case before the Appeal Court, or any Supreme Court, which may have been half argued already, counsel fees may have been incurred, the fees of attorneys may have been incurred, but by this legislation that case is set aside, because the objection came from a third party. It is now null and void. Is that the way to treat people? Is that the way to make friends in South Africa? Say for instance you have started a case which is partly heard by the Supreme Court or even by the Appellate Division; you may have incurred heavy costs, but now the whole appeal becomes null and void. Any reclassification you can hope for is thereafter in the hands of the Secretary, because in all probability the time for you to lodge an objection has already lapsed. I think we all accepted that this business of third-party appeals was a way of getting round certain technicalities in the Bill

It was a way of getting round the fact that the period to appeal against your classification had elapsed. We know that. Was it not a very useful safety valved? Does this hon. Minister not realize how frightened, how self-conscious, how ashamed people become when they suddenly find they are classified in a group different from that in which they thought they were living and in which they were accepted before? Does the hon. the Minister not know from his own experience how those people try to cover it up; how they hope against hope it will not be discovered; how they keep quiet about it over the years? Does the hon. the Minister not know how often it happens that they get enmeshed as a result of the operation of the Group Areas Act when they are asked to produce an identity card when they move from one job to another? I have had very many of them in my office. I have seen them weeping because they know what it means to their way of life. It means they will not get the same wages. It means they will not live in the same environment. It means their children will not go to the same sort of schools. In many cases it means their marriage may come onto the rocks. What happens? So often they come to me and ask me to help them to emigrate. I asked them to stay here and fight it out. Does the hon. the Minister know what he is doing to those families? This was a very useful safety valve. It has been retrospectively removed now. With what object? To get that little stud book nicely and clearly up to date; everything nicely regulated according to the rules of the stud book. What does the hon. the Minister say in his reason for this? He says in 1950 we were against third-party objections. He did not say that it was because we were afraid of the poison pen people. Now he says we support them. Yes, of course we do. They have become a useful safety valve, one we could not forsee then. Then he suggested that we moved amendments in 1967 to make this Bill applicable from 1967, so that we knew that the 1967 Bill was retrospective. Of course we did. I have just read Hansard here to show that I knew it was retrospective. My problem was that the Minister did not seem to know it was retrospective at that time. Of course we knew. But because it was an injustice then, has it become any more fair now? I do not see the hon. gentleman’s argument. It is ridiculous to suggest that because we knew in 1967 that the Minister meant it to be retrospective, we should expect retrospective legislation now. It was unfair then. We were against the retrospectivity then. We are still against it and I hope we will remain against it because it is still unfair legislation. What is happening now? The hon. the Minister has been changing definitions. We now have the ridiculous situation that people can marry as Whites under the Mixed Marriages Act and under these new definitions their children will be classified as non-white. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that these are the definitions under the Mixed Marriages Act. These were the one’s included by the late Dr. Dönges. It reads as follows:

Section 3 reads as follows:

Now compare that definition with the one under this amendment. Then one can see at once that two people under the Mixed Marriages Act can be married as Europeans and, because this Minister has changed the definitions and has gone from appearance and acceptance to descent, to make that the primary consideration, those people, or one of them can now be reclassified as Coloured and the children are Coloured. Can hon. members imagine tragedies of that sort?

Look what is happening here as well. Here there are presumptions in favour of the individual claiming to belong to a certain class under the Mixed Marriages Act. Under this Bill, if one claims to be a European, one has to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. There are certain assumptions. Anyone, where there is not proof that he is generally accepted as a white, is assumed to be accepted as a Coloured, no matter what he looks like, even if he has fair hair and blue eyes. How does that compare with the Mixed Marriages Act? What a tangled net are we getting ourselves into! I know that new third-party objections lapsed after 1967; so that all that this provision in the legislation is designed to do, is to prevent the hearing of objections legally and properly lodged before the 1967 Act came into operation. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Two years later, those people have been waiting for more than two years for their cases to come before the Classification Board. That is what it effected. No new third party objections were accepted after 1967. Those people who objected before, have been waiting over two years. Now this Minister introduces legislation and he renders all their objections null and void, no matter how far they have gone. How many, I wonder, can it involve? Are we asked to pass this legislation to do further injustice to this small group of people? Those are two objections to this legislation.

But there is a third major objection, and it is to the provisions of clause 7, which lays down that anyone claiming to be a white person or a Coloured person, must prove that claim beyond reasonable doubt, and not as in the past on the balance of probability. Of course, I know what has happened. There was Backhouse’s case, which came before the court and was decided by Judge Burne in 1967, (3) S.A. 114. From that case it seems, and this is the legal conclusion—

That is not what the Minister wants. Oh no! The Minister says if the person cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, he is Coloured. He is not white.

There was another case, T. against the Secretary for the Interior, 1966 (3) S.A. 565, where, in an appeal from a decision of the board confirming the appellant’s classification as Coloured, the evidence before the court, on a balance of probabilities, revealed that the appellant was not in appearance obviously not a white person and had in recent years been, and still was, generally accepted as a white person, the court allowed the appeal with costs and directed the respondent to alter his classification to that of a white person. That does not satisfy the Minister. No, Sir, in future if anybody wants to be classified as white, he must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Look at the onus this clause places on an objector. Do hon. members know that the lowest criminal in our courts gets the benefit of the doubt if the State cannot prove a case. He gets the benefit of the doubt. That is our law. Any civil case is decided on a balance of probabilities, but in this matter of classification of the individual, probably the most important matter in that individual’s whole life he has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. This new Bill lays down that “hearsay evidence of declarations as to pedigree shall not be admissible in evidence in proceedings before a board”. What other information has a man as to his pedigree? Where does he get it other than hearing about it from his father, mother, his aunts, uncles and grandparents? Where else does he get evidence as to his pedigree? Our South African law recognizes this exception. It has always done so. One can find an example of this in Scoble’s Law of Evidence. The general rule on hearsay is laid down at page 273 as follows:

That is the general rule. With the passage of years, for reasons of finality and equity exceptions have been introduced in all the courts of the civilized world. One of the most notable exceptions is found on page 289, namely declarations as to pedigree. The following is stated:

One could add to this “no other evidence”. What is the hon. the Minister’s reason for refusing to accept this evidence? He says that his Department finds it difficult to introduce evidence to refute what has been said. For the convenience of his Department and to allow him to win cases he should not win, the hon. the Minister is now going to introduce this rule. Is that an answer? What evidence is now left as to the pedigree of an individual? All we have left now are the entries in the hon. gentleman’s “stud book” which may be entirely erroneous. They no longer have to be made by the Secretary, but can be made by any clerk in his Department. Is that being just to these people?

That may be the very point in question.

It may be the very point in question and it often is. One asks oneself why? This is evidence admitted in every court of law. It is evidence that is admitted to prove paternity. It is evidence which is admitted in order to prove one is an heir by law to perhaps one of the biggest estates in the world. But one is not allowed to produce it in establishing whether one is Coloured or White or Bantu, in accordance with this Bill. Why? Why must this be the exception? Is it so unimportant? We know that it is the most important thing in such a person’s life.

We find the provisions of clause 7 to be particularly unsatisfactory when one has regard for the fact that as a result of this Bill the Secretary need no longer apply his mind to these issues and they can become incontrovertibly proved even if made by a clerk in the department who was not duly authorized thereto. One finds this in the new section 21 (A), subsections (5) and (6), inserted by clause 8 of the Bill. These subsections read as follows:

1. (5) If the name of any person has been included in the register and an indication of the race or group to which he belongs is given therein, he shall be deemed to have been classified in terms of section 5 as a member of that race or group.
2. (6) A classification purporting to have been made in terms of section 5 (1) shall not be invalid merely on the ground of the fact that the person by whom such classification purports to have been made was not duly authorized thereto.

In clause 1 of the Bill a new definition of “Secretary” is given as follows:

No longer is it the Secretary with his vast knowledge and his experience and the humanity with which he has tended to approach these cases who deals with these matters, but if any clerk should make an entry it is regarded as being incontrovertible as to a man’s pedigree in the future. Small wonder that in the requests that have come in to me from various societies and churches dealing with this matter there is one thing in common that they asked. This was also suggested in a recent court judgment, namely that senior and experienced officials only should be entrusted with race classifications and should be required to use compassionate discretion.

There is another provision in the Bill which I have difficulty in interpreting completely. It looks to me as if clause 2 (e) of the Bill means that an individual can be reclassified after his death with the resultant effects on his children and grandchildren. The new subsection (6), inserted by clause 2 (e) of the Bill, reads as follows:

I want to be very frank with the hon. the Minister about this matter. I hope I am not misinterpreting this clause. This is how it looks to me. I have had some lawyers look at it and they feel that I am right. It seems so extraordinary to me that I am querying it and want the hon. the Minister to look at it again. If I am right it should be noted that this reclassification will take place under circumstances which make it extremely difficult if not impossible for the children and grandchildren to fight against any change in their classification.

In clause 1 (c) a new subsection (2) (b) is substituted in section 1 of the principal Act and a new assumption is introduced. The paragraph reads as follows:

That means that if you are not a Bantu the assumption is that you are generally accepted as a Coloured person unless you can prove that you are generally accepted as a white person. That means that if a Coloured person claims to be Coloured, then the assumption is that he is generally accepted as a Coloured person. But if a person claims to be white, even though he has fair hair and blue eyes, and as long as he is not a Bantu, the assumption is that he is generally accepted as a Coloured person unless he produces proof that he is generally accepted as a white person. If I read this paragraph with the new section 19 (1) (A) it seems to me that this has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Why? If a man is by general appearance obviously a white person, why must there be an assumption that by acceptance he is a Coloured person until he proves the contrary? Why throw that onus on him? What is the object? It seems to me to be throwing an unnecessary difficulty in his way. I believe it has to do with one of the judgments given recently. I want to quote from the case of Verhoog v. The Secretary for the Interior. In giving judgment the following was said:

I think the Minister wants to avoid that There was another case of this nature. I think it was the case of S. and Another v. The Secretary for the Interior, (1967 (4) S.A. 40). This is what the count held:

I think this is what the Minister wants to get on the Statute Book. But why, Sir? Why place that obstacle in the man’s way if he is obviously a white person in appearance? Why should we support a piece of legislation of this nature?

The last innovation to which I want to draw attention has to do with reclassification by the Secretary mero motu, under clause 2 (b) of the Bill. In terms of the new subsection (4A) it would seem that where a Secretary has doubts as to the classification of an individual, he can refer the matter to a board. There will be no appeal from the board’s decision unless the board has changed the classification. In other words, if the Secretary feels that you should be graded up from Coloured to White, and the board does not agree, there is no appeal to a court, either by the Secretary or the person involved. The Minister says that he has introduced this because this was always the intention. But why was it the intention? Why should there not be an appeal? If the Secretary has doubts, the individual concerned may have doubts himself. He may have very much better reasons than the Secretary. He may be able to advance his case very much better. Why should he not have the right of appeal if he is thrown out? It seems to me that this is all a part of the tidying up process which is carried further by clause 2 (d). Clause 2 (d) amends subsection (5) of the Act by the addition of a new paragraph which makes it impossible for a person to be classified as a white person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person. What does this mean, Sir? It means that no matter how small the amount of Coloured blood there is in a parent, this provision will apply. If one parent is completely white, and the other parent is 95 per cent white …

How do you determine that?

You tell us.

Anybody who deals with genetics will be able to help the hon. member. Books have been written on this subject. Do not ask me to waste time on this matter. It is quite simple. My difficulty is this: If one parent is 5 per cent non-White, the other parent is completely White, and their children are in appearance obviously White and are accepted by white people, they would have been accepted as White and classified as such under the old law. Now they are to be classified as non-White. Why?

White non-Whites.

This applies not only to the child concerned, but to the grandchildren as well. It is a complete departure from the old tests of appearance and acceptance as laid down in 1950, as laid down in 1962, and as outlined in a speech by Senator De Klerk now the President of the Senate, when he was Minister of the Interior. I wonder why? We have had 19 years of this Population Register. In 1962 the Minister told us that there had only been about 300 appeal cases, of which 80 per cent had been successful. Cases are still coming forward, even after 19 years. Sir, I wonder whether you have ever asked yourself why such oases are still coming forward? I think the answer is primarily because the stakes are so high. Imagine what difference it makes in South Africa to-day whether you are European or Coloured. The second reason why these cases are still coming forward is because of the psychological effect on the individuals concerned. What is the effect of being classed in the wong grade? It affects such a person’s children, his job, his marriage and his social contacts and friends. It affects the areas in which such persons may live. It affects the wages they may earn. It affects their whole future in South Africa. It affects their political rights and their municipal rights.

Sir, I have said before that most of us on this side of the House and many on the other side of the House, I am sure, have had many tragic experiences when people have approached them—people wishing to emigrate, people who have made mistakes and who are in danger of prosecution, people whose homes are in danger of breaking up, and people who become engaged and then find that there is a slight infusion of Coloured blood in the other party, although they have always been accepted as European. But still the long agony goes on. It goes on as this Government busies itself trying to close every possible little loophole that might have existed. Where proof on the balance of probabilities was sufficient in the past, proof must now be furnished beyond a reasonable doubt. New presumptions are created and new assumptions are made. The scope and effect of admissions are widened. The attention of the Secretary need no longer be given personally to such matters Old tests are discarded and new tests are applied. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that these new tests are fairer than the old ones? Is he satisfied that they are going to do less social harm in South Africa and that they will create fewer unhappy and disgruntled people who are not going to be our friends in the future? Is he satisfied that these new tests are more reliable than the old tests? Is he satisfied that they are going to lead to more satisfactory results? Above all, Sir, is he satisfied that they are going to be fairer to the parties concerned than the old tests?

Every time I see a piece of legislation amending this Act, it seems to me that it is evidence once again of a complete surrender by this Government, and an admission that the legislation, as it was placed on the Statute Book, was not capable of being administered fairly. Therefore the Minister has had to continue trying to amend this law. He is getting deeper and deeper into a morass, and he is doing more and more injustices than in the past. We cannot support this Bill. There is only one suitable amendment, and I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to reply to all the arguments which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised during his long speech, but my colleagues, who will eventually follow up on what I have said, will deal with each of those points thoroughly. I shall reply to as many of them as possible in the time at my disposal. I may just say that the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made to-day is obviously aimed at the fact that the chief amendments in this Bill deal with certain principles which Parliament tried to entrench in legislation in 1967, and about which doubt now exists. The Leader of the Opposition also admitted this, and therefore his whole argumentation to-day contained, to a large extent, the same arguments he used in 1967 to explain why they were opposed to these principles. The Leader of the Opposition began by asking certain questions. He asked to what Ministers’ decisions we were adhering in this connection. He pointed out that in 1950 Dr. Dönges put forward the criterion of acceptance. This is correct. At that time we put forward the criterion of acceptance. It was a good criterion for that time, until it was grossly exploited and misused. Then Parliament had to take other steps to ensure that that exploitation and misuse would no longer continue. I just want to mention one case. In the time at my disposal I cannot go into details. I just want to tell you that large scale use was made of fabricated evidence in respect of acceptance. I now want to mention one case where a prominent business man, a professional man, took a woman who was obviously a Coloured and lived in sin with her. As a result of that he subsequently landed himself in trouble. He eventually succeeded in having this woman classified as white, notwithstanding the evidence of the woman’s mother and father to the effect that they were Coloureds. The woman’s father is a teacher and the principal of a Coloured school, but how did this professional man, who could afford it, win his case? Because he could bring forward sufficient artificial evidence of acceptance. And what did he do? He took that woman to leading hotels, for example to the Lanzerac and Mount Nelson hotels. Parties were held there and photographs were taken of them. Eventually he called these hotel proprietors as witnesses. What else could they do? He said: You did, in fact, allow the woman to enter, and normally you are not allowed to do such a thing. And the people were compelled to substantiate the evidence, i.e. that they accepted that woman as a guest. What repercussions does this have to-day in the community where that man and woman are living? Other hon. members could give evidence here of what disruption it causes in a community. That is what happened, and therefore we must eventually add appearance to acceptance, to strengthen the criterion.

Was the reclassification of the professional man done by the board or by a court of law?

The board classified his wife and not him. Then we introduced appearance. What happened then? Eventually such a farce was made of it that, during examinations, applicants circled the centre of a hall like show animals. Certain people who had to do the judging then looked them up and down. One of them would then say: No, he looks white to me. Another would say: He does not look to me as if he could pass as a Coloured. Classifications were then made accordingly.

Originally we could get along with this criterion, but in time we progressed and the great body of classification was completed. To-day we are dealing with the sorting out of the very difficult border cases. To-day that criterion is no longer sufficient. Nineteen years have elapsed. After all these years we have found that, particularly for these exceptional cases, it is necessary to add other provisions and to make the criterion more stringent. I shall come back to that at a later stage.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that the hon. the Minister must remember that he cannot quote Hansard when the Act must be interpreted. Neither is this what we are contemplating to-day. The Court passed its judgment. In certain cases the Court passed a judgment opposite to that upon which we had decided here in Parliament, and opposite to what Parliament intended. The Court has every right to such a decision. I do not dispute this and I am not criticizing the Court. The fact is that this Parliament is now merely reaffirming its intentions. That is what we are doing. We do not want to interpret the law. We merely want to furnish proof from Hansard. This we can do. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to accept the fact that we can prove from Hansard, as the hon. the Minister said, that it was our intention to entrench certain aspects in legislation in 1967. Uncertainty existed about that, and that uncertainty, whether by interpretation of the courts or otherwise, we are now removing.

The crux of this entire matter actually involves only two major principles. The one is whether descent should be used as a determining criterion in classification. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition conceded that the intention of section 5 (5), which was introduced in 1967, was that descent should in all respects be the determining factor in classification and reclassification. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted this and it is not necessary for me to prove it. In Hansard, no less than five or six times, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated frankly that this was the position as the Act reads at present. We have all accepted it as such, but there is uncertainty about it outside. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect us to do? Must we simply let the uncertainty continue? All that is being done now is that the hon. the Minister wants to try to remove that uncertainty by stating frankly that, notwithstanding provisions to the contrary, the board and the courts will classify according to descent.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked why we were constantly fiddling with law amendments and said that it appears to him as if we were now trying to take it out on the few remaining cases. His argument is that we must let these cases go through, even though all become white. If we adopt the attitude he wants us to adopt, does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think it would stop with those few cases? There will immediately be a flood of third party and other objections. The hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to this in a previous debate. The question was also asked about why there are still people today who constantly come forward with objections. The fact is that these people are incited by third parties. As the hon. member for Stellenbosch said, certain agents pay as much as R150 per head for a third party case which is entrusted to them. People do not object to their classifications on their own initiative. Other people are incited by money to object to the classifications of certain persons. That is the difference. The whole point is our approach. As the hon. the Minister said, this legislation is a definite obstacle in the way of the Opposition eventually leading South Africa into racial integration. That is the Opposition’s object. Before a number of young United Party supporters the hon. member for Bezuidenhout recently said that the first thing the United Party members would do would be to tear up this Act.

That is so.

Yes, he said it again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave very clear evidence of what his party’s view in this matters was. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Minister was closing off the stud book and doing away with the appendix. The actual meaning of an appendix to a stud book is something which was debated here. An hon. member pointed out it is those animals with mixed blood which are not pure of race. That is the appendix which is part of the stud book.

Then the hon. member for Sea Point came along and clarified that. That hon. member said that the United Party believed in an up-breeding process. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated it more carefully in the following words (translation)—

If this is our approach to this problem, we can adopt the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They believe in an up-breeding process. They believe that one should strengthen the white population with people of mixed blood. We reject this. We believe in racial purity. This is a basic point of departure. If you believe in what the hon. the Minister said, i.e. that there is a task of maintaining racial purity in this country, you must do what we are doing in this legislation and this law amendment. But if you believe in an up-breeding process in order to regard people of mixed blood as an appendage, thereby constantly strengthening the white population, as the Leader of the Opposition wants, you are, of course, adopting his view.

There is a second very important aspect involved in this amendment, i.e. the abolition of third party objections with retrospective effect. There is no doubt about that. It was very clearly the intention of this Parliament which represents the will of the people. Since then, by way of a judgment, the Court has interpreted it differently. But we cannot allow that confusion to continue. It is the duty of the Minister to let the will of Parliament prevail and that is why this legislation is at present before the House. At the time the hon. member for Musgrave elaborated on the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). In Hansard of 17th April, 1967 (Col. 4330), he said: “The object of this amendment is to preserve those third party objections which have already been lodged with the Secretary.” That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now objecting to so strongly once more. He is objecting to the fact that objections which were submitted legally would now fall away, but this was the intention of the Act. The hon. member for Musgrave said—

It is as clear as daylight that not only the Minister, but the entire Opposition and Parliament, were unanimous in their view that the legislation, as placed on the Statute Book in 1967, abolished third party objections with retrospective effect to 1950. However, in its wisdom the Court placed another interpretation on that and therefore it is necessary to-day for us to reaffirm the will of Parliament. We must therefore argue about the same principle again and that is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition brought up the same old arguments here again to-day.

I merely want to point out that the insertion of these third party objections, the abolition of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party so vehemently object to, was opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition in the original Act in 1950. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition conveniently remembers about the acceptance criterion which the then Minister wrote into the Act, but he forgets that that was also part of the Act at the time and that he and his party regarded this clause, which is concerned with third party objections, as the witch hunt clause which the National Party supposedly incorporated in the Act in order to drag innocent people to court to have their classifications changed from white to Coloured. These accusations have been made against us for years. Over the past 18 years, however, there has been no proof that one single accusation against us could be substantiated.

It is a fact that we have amended this Act on various occasions. It was necessary as a result of judgments given by the Court. It would have been impossible to administer the Act if we had not, from time to time, amended the Act as a result of court judgments. It is also a fact that we gradually learned that the Act could be made more efficient and that with every amendment we introduced clauses into the Act which made the Act far more streamlined. The amendments made the Act much more practical and easier to implement. The Department has a difficult task administering this Act. I think the Opposition will concede that with this amendment we are also making certain changes to improve the Act.

I want to refer, for example, to clause 2 which amends section 5 (4) of the Act, about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke. This amendment now gives the Secretary the opportunity to act in a certain way when he entertains doubts about a case of the revising of a classification. The Secretary can then refer a case to the board without letting the person concerned know in what respects he thinks his classification to be wrong. I think this is an excellent addition to the Act. According to these amendments an applicant is now also being afforded the right to request that his hearing in court be in camera. I think that even those hon. members ought to praise this arrangement as a good amendment. The nastiest and the most dismal publicity was given to these matters. Members on that side of the House and people outside Parliament frequently derived pleasure from reading these tearful stories in the newspapers. They also encouraged them. I think these people will be very grateful to the Government for introducing this provision into the Act now, so that they can also have the privilege, which they already have in the case of the board, of conducting their cases in camera. I do not know how hon. members opposite are going to get their publicity in connection with this Act in future. While the Court was, since 1967, merely a revising body, it is now being empowered to refer certain aspects of a matter back to the board for further investigation. The Court can also give certain instructions to the board to carry out. I think the Opposition will accept these amendments as excellent ones. Then there is also the removal of the so-called discrimination against minors. This is also being done away with now. I say that the hon. members opposite could at least say that improvements have also been brought about. Why do they keep silent about that?

In conclusion I want to say that each time we have amended this Act, the United Party has tried to make an occasion of it. They used it as an occasion for whipping up the maximum amount of emotional and hysterical feeling. On each occasion a flood of accusations was made by those hon. members against this side of the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now spoke of “vicious” once more. We merely have to wait until other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Wynberg, address the House. Then we shall hear of “inhuman, harsh and vicious measures”. Then we shall hear about the heartless persecution, the extremely vicious actions and the tragedies of witch hunts. We shall still hear all these things in the debate.

But are they not true?

Although these accusations have been flung at our heads for 19 years, it is nevertheless a fact that there is no one to-day who can stand up in this House and prove the truth of one of the accusations. Those are the facts. That hon. member who is mumbling like that must get up and prove a single instance of truth in the accusations made here. They have never been verified. Then hon. members must not simply make accusations either. If they want separation in this country they must also tell us how they want to bring this about. If they want separation in respect of residential areas, schools, universities, council chambers and voters’ rolls, as they pretend to want in certain respects, they must tell us how they will bring that separation about if, like the hon member for Bezuidenhout, they want to tear this Act up. How do they want to bring it about if there is no instrument such as this Act to make that classification of people into certain groups possible?

The fact that this Act has been amended on several occasions, proves that it is being applied with the necessary flexibility and with the greatest degree of humanity and reasonableness. We know that it is a difficult task and that we are dealing with human relationships, but one thing is certain. We are always hearing about tragedies in this House; we never hear the other side of the story. We do not hear of the thousands of people in this country over which a cloud of uncertainty hung. We do not hear about them and about their children who constantly lived under a cloud of doubt and uncertainty in those slums. Those were people who could never come forward, but who, with the aid of this Act, find the sun shining over them once more. Those are people to whom the benefit of the doubt, of Secretary, board and court, is given. They are people for whom the hell of uncertainty has been eliminated, but we never hear of those cases. They are people for whom a new life is opening up and who would otherwise have lived for ever under this guillotine of uncertainty, but we do not hear about that. We always hear only of the tragedies. If only we could hear the other side of the story! The fact is that, as a result of the actions of hon. members opposite and people outside, many of these tragedies are aggravated to a much larger extent than would have been the case if they had followed the normal channels and sought their own salvation. Sir, I say that this Bill is essential. Nineteen years have passed since 1950, when the Act was passed, and what was quite valid in 1950 is no longer valid to-day, because there are so many people who try to exploit and abuse these matters, who try to exploit people‘s suffering and sorrow for their own advantage.

Mr Speaker, I was very interested in what the hon. member for Parow had to say about people who sought publicity with regard to action taken to assist people in terms of this law. May I say that all the publicity that I received recently in this connection was due entirely to the offensive comments of the hon. member for Parow about me in this House. I would like to tell the hon. member that I have helped hundreds and hundreds of cases. He is most contemptuous about this. But may I say that in the case of all the people I have tried to help over the years, my name as an individual has never appeared in any hearing before a board or a court of any description. It is absolutely untrue and unjust to suggest that people who have been concerned to help these people were in fact seeking publicity.

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon made it quite clear, I think, for all the comments of the hon. member for Parow, that unhappiness of one kind or another has been part and parcel of the application of this Population Registration Act for many years. We have repeatedly made the charge, especially those of us who have tried to help so many of these border-line cases, that the Act in fact is unworkable.

Do you want to withdraw it?

Sir, the fact is that human ingenuity is such that it almost always finds a way around the provisions of this Act, which has been and remains remarkable for the sheer impossibility of so many of its assumptions. I would say, despite this Bill with which we are faced to-day, that this story is by no means over. I think this Bill will create as many problems as its predecessors and the problems it sets out to solve. Sir, the series of Court decisions given in an attempt to interpret the intentions of the Act during the past 19 years have almost all favoured the appellants and not the Department, as the hon. the Minister knows. His predecessor said in December, 1966—

He added that the Government was determined “to make the Act work and would put matters right”. Of course, the fallacy in the Minister’s attitude lay in the suggestion that a decision given by the Supreme Court could be “against the Government”. It is nothing of the kind. It is not the function of the courts to oppose a government. What the Supreme Court does is to review the findings of facts —or the law as applied to the facts by an administrative tribunal such as the Population Appeal Board—no more and no less. Let me say at once that the Act itself is bad enough, but it becomes ten times worse when the right of appeal is restricted, and this Bill sets out severely to curtail existing rights of appeal, something of which we on this side of the House cannot under any circumstances approve. Sir, because no other country in the world has laws of this type, the difficult cases continually arising out of the application of this Act attract unwelcome attention both here and overseas. This is inevitable and this, clearly, as I interpret it, is the reason why an appellant in any future appeal to the courts, is now to be given the option of having his case heard in camera (as set out in clause 3 (d)), although I must say that to date both the courts and the Press have shown the greatest discretion in handling the personalities involved in all cases taken on appeal.

Sir, whenever the Population Registration Act is discussed in this House we are jeeringly told not to come here with our “hard-luck stories”. To bring home to the House the reality of the hardships and suffering involved, I want to quote from a leading Nationalist intellectual, whom I would be glad to hear the hon. member for Parow dismiss, one of his own leading intellectuals, at whose feet I have no doubt he sits, the editor of Die Burger, Mr. Piet Cillié. Last year when we were debating this legislation Mr. Cillié wrote a leading article in which he said this—

Sir, this is the editor of Die Burger—

And he is quite right—

I would like to hear the hon. member for Parow say that he disagrees with that statement.

He reads Veg; he is a Veg-man.

Sir, there are five basic elements in the Act which, in turn, are reflected in this amending Bill. They concern administrative classification; definition of a “white person”; onus of proof; access to the race classification Appeal Board; and access to the Supreme Court. The history of the amending legislation shows that in each of these aspects (a) legislation has been put through without sufficient thought, because the Supreme Court has had to deal with vague and inadequate wording, and this is implicit in the Bill before the House; (b) the Minister’s predecessor has sought progressively to cut down the classes of persons classifiable as White; (c) the Government seems to be playing some incredible game with the courts where this legislation is concerned; that is to say, they introduce legislation, see what the courts make of it and then block any kind of loophole that the courts may have exposed. We have the ridiculous situation that to all intents and purposes it has been a very strange and consistent process of legislation through the courts and nothing else. May I say that of eighteen cases taken on appeal against the decision of a board from 1960 to 1966, the board lost 17.

Sir, the first aspect to which I have referred is administrative classification, and I want to relate this to court judgments. Section 5 (1) of the Act provides that every person must be classified by the Secretary. The Secretary is defined in section 1 as including any officer acting under a delegation from or under the control or direction of the Secretary. This obviously did not, until now, include any ordinary clerk in the department. But this is now being altered, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, by clause 1 (b) of the Bill, so that classification can be effected by any person employed by the State. It is quite clear from clause 1 (b) of the Bill that the substitution of the definition “Secretary” or “officer” by “any person employed by the State or the holder of a post in the Public Service” acting under delegated powers, is the direct result of an important point included in Mr. Justice Beyers’ judgment early in the New Year in which he said that “the law required the Secretary of the Interior, or officers especially appointed by him, to bring independent minds to bear upon classification cases that came before them”. But, Sir, the Judge President’s subsequent comment was much more important; he stated that he hoped his decision would “bring to an end past procedures of classification on what is virtually a mass scale merely by following the 1951 census records or other indirect evidence, such as what has been recorded by registry clerks on birth certificates”. Well, the hon. Judge President’s hopes have not been fulfilled, as we see from the Bill before us. In terms of this Bill all decisions already made by departmental officials retrospective to July, 1950 are now validated and cannot, in effect, be challenged. In other words, census forms that were filled in by enumerators, or birth certificates completed by registry clerks, who may have made incorrect judgments in regard to a person’s race, are now to be valid for all time. It looks as though mass classification by officials of the department on the evidence of the 1951 census returns and/or birth certificates, whether altered at any stage or not, is now to be the order of the day.

That is in 8 (5).

That is clause 8 (5) The Secretary or any “officer” will no longer be required to give their minds to the matter. I would say that the gross unfairness of this provision in deciding for all time to which race group an individual belongs merely by reference to the 1951 census forms is proved by the fact that officials of the department have publicly admitted that part of their instructions to the enumerators in the course of the 1951, or any subsequent census, was to make a personal assessment regarding people who appeared to them to be Coloured. Sir, I have an original letter in my file, written to me while we were discussing the 1967 Bill, by one of the men who was an enumerator for the department in 1951, by one of the men who was an enumerator for the department in 1951. I quoted it in this House once before. He wrote to me on 7th March, 1967, and this is what he said—

I have his name here; it is a bona fide letter. The hon. the Minister knows that when there is a general registration or a census, paragraph 9 of the instructions to canvassers issued to officials of his department all over the country, reads as follows—

That is in the mind of some person who is paid a few rand a day to go round to sign up people!

At night in bad light.

In other words, up on the purely subjective assessment and possibly ignorant one of an enumerator with no qualifications for the task, a person hired by the Department by the day for the purpose of assisting in the compilation of a census or an election registration, are such final and devastating judgments often made in these cases.

The other thing with which I want to deal is the definition of a white person, which was touched on by my Leader as well. The basic definition contained in section 2 of the 1950 Act, was substituted by section 1 of Act 61 of 1962. This used the concepts of appearance and general acceptance. Descent was used only as an excluding proviso where there was an admission of non-white descent, and this admission was rebuttable. The Supreme Court at that time held two things in regard to general acceptance, and here I quote from the judgment of Mr. Justice Snyman in 1962. The basic sentence reads as follows—

A similar interpretation was given by Mr. Justice Tebbutt in 1967 in the Cape Supreme Court, and this is what he said—

This lines up completely with what Minister De Klerk said in this House in 1962. Here again, Sir, this eminently reasonable interpretation was reversed by the Government in 1967. The information appearing on a census form is deemed to be conclusive proof, and I will deal later on with the question of voluntary admissions by persons that they belong to a particular race group. This means that there can now no longer be any chance of acceptance, even if, for example, the previous acceptance was clearly based on mistaken facts. For instance, this could happen where a child —and the Minister must know of these cases —who is White by appearance and descent was adopted by Coloured parents, and was accepted for that reason only, and for a limited period as a Coloured person. I have handled cases like that myself. The Minister has not been in his portfolio long enough to know, but his Department knows about it.

The Supreme Court also held that general acceptance need not be absolute or without exception. That was part of Judge Snyman’s judgment. This equally and eminently reasonable interpretation was also reversed by the Government in 1967 and it is now provided that a person must be accepted as White as to his residence, employment, social mixing and family associations. This means in practical terms that a person White in appearance and by descent, who has a Coloured clock card at work—and I have had cases like this —only because his employer knows that his reclassification as White is pending or under consideration he cannot therefore be reclassified. These tests have even been known to be applicable to a small child, even though he may be incapable of forming associations, as the case of Poggenpoel v. Secretary for the Interior in 1968 proved. I really want to know how ridiculous one can get! I have been present at a number of hearings of the Appeal Board in Cape Town, and I strongly believe that if there is to be any fairness at all, the only reasonable and practical test is general acceptance at the time of the hearing. Appearance and descent should not be blown up into separate tests since, the world being what it is, they form a natural part of the process of general acceptance. Mr. Justice Fagan commented on this in the first judgment of this kind delivered in 1950, when he said that any attempt to draw a definite dividing line when the Creator himself has blurred it, is unreal and artificial. In fact, the excluding proviso as to admission of descent operated only if there was an admission by the person himself that he had a preponderance of Coloured blood. The Minister knows the various cases involved, but this concept was again drastically altered by Parliament in 1967 and the effect was that there would be deemed to have been an admission of descent if in any census form or registration application or identity card application, completed and signed by the person or by his spouse or guardian, there appeared a statement that he was not a white person or was mixed. The extension to include a spouse or guardian made a mockery of the concept of a free and voluntary admission. It just makes nonsense of it. Now the Minister says he is moving an amendment to the present section 1 (d), which really would have made it a total farce by providing that the document may have been completed by anyone. But he is moving an amendment to that.

I now come to the question of onus. The original section 19 provided that a person who was obviously white in appearance was presumed to be white until the contrary was proved, but here the Government once again changed its approach. This was repealed in 1967 and the position reversed by a new section which provided that despite obvious appearance, a person is assumed to be generally accepted as a Coloured person in the absence of proof that he is generally accepted as a white person. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correct in stating that the courts have consistently held that, apart from the express presumptions, there was no onus of proof in classification proceedings, and the board or court decided on a balance of probabilities, but the present Bill introduces the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Up to now, as far as I know, this concept has been known only in criminal law. I submit that it will be impossible of application. How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt an issue of this kind?

Then there is the question of access to the board. I would just like to say that in regard to the onus of proof, I would like to quote from a judgment by Mr. Justice Hiemstra in 1957 in an appeal case under the Population Registration Act. This is what the judge said—

And then he ended up by saying—

At that time the Secretary was called the Director.

Now I come back to the question of access to the board. The original Act provided for third party objections. This was eminently reasonable because there were people who never received their non-white identity cards but could never actually prove this. There are people who, having received their non-white cards, were genuinely ignorant of the law and of the 30-day or one-year requirement in which to lodge an objection. The mass of people were never aware of that fact. And there are other categories who were ashamed of their Coloured card, put it away for reasons of embarrassment, and hoped to brave it out. These on the whole are the people who have come to us for help. Now the 1967 Act abolished the third party procedure, and now this Bill is going to abolish even those appeals that are outstanding, and they are to be struck off. But when Mr. Justice Hiemstra pronounced on the Brown case in the Transvaal, it was he who said in giving judgment that, because the Department had classified one party to the marriage as White and the other party as non-White—and it has happened in hundreds of cases—the fact that a man and his wife are now classified into different race groups is highly unsatisfactory and must be utterly mystifying to them, and that they had lost the appeal, not on substance, but because of sterile legalisms, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said. The original Act provided that a person could appeal from the board to the Supreme Court, which would inquire into and consider the matter. This gave the court the power to observe the appellant and to re-hear witnesses and to hear further evidence. Obviously the court never went beyong the record, except on good cause being shown. But this power of the court was abolished in 1967, when the new section provided that the court might only confirm, vary or set aside the decision of the board. This means that the Supreme Court is bound by the board’s visual findings as to appearance, however arbitrary it may have been.

Over and over again, as I have tried to show, the decisions of our courts have been deliberately reversed by legislation to an almost farcical extent. This, surely, is the outstanding proof, if any is needed, of the impossibility of legislating for the total control of human relationships in South African society. I may say that South African society has proved itself quite capable of judging these things for itself in the past, long before legislation was introduced. In 1967 I asked the hon. the Minister in this House for an assurance that some kind of relief, some kind of appeal, would always be available to these doubtful cases, and I want to tell hon. members what his answer was. He said—

In other words, he admitted that the legislation is a mess. [Interjection.] This was in 1967. And the Minister was quite correct, and I predict that this Bill will prove to be just as futile in the end when it comes to dealing with these people. But how practical is this Bill? The Minister in that debate went on to give some figures, and he said that by mentioning these figures he wanted to prove that race classification is practicable in South Africa. He had just told the House that over ¼ million cases had had to be investigated by the Department because they were not quite sure how they should be classified. So, how practical is this legislation under those circumstances? The Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned that this Bill is being amended now for the eighth time. Every two or three years since its introduction we have had these amendments. The situation has become quite impossible. The basic cause of the Government’s failure is that they find it impossible to produce a suitable foolproof criterion for the assessment or definition of “race”. This is not something you can define in strict terms anywhere in the world, and they have jumped from one basis to another over the years, placing the emphasis first on descent and then on appearance and acceptance, and then on a person’s manner of living, and then back to descent as the basic criterion in 1967, and finally as a desperate last resort, to this so-called voluntary admission of belonging to a specific race group because of what an individual is claimed to have written on his census form in 1951. Section 5 (c) of the Bill can only be described—and I repeat the word used by the Leader of the Opposition—as vicious. Its effect is that in cases falling within section 5, where the Secretary has reclassified, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the person has unsuccessfully objected before the board. This is all the more serious in view of the fact that the “Secretary”, who makes racial classifications, is no longer defined as the Secretary for the Interior but may now be “any person employed by the State or a holder of a post in the Public Service”. This means that it will be possible for a relatively junior and inexperienced official to determine a citizen’s racial group, with all the consequences this can have for him in our society, without that citizen being able to exercise the normal democratic right of appeal to the courts.

Did you write that speech yourself?

I wrote and make my own speech; the Department did not do it for me.

One of the main objections I have to this legislation is the fact that over the years, from the time this Act was first promulgated, no notice has ever been given by the Department to members of the general public when they receive their identity cards warning them of the time limit of 30 days or of the Minister’s right to exercise his discretion within a year. [Interjection.] They could easily have warned the public when they sent out these identity cards that if they wished to object they would have to send in a statutory objection and that a letter to the Department was no good; that it had to be in the form of a sworn statement and that it had to be done within a limited period. This has never been done and I think this is an extremely unfair way of handling members of the public whose lives are very much affected by the provisions of this Act. When I asked the Minister in the House about this a few years ago, he said it was not considered necessary because the provisions of the Bill were perfectly clear for anyone to read. Well, the Minister must know that members of the public are not given to reading the Population Registration Act as light literature, and in plain words I would say that the Department and the Minister have been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in this regard.

Now there is one more point before I conclude, and that is that I think a new witch-hunt is just about to be started and it will circle around attempts to classify into watertight compartments people who are a mixture of Coloured and Bantu. That is clearly referred to in clause 5 of the Bill and I would like to know how the Minister is going to do it. In view of the appalling illegitimacy rate amongst Coloured people in the Western Cape —over 30 per cent of the Coloured birth-rate in the municipal area of Cape Town is illegitimate, and most of these children have been fathered on Coloured girls by migrant Bantu labourers from the Transkei and other places. There were 122,000 illegitimate Coloured babies born in the Republic between 1965 and 1968. How many of those are a mixture of Bantu and Coloured? We heard the Minister of Planning telling us that a survey had been undertaken for housing purposes to divide these people up. So now when we are finished with the Whites and the last 140 have been struck off the appeal rolls, we will be faced with thousands and thousands of Coloured and Bantu who have to be classified and then this Act is going to descend upon their unhappy heads as well. I would like the Minister to tell us how he thinks he is going to do that. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

A little earlier in this debate the hon. member for Parow made a statement that we on this side wanted to breed—“teel” was the term he used—a better white group by crossing with the pure Whites of South Africa persons of mixed blood. If ever I heard an unfortunate, vicious, nasty and irresponsible statement made in this House, it was that one. [Interjections.] Sir, I mean every word of what I have said.

We did not need an Immorality Act to keep us White!

Order! What did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say?

I said, Mr. Speaker, that we did not need an Immorality Act to keep us White.

Who needed it?

I don’t know, Sir.

The hon. member must immediately withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this an attempt by the hon. member to smear the United Party. I want to say to him that this is a vain attempt, because the thinking people of South Africa know the truth in this matter. They know that there is no such intention at all behind the United Party’s policy. I want to challenge the hon. member or any of his colleagues on that side to prove to this House that even 80 per cent of the so-called white people in this country, those people who are walking around with identity cards with a “W” on them, do not have a drop of Coloured blood in their veins. I put that challenge in all seriousness as a reply to that statement, that nasty insinuation of the hon. member.

I want to say that this Bill is merely another manifestation of what is going on in the minds of this Government. It is another manifestation of the trouble they have got themselves into as a result of the Act which was passed in 1950. Where people have been classified for 17 years under one set of rules, where the test was appearance and general acceptance, as from 1967 the children of those people are now going to be classified under a different set of rules, where heredity comes into the picture. If a person looked White and was generally accepted as White, he received a card with a “W” on it, irrespective of what he was. Now those people are producing children. Some of those children are very obviously not White, but in terms of the amendment that was passed in 1967, they must receive cards with a “W” on them. They are classified as White. Does this not make a mockery of the whole business we are dealing with now? But there is not continuity. People who are very obviously not White, are being classified as White. People who very obviously are not Coloured, are being classified as Coloured. As the hon. member for Wynberg pointed out, this is only the beginning. When we look at the other provisions of this Bill, we find that we are now entrenching seven different categories of Coloureds. What is the hon. the Minister and his overworked department going to do when they try to classify and compartmentalize those seven different groups of Coloureds?

I want to say that this Bill is another manifestation of the xenophobia of this Government, of its passion for neatness, of its passion for dividing the South African nation into weird compartments, putting each person into his right compartment. I want to say that now we find, and it is now finally decided in this Bill which is before the House to-day, that the passport to each compartment is to be the pedigree of the person. As I have just pointed out, that pedigree to-day means nothing. It is a complete mockery, when one considers this Bill and its parent Act, and the course which it has travelled in the last 19 years. The object of this Bill is to enable persons to establish their pedigrees and, therefore, to obtain their passports into the various compartments into which the hon. the Minister wants to put them.

We had a problem in 1950. At least, the Government had a problem, not South Africa. They devised a plan and they introduced a Bill which became the Population Registration Act, 19 years ago. In these 19 years there have been eight major amendments and it has been further amended on two occasions by General Law Amendment Acts. What has been the effect of that Act and the amendments which have been passed? It was essential, if people of different creeds, colours and cultures were to live together in any one country, that certain natural instincts had to be suppressed or, at the very least, kept under rigid control —I think particularly of the instincts of race prejudice and of nationalism—especially when one finds that one group has advantages over others, when certain advantages pertain to persons of one group and disadvantages to persons of another group. The effect of this Act, this blot on the Statute Book of South Africa, has been to foster and encourage these very feelings which should have been kept under control. Nationalism and race prejudice have been transformed into political ideals by this legislation. This idea is spreading, as is shown in this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, there is this provision for the sub-classification —that might be the right term—of the Coloured people into seven sub-groups. I believe that this has been asked for by the Coloured community. It has been brought about by a class consciousness, a snobbishness among those people, brought about by this very sort of legislation. We find now that, if this Bill is passed, their children will be registered as one of the following: as Cape Coloured, Malay, Griqua, Chinese, Indian, Zanzibari or the most amazing of all, “other Coloured”. This is just putting them into compartments.

What is wrong with it?

I accept that as the mentality, the thinking, of the hon. member. What is wrong with it? I have just been pointing out to the hon. member what is wrong with it.

The matter that I really want to discuss with the House this evening, is found in clauses 1 to 8 of the Bill. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the Minister’s stud book. Section 3 of the Act provides that the stud book shall be compiled primarily from information received from census forms and the returns of the April, 1951, census. Many people were employed by the Government to undertake that census. They were called enumerators and they received certain instructions to fill in certain forms where the persons themselves were unable to do so. The hon. member for Wynberg has mentioned one case and I want to tell this House that amongst the many things I have done in my life I was one of the enumerators employed by this Government in 1951. I received those instructions and one of the instructions we received was that the question as to race was not to be left blank, but had to be filled in, if necessary, by the enumerator himself. The enumerator had to decide what was the race of the person concerned, whether he was Bantu, White or Coloured.

Did they give you a definition?

No definition was given. The same importance was not placed on the question of race in 1951 as it is to-day, in 1969. In 1951 it meant little to anybody. How many people said that they were “mixed” when they placed a completely different connotation on the term “mixed” from that which is placed by the Act to-day? To-day we have a completely different connotation. To-day that classification in terms of the new section 21 A taken as being gospel. That person is deemed to have been classified by that enumeration in 1951: It is now up to that person to refute that classification which was, as in my case, done by a young man of 22 who was completely inexperienced and who did not have a definition to guide him as to what a person of mixed race is. This is the load that this hon. Minister and this Government want to place on my young shoulders. They want to put the load on my shoulders that I then possibly determined the fate of thousands of people in this country as to what their future was to be because of this compartmentalizing where certain benefits accrue if you belong to a certain compartment.

They were not aware that you said so.

It is no good making fun of this.

Mr. Speaker. I should like to hear from the hon. member whether he maintains that one single person who in 1951 was thus classified as “mixed”, but who is White, is classified to-day as a Coloured.

That is not the point at all. The fact remains that the Minister is now taking the power to accept that classification, and I mean classifications which were made by young enumerators, many of whom were students.

And it is written in the registers.

Yes, it is written in the register. Once it is written in that register, which is compiled from the census forms, then it is a classification until the contrary is proved by the applicant. Perhaps I can answer the hon. member who has asked the question, best by giving him an example. I want to tell him that to-day I know of none who are classified as Coloured. But there were some who were classified as Coloured till last year. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who was here earlier, knows that I took a case to him last year. I should like to give history of this case to this House. A man came from England with his wife in about 1910. They were both obviously Europeans. They settled in a small village in Southern Natal. They had three daughters. In 1945 the wife died; the three daughters were married with families of their own, they had moved away and they had rather lost touch with their parents. There is a moral to this story and it is. “Please look after your old people.” The father was left on his own. He was then nearly 70 years of age and he had no one to look after him. A Coloured woman took pity on him and looked after him. He subsequently married her and moved into the Coloured township. There was nothing against his marrying her at that time. He moved into that Coloured township, he lived with her and that is where he was in 1951 when the enumerator came around. The enumerator said to him: “But you are a White man, why are you living here with the Coloureds?” He said: “Look, I am over 70. I have not got long to go! just leave me in peace here with the only people who will look after me.” Then the enumerator said to him, “Then I must put on your form that you are a Coloured”. He said: “Put what you like on the form; Just leave me in peace.” This came to light when the birth of one of the third generation after him had to be registered. Then eventually, it came out that the daughters who received cards with “C” ’s were so ashamed that they tore them up rather than tell their husbands. This has happened in hundreds of cases and the hon. the Minister knows it. They were ashamed to tell their husbands and tore up the cards. When eventually the time came that they found that they had to have cards, they tried to appeal. They were told by the department that there is no appeal. Eventually, as I say, with the third generation, when there were nearly 30 people involved, the appeal was made to me. I must say that I had a very sympathetic hearing from the hon. member from Oudtshoorn who was then the Minister, and from the department. This matter was put right, but that is the answer to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. There were people who were incorrectly classified as a result of that census enumeration. This is the whole point. This hon. Minister is asking us to put into our law to-day that any writing which appeared on a census form in 1951, which was done by inexperienced people and by people who did not have a definition to guide them, will decide the fate and the destiny of thousands and thousands of people in this country. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of my Leader, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I reject this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when dealing with a subject such as this involving the question of human existence and everything it entails, and when it gives rise to matters such as those which have become evident in this debate, it is probably necessary for every responsible member of the community to exercise self-control. When dealing with matters involving an entire population, i.e. Whites, Coloured and Bantu persons—and I am referring now to the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down—one is struck by how one can be the slave of uncontrolled language if one does not bear in mind the merits of the case. When words such as “vicious”, “nasty” and “irresponsible” are used …

And what do you know about it?

The hon. member for Durban (North) asks me what I know about it? I admit I do not know what it is like to be “vicious”. I am not trying to be vicious; I am not trying to be nasty; I am not trying to be irresponsible either. If the hon. member knows more about it than I do, “I bow to his superior knowledge.”

I want to try rather to treat this matter on its merits and in as calm a manner as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done to a large extent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements and I think it is necessary that they be replied to. He will forgive me if even a junior member replies to them.

The hon. the Leader made certain allegations as regards previous leaders of the National Party who were supposed to adopt attitudes which differed from those adopted by the present Minister. I have gone to the trouble to go into this matter, not only as far as this debate is concerned, but also as regards the debate of 1967, when an amendment to the Population Registration Act was discussed. After I had subsequently examined the records of the National Party since the initial years of its existence, I ascertained that it had been telling the same story both to the rural areas and the urban areas. Through the years the National Party expounded the same policy for both the rural areas and the urban areas, for the Coloureds, the Whites and the Bantu. What the National Party tells the English-speaking people it tells the Afrikaans-speaking people, and what the National Party was saying in 1950 it is saying now, in 1969. I shall try to quote this from Hansard, which is the best evidence I have at my disposal. Of course, I was not a member of this House at that time.

In 1950, when legislation was introduced in this House and which subsequently became known as the Population Registration Act, the then hon. the Minister advanced certain reasons and various factors which had made it necessary for him to introduce the Population Registration Act. Hon. members who were in this House at that time will recall that this Act was introduced after a delay of more than one year and after promises had been made that it would be introduced. In introducing the Bill in 1950 the hon. the Minister apologized for the fact that the Bill had not been introduced immediately after the speech from the Throne delivered at that time and during which mention was made of this legislation. However, he said there were sound reasons for this delay. He pointed out that, in the case of a Bill such as that one, and particularly in a country with a population such as that in South Africa, there were certain problems that had to be faced and had to be carefully considered before an Act of that kind could be introduced. The hon. the Minister also pointed out that, despite the fact that he had at his disposal the report of a commission of 1955 and others, he specially detailed certain people to visit countries overseas, inter alia, Great Britain, to collect information in connection with a system of a population register, or, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition preferred to call it since that time, the so-called “stud book”. This “stud book” exists in England as well as in other countries. That stud book, as it was called by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, had been studied in Holland before that time. However, the hon. the Minister did not want to act on the evidence obtained in only one country. He waited until further evidence had been obtained He reported fully on these matters. In his report submitted to this House he quoted, inter alia, what had been said by the leaders of the United Party at that time, and he did so with a view to the opposition this measure was expected to meet with. I quote from column 2508 of Hansard, Vol. 71, of 1950. After having referred to several of these reports the then Minister of the Interior said the following—

This request …

This was said in connection with the census—

That was a unanimous decision taken by the four Administrators. Of course, hon. members are free to say that I am interpreting these quotations incorrectly.

Moreover, other members also participated in this discussion. In the first place, I want to quote the leaders of the United Party at that time. At that time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the late Field-Marshal Smuts, also had something to say about this population register. I want to mention this particularly to-night because this evening and again during the course of the 1967 debate mention was made repeatedly regarding the position of the courts. Every time an amendment to this legislation is introduced in this House, it is suggested that this side of the House no longer has any respect for the courts and that we do not want to accept the judgment of the court as the final word. [Interjections.] I want to read to hon. members what Field-Marshal Smuts said (Hansard, Col. 2528, Vol. 71)—

But why are you closing the door to the court now?

I have quoted to the hon. member for Durban (Point) what was said by his former Leader as regards the court and why it was unpractical. Perhaps the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to listen to what his present Leader had to say about this. If hon. members would just give me a chance, I shall quote to the hon. member what was said by his present Leader in this connection. At that time Sir De Villiers Graaff said (Hansard, Col. 2849, Vol. 71)—

That was what Sir De Villiers Graaff said in 1950.

Say it again.

Sir De Villiers Graaff said at that time—

In that same speech of his the present Leader of the Opposition also said that an appeal to the court was an unreasonable demand to make on anybody if he wanted to prove his classification.

Read what I said about the inspectors who had been appointed.

Sir, I do not have to quote that. It is not so easy for me to find the exact place where it was said, but I shall admit that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at that time that the inspectors would be unreliable.

I now want to deal with what was said of my own leaders in pursuance of the suggestion that they were not supposed to have agreed in this connection. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested that that was the case. In 1967, when this Act was amended, the then Minister of the Interior made a quotation and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition denied that something of that nature was ever said by his predecessor, the late Dr. Dönges. As was quoted by the then Minister, Dr. Dönges had said (Hansard, Col. 3175, Vol. 20, 1967)—

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to suggest to-night that the leaders on this side of the House were inconsistent, I want to ask him: Is this not precisely what is being suggested by the present hon. the Minister to-night? Is it not a fact that it is now being suggested that that other test be adopted? I want to point out that since the date of the coming into operation of this Act, almost a generation has passed. This Act has been in operation for 20 years and during that time there was the right of appeal to the courts. There was also a right of appeal to the other bodies as prescribed in the Act.

I want to repeat what Minister De Klerk quoted in 1962 when he was still Minister. In 1962 there was evidence to the effect that, in the application of this Act, the largest degree of tolerance, the largest degree of accommodation and the largest degree of consideration possible was afforded everybody to submit their case. I want to tell you that at that time Minister De Klerk quoted Mr. Lawrence, the hon. member for Salt River, who had said during the Budget debate that it was with great appreciation that cognizance was taken of the manner in which that Act had been applied.

I now come to the question: Why should these amendments be introduced then? That was asked by the hon. the Leader of the (Opposition and I am tempted to accuse him of being naïve for having asked such a question. He asked why it was necessary for this Act to be amended again, Sir, I must now tell a senior member that it is quite a naïve statement to make. Does he want us to believe him? He mentioned the case of a person who had a White father and a mother who was 90 per cent White. I asked by way of interjection: Why 90 per cent and how does one ascertain it? It was taken amiss that I asked such a question. But if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is consistent, what right does he have to say that it should be 90 per cent? [Interjections.] Yes, according to what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) a moment ago, a person should be classified as White even if he was only half per cent White. This side of the House refuses to accept that. The hon. member for Green Point said a moment ago that that was so, in other words, if a person had half per cent White blood he should be classified White. [Interjections.] That was said by the hon. member a moment ago. May I then ask the hon. Leader: What about the person who is 90 per cent or 80 per cent White? Where does he want to draw the line or should we make it 50.1 per cent? Should we say that if a person is slightly more than 50 per cent White, he should be classified as White? It is impossible for such naïve statements to be accepted by a House where people discuss matters intelligently.

The hon. the Leader also wanted to know why it was necessary to introduce amending legislation in 1967. It was necessary because it was said in advance in 1950 that amending legislation would be necessary. In 1967 the hon. the Minister pointed out in the course of the debate that, as regards third party objections, the concession which had been granted in the Act at that time was being used less and less, and that it was, in fact, being abused. I want to quote figures furnished by the hon. the Minister, figures which were not denied. The Minister said that not one single third party objection was received during the period 1951 to 1964. In 1965 there were 36 and in 1966 the number increased to 135. The Minister anticipated that there would be twice as many third party objections the following year if they were to increase at that rate.

That was not an abuse of the law. You are crazy.

If that was not an abuse of the law …

Order! Did the hon. member for Wynberg say that the hon. member is crazy?

I did, Sir.

Will the hon. member kindly withdraw that remark?

I withdraw it, Sir, but I shall tell him that outside.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. It is the first time in my life that a lady has withdrawn what she has said to me. But in any case, I can well understand it. The hon. member belongs to a Party which should withdraw more things and which could spend its time more fruitfully by withdrawing such things.

The tendency was for such cases to increase. This increasing number of third party cases made matters increasingly difficult for the boards that had to deal with them and for the courts that had to decide on them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now asks why the Act is to be amended again for the sake of a few people. One sometimes finds loopholes in any Act. The unfortunate thing is that when the first loophole is discovered, it is not only one person who slips through the loophole and who uses the decision of the court to his own advantage. The door is then opened for numerous other people who queue up in front of such a loophole.

How many?

I do not know how many there are. The hon. member for Durban (Point) should know better than I do how many there are. What I do know is that in the case of other legislation, where such loopholes do exist, amendments are affected year after year for the very purpose of closing such loopholes. But in the last instance, there is something that worries me as far as the manner is concerned in which this whole discussion was conducted on the part of the Opposition. There is no secret as to what the policy of this side of the House is. We want to keep South Africa White. We do not only want to keen South Africa White, but we want to create the opportunities for other race groups to be able to develop and to be proud of the fact that they belong to a particular race group.

I have heard that something was said about this “upgrading” from Bantu to Coloured and from Coloured to White. These are the words that are being used. May I now ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they really regard the Bantu as despicable people? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg got up a moment ago and spoke of the downgrading of people …

Yes, it is true.

… by classifying them as Griqua or a Malay. I should like to tell him and a few other members of the Opposition who say “yes” “yes”, as the hon. member for Durban (North) did a moment ago, that if they want to see somebody who is proud of the nation he belongs to, even it he is black or looks different, they should go and look at the Rehoboth Basters, as we heard the other day during the debate regarding them. They will then see that other races also have reason to be proud of their own race. According to the policy of this side of the House it is made clear that we want to give other nations the opportunity of building their own future and to be proud of it. There is nothing wrong in being a Coloured or a Bantu person. There is nothing wrong in being a White person. But there is something wrong when a White person is ashamed of his white skin or when a Black man is ashamed of his black skin.

I support this legislation wholeheartedly because it has been supported by the Leaders of the National Party since 1950. I also support this legislation because it has been shown since 1950 that the United Party is a party which is not consistent in the attitude it adopts as regards this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate for really only one reason, namely the remarks made by the hon. member for Witbank who has just sat down.

Irresponsible remarks.

He chose to go back into the early days of this Government, when it came into power, to find references in Hansard to what, in the days before this Government came into power, was known as the Administrators’ Memorandum. That is a document which was signed by the four Administrators of the time, of which I was one. He quotes from Hansard and tries by implication to read into that quotation something that was never there. Even the hon. member’s imagination is quite incapable of reaching the heights of pure political myth which would be necessary to bring within the ambit of what he has read in Hansard the true facts concerning the Administrators’ Memorandum. [Interjections.! This memorandum which was dealt with by the then Minister of the Interior, the late Dr. Dönges, on several occasions here in this House … [Interjections.] I should like the hon. member for Boksburg to repeat what he has just said. I could not hear him.

Be a man and repeat what you have said.

Order!

I would like the hon. member to repeat that. I have said I regret I was unable to hear him. Will he please repeat it? This is the level which we are coming to.

I said he would never have been allowed as a minister of religion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, I want to ask whether the hon. member said “Julie wil Hotnotjies voor die blankes hê”?

You do not understand the language.

Order! I wish to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for South Coast a chance to make his speech. If any further interjections are made from either side, I will have to take action.

Mr. Speaker, the position, as I have said, is that the late Dr. Dönges on several occasions in this House trotted out the Administrators’ Memorandum. From time to time, particularly in connection with the first one of the Population Registration Bills, he came with quotations from that memorandum. He continually took small excerpts out of their context. Time after time that memorandum was explained. He was challenged in this House to read it in full so that the whole of the gist and the sense of the memorandum could be understood by Parliament. However, eventually it lost all its sense and all its point. It could no longer be used as a political weapon. It died away until tonight the hon. member for Witbank thought he had something new. He did precisely the same as was done in those days, 18 or 19 years ago. He took a little bit, read it and then by implication hoped that not only the hon. members here, but the folk outside who read it in Hansard, will be able to say, “Look what the United Party did in its day; look what it recommended.” Let us now have a look at it. Some time prior to 1948 the then Prime Minister, the late General Smuts—God rest his soul—was faced with a very great difficulty because of the illegal infiltration of Indians into South Africa. That led to other legislation of another kind which we do not need to go into here to-day. Pursuant to this particular matter the question was raised as to how South Africa identified its own citizens in the atmosphere then current, not only in our country, but also overseas. How did we identify our own citizens of whatever colour? General Smuts asked the four Administrators with their own advisers and technical people to get down to trying to deal with that problem. There were associated matters that are not our concern to-night. Here was the kernel; this was the crux of the matter. We got down to it to find out not only in regard to Asiatics, but also in regard to the Bantu as well, what the method was to be. Then then registration system had just as many flaws as far as the Bantu are concerned as the present method has to-day. It became impossible to identify tens of thousands of our own citizens. When citizens from another country were resident in South Africa, it became impossible to identify, tens of thousands of them, as is in fact the case to-day. Eventually we took an example which we had before us at the time. The registrars of deeds in the various provinces had formed a small committee. As a result of their work it was decided that it should be arranged administratively, when deeds were registered in the deeds office, the person registered in the deed should be given a number which was attached to all the documents which he from time to time registered in the deeds office. This was one angle of our difficulty. When we were investigating the question of identifying our citizens, we found that we had in some cases as many as three generations of living folk with a grandfather still alive; a father and a son had identically the same surname and the same Christian names even to three and four Christian names. Therefore, we had three generations in the same family with the same Christian names and the same surname. In the deeds office they found that this caused a very great deal of trouble. That is why they arranged administratively to give a number so that a person thereafter registering deeds, transferring property or handling any registration in the deeds office used that number as well as the name. That was the example that we used. We suggested in the Administrators’ Memorandum that every citizen of South Africa, White and non-White, at birth should have his birth registered and he should be given a number. There was no question of race classification. Nowhere in the Administrators’ Memorandum is such a suggestion made. It was a registered number which stayed with him for all practical purposes, not only in regard to the deeds office, but all other registrations as well. Let me say that one of the difficulties then, and still is now, is that there is no registration of births so far as the Bantu are concerned. Provision is made for it but it does not happen. No more to-day than in 1947 is there registration of the Bantu. When you came down to dealing with them and identifying them the only way possible that we could see as a practical measure was to insist upon registration and on a number being given. The number will remain with that citizen throughout his life, White or non-White. That was the basis of it, and that is all there is to it as far as the Administrators’ Memorandum is concerned.

In the deeds office they are still using that system.

I have not been doing anything in regard to registration lately, but my colleague, the hon. member for Transkei. tells me that they are still using that system in the deeds office to-day. I want to say to the hon. member for Witbank that I am surprised at him for coming forward and making the suggestions he made here to-night.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Was the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior or not?

What statement?

The statement to the effect that these things were said by the Administrator of Natal. In other words, did I quote incorrectly from Hansard?

I said that there were extracts from the Administrators’ Memorandum that were read from time to time, taken out of their context for no other purpose than to try to produce the impression that there was some kind of race classification involved in the Administrators’ Memorandum. I repeat that there never was. The document is still in existence and the hon. member can have insight in it. He need only go to the hon. the Minister and his Department and I am sure that they will gladly allow him to see it. There was the Administrators’ Memorandum. It is available to the hon. the member and he can have insight in the whole document.

Now that I am on my feet, I want to mention that I previously referred to the fact that we sit here as White people, day after day, month after month, and year after year. Without White people there would not have been any Coloured community in South Africa. Why do we not come with due humility to accept and recognize that? [Interjections.]

Order!

When we are dealing with legislation such as we have before us to-night, let us look each other in the eye and say: “We are not virtuous but we are extremely lucky.” Let us also say this when dealing with other legislation of this kind. That is what we should do, everyone of us in this House, in order to set an example for various types of people outside. We should not play on their prejudices or their racial emotions with speeches such as we have had. Let us in all humility face the facts of history in regard to this matter. I am not a lay preacher and I never was.

You sound like one now.

No, I am not, but I believe in certain standards of conduct towards people who do not have an effective voice in this House to-day. The Good Book tells us that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the third and the fourth generation. But what are we doing? We have gone much further than the Almighty. We are going to visit the sins of the fathers for all eternity on all the descendants, and not only for three or four generations. It is impossible to do so. There is nothing whatever in regard to this legislation which bears the imprint of permanence. We are wasting our time. In dealing with the first Bill General Smuts told Dr. Dönges, “You are trying to classify the un-classifiable.” He knew what he was saying. Let hon. members opposite read the history of the Buys family in the Transvaal and that of the Dunn family in Natal and that of other families in South Africa. They can then judge if there is any permanence in the kind of legislation we have here. There is no permanence. We should be particularly careful of the fact that in the whole of our history we have been keenly colour conscious. I am a conservative. Because we are so keenly colour conscious, and throughout our whole history we have been colour conscious, we should be particularly careful to care for the feelings and the individuality of the people who, as individuals, are dealt with in terms of this legislation. They do not come as a community or as a group, but as individuals, namely, men, women and little children. My hon. friend dealt with the question of 30 descendants of a couple who came out from Britain that he had to deal with. What of the generations unborn to be dealt with in terms of this legislation? If there are any loopholes in it the hon. the Minister or his successor will try to close them. This measure brings no credit on our Parliament nor on our people in South Africa. I am proud of our nation and of our reputation, but this is nothing to be proud of. This is a sad day and so far as I am concerned, conservative or no conservative, I say we are not playing the game with people who, but for the White man, would not have been Coloured.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for South Coast. I do not want to make any comment on his explanation in regard to the commission on which he served and the explanation which he has furnished to us for the first time in the House. I think it was an explanation which was needed because there are certain quotations in Hansard which indicate that the hon. member for South Coast was in fact in favour of there being such a race classification. I am quite prepared to accept the explanation. I am also pleased the hon. member said what he did in fact say towards the end of his speech here, because for the first time we have now heard an honest approach from the United Party to their standpoint in respect of race classification. And what is that standpoint? The hon. member told us explicitly and did not merely use the cliché of “we are trying to classify the unclassifiable”, but confirmed this and said that his attitude had a moral basis. In other words, as far as the hon. member for South Coast is concerned, this entire Act ought to be deleted. I should like to emphasize this because it is essential that the country outside should know that this is the policy of the United Party, as stated in this House, once and for all and very honestly and sincerely. I accept the honesty and the conservatism of the hon. member for South Coast. We consequently have the position that the United Party is simply going to be prepared to let matters take their course as far as this race problem is concerned.

Let the community decide.

I listened to what the hon. the Leader said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker ruled that interjections were no longer going to be allowed. Is the hon. member for Durban (Point) entitled to make interjections while a speaker is making a speech?

I uphold the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Hon. members must not make interjections; they will find themselves in trouble. The hon. member may continue.

I just want to say that the interjections do not bother me at all. I just want to confirm once again what was said here. The United Party is now in this position that it will delete its race classification Act entirely if it should come into power. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to go further and deny that there are different race groups in South Africa? Do they want to proceed so far along the road of integration that they will no longer talk of Black, Coloured, White and Indians at all?

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. That is where the United Party stands this evening as far as that matter is concerned. I am now going to furnish hon. members with further proof of this. It was not only the hon. member for South Coast who was honest tonight. The hon. the leader of the Opposition also showed his hand. He did in fact keep the cards he was holding close to his chest so that one was unable to know precisely what he was thinking. However, it glimmered through. I shall explain what I mean. Let me make the following statement. As far as our party is concerned, race classification is an axiomatic position. We recognize the different groups in South Africa, i.e. White, Coloured, Indian and Bantu. We do not run away from this fact. As far as my party is concerned, no stigma attaches to a race classification. It is quite simply a classification for the purposes of life in South Africa. If hon. members on the opposite side refuse to get away from this idea that we are insulting people when we classify them, I accuse them to their face that they are in reality attaching an unnecessary stigma to race classification.

What definition does the hon. member apply in the case of a Coloured person. Is it the definition in the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, or the Immorality Act?

Mr. Speaker, I shall still come to that in the course of my speech. It forms part of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I shall furnish the hon. the Leader with a reply in regard to that. I shall furnish that reply in my own good time, and not when he wants me to. There is a question I should like to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. While I was listening to him the following question occurred to me: How was he going to deal with this situation if he were to come into power? How would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stand in regard to the four groups in South Africa, which was a positive fact? That is something we cannot run away from. It is something which exists and which the political parties must take into consideration, because the difference in races, in the first instance, comprises the basis of separate development. The race classification of the various races is also the basis of race federation. In other words, the United Party will not be able to implement their policy unless they can also state who is White and who is Coloured in order to have the four representatives in Parliament, and who is Bantu so that they can send their representatives to Parliament. It is necessary for its federation plan. It is absolutely essential that there should be a clear classification of White, non-White, Coloured and Indian because the United Party wants to grant representation to these various groups in this Parliament. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon in his speech: “Leave it to appearance and acceptance”. That is his mode of classification, i.e. “to leave it to appearance and acceptance”.

What did Dr.

Dönges say?

Order! Will the hon. member for Salt River pleave leave the Chamber.

The hon. member for Salt River thereupon withdrew.

Let us just analyse what was laid down in the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let us first review the aspect of “appearance”. Now I want to cast back at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the words he cast at me in 1967 by way of an interjection when we were also discussing this legislation. When I as a Transvaler, stood up to discuss the Coloureds, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I had ever had looked here at the Coloured Schools in the Cape and seen how many White Coloureds were walking around. I then went to have a look at all the White Coloureds that were walking around in the schools. Now I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to lay down his hypothesis of “appearance” and “acceptance”, is he going to allowing to allow all those White Coloureds in the Coloured Schools of the Cape to register under the White community? And if he is going to allow that, will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us what the position will be in respect of the darker brother and sister of those lighter Coloureds? What is he going to do. Where is his sense of justice going to come in? If the darker brother comes to him, as head of the Government, and says: Sir, according to the “appearance” and “acceptance” hypothesis of yours, you have now classified my brother as a White? I am his brother. We have the same father and mother. Why cannot I also be classified as a White?” Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then going to classify that darker Coloured as a White, from the point of view of justice? After all, we must all then look at ourselves in the mirror. We are, after all, Whites, and have a conscience. We cannot act unjustly in these cases. But let us consider the aspect of “acceptance”. Let us be realistic. It is no use trying to run away from these problems. The Coloureds of the Cape are being educated in the schools. The Opposition is continually agitating that we should compel these people to go to school. When we walk into our shops we find trained Coloureds behind the counters, sitting behind typewriters, working in garages and so on. In other words, they are working in the midst of the White community. They are working in the White community here in the Cape. As far as “acceptance” is concerned, they are working together with the Whites. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to do? Is he going to allow all those people into the White communities simply because they are a little White, are accepted and have been educated? I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will inform the country as to what his standpoint in respect of this matter is.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have no time to reply to questions now. He can ask it later when my time is up.

The hon. member for Wynberg went further and stated that her test was “general acceptance at the time of the hearing”. That is all test that hon. member had. She has no other test apart from acceptance. She lays down as her only requirement acceptance at the time of the hearing in regard to classification.

That is what the judge said.

Is that what the judge said? If that is all the judge said, I think the hon. member read the judgement incorrectly. The judge was applying the definition as it is stated in the Act and the definition does not only mention acceptance. I, however, accept that that is what the hon. member for Wynberg wants, i.e. simply an ordinary acceptance. If that is going to be the position, I want to inform the United Party that we will find out that there are more Coloureds in the White community than the White community can absorb. That will put paid to the position of the White man in South Africa. That the United Party must also be honest enough to face up to.

Let us discuss the matter of third party objections. In the new Bill we are doing away with third party objections altogether. What did General Smuts as recently as 1951? The late General Smuts said that third party objections were a bad thing. He said that third party objections afforded the gossip, the person who eavesdrops and plays the Peeping Tom an opportunity of arraigning another person. We are now paying heed to those words. We are now deleting this. And what do we find? One speaker after the other rising to his feet and demanding the re-introduction of third party objections. I find that strange anomaly in the thinking of the United Party the strangest that one has ever heard in this House.

I come now to the question of mixed marriages and I shall reply to the question put by the hon. member for Transkei. It is quite correct that there is a different definition in the Mixed Marriages Act. But the Mixed Marriages Act is not the Population Registration Act. The reason why the definition in the Mixed Marriages Act has been stated so widely is that our country does not want to cause illegitimate children as a result of legislation. All hon. members must do is read the Act. We do not want to be the cause of illegitimate children. In section 2 of the Act it is laid down that those children are the legal children of the parents concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we not allowed to make interjections again?

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that, as far as I am concerned, hon. members can make interjections. I shall welcome them because they do not bother me at all. Mr. Speaker, the matter depends upon you entirely. Let us now consider the Mixed Marriages Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! The hon. member said that he was not going to reply to any further questions.

He did not say that to me.

He said that he was not going to answer any further questions. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, the Mixed Marriages Act does in fact have a different definition, but this argument does not affect that definition in any way. It is not concerned in any way here because the intention in that Act is an entirely different one. The intention in that Act is to prevent cases of illegitimate children occurring. Let us suppose that a person with Coloured blood, or who is classified as a Coloured, were to marry a White person and children are conceived of that marriage. Those children are legal children born of a legal marriage. Why should they consequently be declared illegitimate in terms of the Act? At the same time, however, those children are Coloured children, and the United Party cannot say that because those people are married, they should become Whites. They must be Coloureds. Why should they be classified as Whites? After all it is a fallacious argument that the children should always tend to the White side. Surely they can tend to the Coloured side as well, and the Act makes provision for that. Let us also look at the onus in this regard. The hon. member of the Opposition and the hon. member for Wynberg are very angry because the onus is being placed on the person who applies for classification. Where else should the onus be placed? We are asking people here to tell us what their classification is. Take the example of a person who completed forms in 1961 and subsequently applied for an identity card. He then stated what his origin was, etc. It is general legal practice that the person who asks for something must support his request with proof. It is as clear as daylight, for otherwise this strange state of affairs would occur. Let us suppose that the onus of proof rested entirely on the State. The official would be sitting in his office and a person would enter. He would simply state that he was a White, and then the onus of proof would rest on the official. If he wanted to classify that person as Coloured he would have to go into the origin of that person. He then has the problem of making that person a Coloured. Why should he do so? The official is not there to prosecute people. A person can enter an official’s office and say that he is a White person. The official can say that he looks like a Coloured person and that he must prove that he is a White. After all, the onus of proof must rest on the person concerned. It is quite correct that the onus of proof should not rest on the State.

I come now to the question of hearsay evidence. I want to mention an example in this connection. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Durban (North) would make a speech instead of making interjections. If he wants to put a question to me he must do so. It is not only our duty to see to it that the Coloureds become Whites, we also have a sacred duty towards the Coloured community to ensure that the Bantu do not become Coloureds. I want to mention an example in this connection. If one looks at the definition of “Bantu”, then it is simply a question of association. Mr. Speaker, I myself appeared in the Sithole case, and in that case people who were almost black came to the court and stated that they heard that their grandfather had been a White person. The woman concerned stated that she had always associated with Coloureds. That was all the evidence they had, and they were two Zulus. The entire case was as clear as daylight. They said that they had consorted with Coloureds and that they had heard that their grandfather had been a White person. On that evidence they were then accepted as Coloureds. In my humble opinion that is absolutely unfair towards the Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member permitted to reflect on a court decision? Is he permitted to refer to a court decision as being unfair? Is the hon. member allowed to say that a court decision was “unfair”?

Order! There is nothing wrong with what the hon. member said. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What was your ruling in regard to this matter?

There is nothing wrong with what the hon. member said.

The hon. member reflected on a court decision. He said that he thought that the decision was unfair to the Coloureds.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Prinshof may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I shall in any case explain what I really said. If the hon. members had been listening they would have heard what I said in the first instance. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) had been able to understand what I said, he would not have risen on a point of order. I said that according to the facts and according to the Act, as it previously existed in respect of the Coloureds and the Bantu, a court could find that such people were Coloureds. For this reason we have deleted the provision for hearsay evidence in this Bill. Hearsay evidence is no longer admissible at all, for precisely the same reason the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned here. As far as status is concerned, hearsay evidence is usually admissible. People can therefore say that they have heard about something, although they really know nothing about it. They can say: “We have never seen the man, but my grandmother always told me that my grandfather was a White person”. That is hearsay evidence, and it was admissible. The court did not have a choice; it simply had to take this into account. That is why, in terms of the new clause, we are making hearsay evidence inadmissible. There was no reflection on the court; it was a reflection on the Act.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to reflect on a Statute?

The hon. member did not reflect on a Statute. He said the court’s decision amounted to a reflection on the Statute.

Mr. Speaker, if it will help that hon. member I shall say that if I have in any way cast a reflection on an existing Statute, I withdraw it. I was explaining why we were changing this specific section by means of this new clause, the reason for this is, as I have already explained, that hearsay evidence, according to court cases, was used too frequently. Hearsay evidence ranged too widely, and that is why we must restrict it because we must also protect the Coloured community against the breakthrough of non-Whites to the Coloureds.

Now I just want to refer briefly to the retrospective nature of this Bill. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took it very much amiss of us indeed because we were embuing this Bill with retrospective effect. However, in the 1967 Act we find the intention of the legislator stated very clearly. We must look at section 5 of the Act. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to change the language in which he is speaking after he started speaking?

No, he may not. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your assistance against this kind of conduct on the part of the Opposition. It does not redound to their credit. They are trying to destroy what I have said. They are not going to succeed, because they know that this hurts the United Party.

I was saying why this provision is with retrospective effect. In clause 1 (2) (e) it is stated that the fact that any person usually passes for White or Coloured or Bantu on the date on which the form or statement mentioned in section 3 or 9 was completed by him is at all times adequate proof that he passes as such.

In other words, the 1967 Act quite clearly laid down the date of the census form as the date of classification. That has always been the intention of this Act. That was the intention of the legislature. It states there that we must accept the date in 1951 as the date of classification. If one appears before a race classification board to-day, an attempt must be made to prove what that man’s position was in 1951. This is proved from the various forms completed during that time. If there are none of those forms, they may look at the subsequent forms and dates. That is the reason why this position must be made with retrospective effect. It is quite correct that this should be the case, because it was the intention of the legislature. If it was not clear in the subsequent laws, we are making it quite clear in this Bill.

I want to refer to something else the hon. member for Wynberg said. She referred to the clause in this Bill where we allow a trial to take place in camera. She said a strange thing. She said we were afraid of overseas opinion and that is why we were now allowing people to be heard in camera. Sir, I think what she said was very unfair.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, I never said anything of the kind. I still have my notes.

The hon. member may proceed.

I shall inform hon. members why we are making provision for this to be able to take place in camera. We are allowing a person to request that this trial in the Supreme Court on appeal should be heard in camera for the simple reason that we have respect for the feelings of the individual. We realize that this is a delicate matter. We realize that when a person appeals on the grounds of his race classification, it is a case which affects only him and nobody else. Because we have that respect for the human dignity of each individual we are providing in this Bill that the hearing of this person can take place in camera. This is irrefutable proof that this side of the House is very much concerned about the position and dignity of people. We would like to take their feelings into consideration, but we are not as unrealistic as the Opposition on the opposite side is as to think that we can get along without a race classification act. We realize that this is for the benefit of us all. It is for the benefit of the Coloureds that the Bantu be kept away from them, that they should realize that they are Coloureds and that they should develop an innate national pride. It is on behalf of the Whites that our people should realize that there is another race group in South Africa which has to be respected and should not become intermingled. That is inherent in the philosophy of our mode of existence in Southern Africa. In view of this we are drafting an act in terms of which people are quite simply being classified. We are trying to the best of our ability to do this as fairly as possible, without being too unrealistic. I should now, if I still have the time like to deal with a few of the clauses of the Bill itself. These are clauses to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. I should like to refer to clause 2, which amends section 5 (4) of the Principal Act. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make something of this section. He asked why an additional subsection was being inserted. If the hon. the Leader had glanced at the section in the 1967 Act he would have found that section 5 of the Principal Act has been amended as follows by clause 2 of Act No. 64 of 1967. I am quoting from subsection (1)—

Then, in subsection (4), it is provided that if at any time it appeared to the Secretary that the classification was incorrect, he had to rectify that classification. In terms of the 1967 Act he could refer the case to a board. One can imagine his position. He is uncertain or he finds it incorrect. If he finds it incorrect there is no sense in sending it to a board. That is actually the reason why this new clause is being inserted.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would look at the Bill he would find this is in fact the case. The present position is that if the Secretary should find that the classification is incorrect, he makes the correct classification. That person has a right of appeal. If he is uncertain, not if the classification is incorrect, he sends it to the Classification Board. From there the person has a further appeal. The hon. member for Durban (North) is shaking his head now, but he does not even know what clause we are dealing with. He now wants to know from me with what clause we are dealing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof spent a lot of time telling us how one of the objects of this Bill was to protect the Coloured people from being inundated by or immersed by Africans. I can only tell him that laws like these are not going to help the Coloured people or protect them from the Africans, should anybody think that they require such protection. What is going to protect them? Of course it is to try to develop a stable community, a stable, urbanized African community and a stable Coloured community, which can perhaps develop some of this “nation pride” the hon. member talked about. As long as you have a community, which exists largely in the Cape where most of the problem arises since the great majority of Coloureds live in the Cape, as long as you have the position that thousands upon thousands of African males come into our labour market as migrant workers without their own wives and without their families, no law of this kind can protect the Coloured man and the Coloured woman from being immersed by the African people. Therefore, you are going to have the situation irrespective of this law. I think the hon. member is very optimistic indeed when he thinks that amending the existing race classification Act is going to make any difference to the population structure in this country at all. I am quite prepared to say, categorically, as I think the hon. the Minister has already admitted when he made his Second Reading speech, that we are undoubtedly going to have to amend the Population Registration Act again and again. Nothing is ever going to be the final word in this country, which is multi-racial and which therefore carries with it all the consequences of a multi-racial population. The hon. member for Parow, who spoke earlier to-day, told us with horror the story of a professional White man who had managed to get his Coloured wife reclassified as a White. He talked as if the heavens had fallen as a result of this. I ask the hon. gentleman whether in fact this woman has now been reclassified as a Coloured. She has not; she remains White. Has White civilization disappeared in South Africa as a result of this case? Of course not. It has made no difference at all to the overall population situation of this country. We in South Africa have to realize that this is a multi-racial country. We have to realize that this is a multi-racial planet. If people do not like to stay on our multi-racial planet, where there are something like 3½ thousand billion people, of whom 2½ thousand billion are Coloured, or in Africa where there are 250 million Black people and perhaps 4 to 5 million Whites, then they must realize that their future does not lie on this planet and they had better book themselves on the first jumbo jet to the moon.

Is the hon. member not going a little too far now?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am only going into orbit because I am so astonished at the optimism of hon. members on the Government benches who think that by putting a statute on the statute book they can solve the racial problems in South Africa. This Act has been on the statute book since 1950. It is, as hon. members and the hon. the Ministers and his predecessors in the past have told us, the very cornerstone of the apartheid policy, without which everything else will flounder. They tell us people have got to know their rightful place in South Africa, in the society and in the colour spectrum in South Africa. The interesting fact is, of course, that it is not possible to define this so accurately. There are always going to be borderline cases, because even if one deals with this generation, the next generation has been conceived and is about to make its appearance. They are going to confront the Government with exactly the same set of problems. As hon. members have pointed out, there is a chameleon-like quality about South Africans. They can change their race classification depending entirely upon which statute happens to be examined. A person can be Coloured in terms of one Act, and White in terms of another Act, and in fact, as the old Electoral Act stood, even be classified as an African. Those can be the race classifications of one and the same person in terms of various Acts. We know that if people move from one group to another, having married out of their particular racial group, they move down in the social register. If a Coloured woman marries an African, she has to go and live, according to group areas legislation, in an African area or township. The solution is not within our grasp and I am afraid this Bill is not going to assist us very much. I think that what it is going to do is that it is going to bring about further hardships for that group of people who are the borderline people. It is true enough to say that the vast majority of people in South Africa know their place in the spectrum. They are obviously White, or obviously Coloured, or obviously Indian, or obviously African. However, there are some thousands of people who are borderline cases. I do not know if anybody knows how many of these there are; guesses have been made, but these vary from 100,000 to ¼ million. Nobody knows exactly how many people are in fact in the borderline areas. What we know is that there are very few cases of persons who come to appeal. Nobody knows just how many people are in fact affected by this. All attempts at uniformity have drawn a blank so far. We have had an inter-departmental committee which was appointed a number of years ago. This committee tried to examine whether it was not possible to get a definition which would be uniform through all our statutes. That report has never been published. I do not know whether in fact it has been presented even to the department. I think the department themselves or the committee which was appointed realize that they had been given a completely hopeless task. Many attempts have been made to narrow down the definition. In doing so, varying factors have been introduced all the time. The simple factor of appearance or acceptance has gradually been increased to include whether a person is in fact a member of the race concerned or not. Later we had the descent factor introduced. We now have new criteria all the time. Then there is the effort to try and make the sub-groups of the Coloured people a more clearly defined group. This Bill goes a little further in that respect by trying to define within that sub-group of the Coloured people a future descent line. For instance, if the wife of an Indian is a Coloured, the children must take the father’s classification. This, I think, is one of the most unfair clauses in this Bill. The hon. the Minister knows that in the Cape particularly, because of the religious affiliations between the Moslem Malays and the Indians, there has been a good deal of inter-marriage between them. Almost inevitably the offspring of those unions have been brought up as Malays, as Coloureds, and not as Indians. Now, with a stroke of the pen an entire community is to be destroyed while this Government prides itself on the building up of communities. This Government even has a Department of Community Development. They also have a Minister in charge of it. Hon. members talked about building up nationhood; they talked about pride in nationhood. The hon. the Minister has not explained to us in his Second Reading speech why it has been decided that it shall be the father who shall decide forever more to which race the children are going to belong. May I put a hypothetical case to the Minister, an example: of an Indian man married to a Coloured woman. This type of marriage exists in its hundreds in the Cape. The children have mostly grown up in Coloured group areas, have gone to Coloured schools and consider themselves to be Coloureds. But all these are now to be reclassified as Indians. But these children will in turn marry. Now, remember it is only the male that carries this on. Let us assume that a male offspring from one of these mixed marriages marries a Coloured, because there is no restriction on intermarriage between Indians and Coloureds. The child of such a marriage will be only one quarter Indian and yet he will be classified as an Indian. One generation further on, a child will only have one sixteenth Indian blood in his veins and yet he will be classified as an Indian.

Would you rather let them follow the mother?

I would rather they decide for themselves. I cannot see why this cannot be left to the persons themselves. After all, the mother does have some influence in the birth of a child and, accordingly, I cannot see any reason why the mother’s claim cannot carry equal weight. Here it should, most decidedly I think, be based on acceptance and appearance and way of life. And here, if you like, the criteria which have been revalidated, the proclamation which introduced the criteria which was validated two years ago, should be used perhaps to some good effect. But to say that a child with one sixteenth Indian blood in his veins should be classified as an Indian and thus be made to live in an Indian group area and associate only with Indians … is absurd. After all, these communities have only been separated now. District Six has Indians, Malays and Coloureds living there—a community of some 65,000 people. All these are now being split up and the Indian section being sent off to Rylands to its own group area. Families are going to be split as a result of this; relations are going to be separated from each other. And this is the intention of this Government that wants to develop communities and pride in being a nation. But, in fact, it is going to engender an enormous amount of hostility. We are adding another little equation—that is all this Bill does, it is just adding another racial equation; I think I called it mathematics for the millions last time when we had these equations. Now we are going to have the equation where White plus White equals White and only that. White plus Coloured or White plus Bantu must equal Coloured. Coloured plus Coloured is Coloured while Coloured plus Bantu is apparently anything, according to the criteria, or will from now on be classified according to the father’s race. Or what is it to be, what is the child of a Coloured man and a Bantu woman to be? Is it to be classified according to the criteria or according to the father’s racial classification? In other words, a series of equations which, I imagine, not even a computer is going to be able to solve.

Hon. members say that this is going to put an end to the uncertainty, to the dreadful uncertainty that hovers over these people who are the borderline cases. But, surely, this is going to engender only more uncertainty, particularly as I see nothing to stop reclassification of people already classified. The very fact that this Bill is made retrospective engenders an enormous amount of hostility. But let me say something about this retrospectivity. I have always understood the general principle of law, whether statutory or otherwise, to be that the law does not interfere with existing rights, that that is the position under ordinary law. Certainly, that is the position in America where it would be utterly unconstitutional to introduce a law with retrospective effect, a law that interferes with existing rights. Surely, a general principle of law, like that, ought to be most jealously guarded where human rights are affected, more so than when property rights or anything else are affected. But where the actual living conditions of people are affected, every facet of their lives, this retrospectivity is something which should be outlawed altogether and not tolerated. If it is not the worst feature then at least it is one of the worst features of this Bill. It interests me to see that the Bill, in clause 2, introduces a provision allowing for reclassification of a person with his own consent, a reclassification presumably down the social ladder. I have no doubt members will ask me why I call it a reclassification “down” because one ought to be proud to be an African, to be a Coloured or an Indian. Well, I dare say one could be proud to be an Indian, a Coloured or an African if one was not deemed to be a second and third class citizen in South Africa.

Who declared them second and third class? You?

Your laws have declared them second and third class.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are interjections now allowed? Was not one of our members ordered out of the House for having interjected?

Order! The hon. member for Piketberg must control himself. The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I am making is that it is unfortunate that by virtue of the disabilities which are being suffered by non-White citizens, such as not having a franchise, being subjected to job reservation, separate amenities, separate educational facilities makes non-Whites not first class citizens. All these things are not separate and equal but separate and unequal. The hon. member must be blind or very insensitive indeed if he does not admit this fact. I wonder whether there is any hon. member in this House who will be happy if he hears to-morrow that he has been reclassified. If it is indeed no stigma and if it brings no difference into one’s life presumably one would accept such a reclassification. But could anyone in his heart of hearts say that he would not consider it to be a disaster of the worst order if he were reclassified through some unhappy accident of history, by some sad genetic factor? These are factors we have to take into consideration when we consider the human angle to this particular Bill. As I was saying, in terms of clause 2 a reclassification of a person is allowed with his consent. I presume this is intended to deal with these sad cases of genetic throwback. That is all I can assume. Cases have been publicized. There is, for instance, the Sandra Lang case. We all know the problems attached to this—the problem of finding schooling facilities resulting in the necessity of having to put these children into private church schools, the department having to pay their fees because the State has to supply free and compulsory education. And then, what happens to these children when they have grown up? They are not allowed to marry someone who does not carry a White classification. It is going to be difficult in this colour obsessed country to find anybody carrying a White classification card to marry such a person. Therefore I presume, and the Minister can tell me if I am wrong, that one of the reasons for clause 2 is to deal with the cases which have occurred, these genetic accidents, and to allow them, if they so wish, to be reclassified so that they may contract a legal marriage. You see, Sir, this is what happens—one runs into all sorts of extraordinary things when one tries to deal with human pedigrees. It would be very nice if we could just forget about colour and just consider people as human beings. But once you start to sort them into pedigree categories one runs into these snags which no legislation can iron out.

I do not think this Bill is going to help in the slightest to solve the problems of this country and because I believe it is going to bring misery to those people on the borderline, who somehow or other want to establish themselves on a higher rung of the racial ladder in South Africa, and because of the retrospectivity of this Bill, I am going to support the amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

In her speech the hon. member referred to the Bantu migrant labourers who come to these parts and then mix with the Coloureds. I can join the hon. member in speaking with authority on this matter because we are both here in the Cape on a migratory labour basis. Of course, we also have our problems, but we must simply teach the people and help them. The hon. member did not speak in these terms this evening, but we know her, her community and her politics. We know that she does not actually have much respect for the colour bar. This is actually striking, because if there is ever a group of people or a nation which does not actually mix with other people or races, then it is Jews. I respect them for it. I give them full credit for their creed and character, because those are strong aspects. I think it is specifically for those reasons that the hon. member is not actually very concerned about that dividing line which we are trying to maintain with the amendment we have here before us. The hon. member thinks that she and her people will not mix, and she does not care whether we do so.

In the course of my speech I should just like to refer to a few of the previous speakers. These amendments which we have before us do not actually include much that is new. There are a few new principles, but actually the chief intention is to affirm, to emphasize and to legalize those amendments of 1967. In other words, the uncertainty which has meanwhile developed is hereby being eliminated. The intention of the 1967 amendment was to remove any possible loophole which still existed. These amendments are now being introduced in order to plug those loopholes even further. Why have these amendments become necessary? As a result of court case decisions after 1967, which disputed the legality of the 1967 amendments, the present amendments became necessary. As examples I want to refer to a few of those court cases. There was, for example, the Bell case, in which the judgment was given that these amendments were not of retrospective effect in respect of pending cases. Then there was also the Dale case which followed upon that. Mr. Justice Beyers then said that the cases should be tried in terms of the old Act. In other words, the object of those amendments in 1967 still offered people a chance to slip through, people whom it was not intended should do so. The Act, as originally submitted in 1950, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this evening, created those opportunities for these people. At the time it was accepted that there were an estimated 10,000 borderline cases. These included non-Whites classified as Whites and also Whites classified as non-Whites. The object of that Act was to give these people the opportunity of correcting their position. It was accepted that there were Whites who were classified as Coloureds. As far back as 1967 this Government believed that this period, then 17 years and now 19 years of having had these amendments, was sufficient to afford those borderline cases the opportunity of correcting their position. The sections in that principal Act afforded those people the opportunity of lifting the cloud that hung over them. Surely now, after 19 years, it is virtually impossible that any of those borderline cases should still exist. If those borderline cases were corrected, where do these new borderline cases now come from? Sufficient opportunity was surely given to correct those borderline cases. But what has the position now become? There are now irresponsible people exploiting that position. Those are people who do not believe in the colour bar; people who do not believe in separate development. They are now making use of these loopholes to get past that. The chief objects of these amendments is to affirm that principle of ours so that we can develop separately; so so that each race can develop on its own. We want to give each race what is its due. This is actually the difference between us and the United Party. Just as in 1967, during the Second Reading, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this evening once more stated in so many words that it would not actually make any difference if those 1,100 Coloureds were allowed among the Whites. The United Party is prepared to scoop off the cream of the Coloured population and to add it to the Whites, thereby strengthening the Whites and, of course, prejudicing the Coloureds. I want to quote from Hansard of 17th March, 1967, col. 3192. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say—

I do not want to dispute that. Neither do I want to argue about it. It is perhaps a method of strengthening the Whites in South Africa. But I also know that it is a method of removing the cream of the Coloured group. The Government of this country has laid down as its principle that in South Africa we want to develop all the races separately. We are honest and sincere about that. We know that there are problems. We also know that there are hardship cases. But we are also trying to do everything in our power to give each group its due. That is why these amendments have become necessary. This is not merely for the sake of maintaining our old tradition. We also want to do justice to every race in South Africa. We do not want to deprive them of that which is their due. If one reads the 1967 Hansard debate on this matter, it becomes very clear that the intention with those amendments was to make them in all respects and fully retrospective to the 7th July, 1950. That is the date upon which the principal Act is based. There are also amendments in terms of which express provision is made for the issuing of a proclamation with retrospective effect to 7th July, 1950. For all that the courts, in a series of judgments, disputed that principle. If you examine these amendments, Sir, you will see why they were introduced. I shall just mention a few of these amendments. In clause 1 reference is made to the classification of Bantu. If this matter is not put right now, the possibility exists that millions of registrations of Whites might be declared invalid, merely as a result of a tenet which the court may have accepted. In addition there is an extension of previous amendments. The object of clause 2 is to make certain provisions more adequate. This is an important amendment in connection with persons who have, according to the Secretary, been wrongly classified. After negotiation the matter can be facilitated for the Department and the persons concerned.

No reference was made to clause 3, and the United Party did not praise it. They probably cannot oppose it either. The object of this clause is to rectify a possible injustice to a minor. Clause 3 (c) deals with an appeal against a court’s decision after the passage of five years. It is surely evident that this is an impossible situation for administration in general. It is clear that when a person is classified he will not wait five years before appealing against his classification. He will surely do so immediately. He will do so when it is still fresh in his mind. He will do so while it still affects him. Supposing a person, who was previously classified as White, is now classified as a Coloured. He must subsequently change his entire way of life. He must go and live in a Coloured area. He must perhaps change his job. Will such a person wait five years before coming to his senses and only then lodge an appeal for re-classification? It is surely clear that there must be other elements and reasons for such an action.

The new subsection (7) (a) which is being inserted by clause 3 (d) is a very good clause, Sir, if I may use the expression. This makes it possible for an appeal to be heard behind locked doors. We know that in the past there was publicity which caused embarrassment to the parties concerned and which placed them in awkward positions. This is now being put right.

Clause 5 empowers the Secretary to take possession of identity cards in cases where they have been issued in duplicate. At present only the Bantu Commissioner has that power. It is only reasonable that the Secretary should also have that power.

Clause 7 concerns minors. I think that the position in this connection was very unreasonable in the past. Speakers in the United Party mentioned this. In the past, when a minor claimed that some of his ancestors were Whites, the onus rested with the Department to prove the contrary. When a person gives evidence about his ancestors, and mentions facts which have been carried down to him by word of mouth, you yourself surely have access to that evidence. However, the State does not have access to it in order to prove the contrary. I think it was altogether unreasonable. The onus of proof ought to rest with the applicant. The new section 21 (A) (4) now entails the legalization of the 1967 amendment, and makes them of retrospective effect to 7th July, 1950. Another clause in this Bill will solve something which has caused us many problems in the past. The population register must now be drawn up according to returns from the Population Census of 8th May, 1951. The persons who filled in those census forms were requested to indicate their race. They had to indicate whether they were White, Indian, Cape Coloured or whatever. In most cases, where people were classified subsequent to that, there were no problems. Where doubt arose, investigations were carried out. Everyone could lodge objections after classification. The courts also accepted this on various occasions. In the case of Philips v. The Director of Census the judgment, inter alia, read as follows (translation): “As is apparent from section 3, a classification by the Director can take place without much ceremony. He merely has to transcribe the facts from the census forms to the register, without giving an opportunity for objection.” There is still another matter which I could quote. Recently a court judgment rebutted it, with the result that numerous applications were made to the courts for the invalidation of classifications, on the grounds that those classifications were not valid. From the nature of the case it was impossible for the Secretary first to investigate each person’s classification. These persons were surely aware of their classifications from the beginning. They could already have objected then. This relative amendment is therefore for the legalization of all those classifications. I think it is now time to close those loopholes to people who abuse them. That is the reason for these amendments which we now have before us, which are merely an affirmation of the 1967 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the hon. member for Mayfair paid very little attention to the practical effect of the Bill. He said, for example, that people have had the opportunity for 19 years now to eliminate borderline cases. He wanted to know why they had not used that time. Of course, this is not the case. The Act did not come into operation immediately. It took the Government years to provide people with their cards. People who appealed two years ago because they received their cards only then and wanted to object to their classification, still have no certainty to-day. I do not know where the hon. member got the idea from that people have had 19 years to appeal. He said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had spoken of 1,100 “Coloureds” that had to be integrated with the Whites. That is also untrue. Such a statement has never been made on this side. The matter was not about 1,100 Coloureds. It was about people who had been classified and who were objecting to their classification. It is not for him or for me to say beforehand what the position of those people is, and whether they are Coloureds or Whites. I leave the hon. member there. My impression was that he had not made a good study of the whole matter.

The Leader of the Opposition and others who spoke this afternoon, pointed out very effectively how contrary this Bill is to every conception of what is just. We on this side are not people who continually pat other speakers on the back and make speeches to “thank the Minister”, but in regard to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, I do want to say that we can congratulate him sincerely on the quality of the standpoint he stated here. As Leader of the Opposition he rendered South Africa a very great service by showing to the world that there are still enough Whites in South Africa who have retained their sense of values and who will lead South Africa back to the road of reason and decency. My hon. Leader was followed by other speakers who set out the effect of this Bill very effectively and analysed it in such detail that I do not think it is necessary for others to proceed on that road any further. As for me, I should like to confine myself to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Parow, and also by the hon. the Minister at the introduction of this Bill. I especially want to reply to the remarks they made to hon. members on this side of the House.

I want to start with the hon. member for Parow. He said in his speech that this Bill was an obstacle to those who wanted to lead South Africa on the way to integration. With that, of course, he meant this side of the House. The hon. member thought he was laying a charge against us, but in actual fact he was laying a charge against himself and his party, in South Africa it is a case of whether the Whites will want to integrate with the non-Whites or will not want to do so. Either there is the will to do so or there is not. We believe that if the Whites want to integrate with the non-Whites, nothing on earth will stop them. Then it is only a question of time, they will break down everything before them and they will integrate. I challenge the hon. member to tell me that the Whites in South Africa want to integrate. There is not the will on the part of the Whites to integrate with any non-White group. I want to ask the hon. member whether he denies that the will is not there. The hon. member knows that that is so. Far from there being any such will on the part of the Whites to integrate, the very opposite is true, i.e. that colour consciousness is so strong amongst the Whites in South Africa that it is not necessary to reinforce it with unreasonable laws. Therefore we believe that if the Whites want to integrate, nothing will stop them. If they do not want to—and that is the position we have to-day—an Act of this nature is unnecessary. We believe that a White nation that is of such poor quality that it cannot retain its identity without being supported by legislation of this nature, has already doomed itself. This is not the way we on this side of the House see or know the White nation in South Africa. To us it is a matter for disapproval that we are the only White nation in a multi-national country which has to make use of such methods allegedly to retain its identity. Identity does not depend on legislation. The Afrikaner is proud of his identity, and day after day we hear about the preservation of the identity of the Afrikaans-speaking people, but do the Afrikaans-speaking people ask for an Act to preserve their identity as distinct from the English-speaking people? If hon. members opposite think that the identity of a group or a nation depends only on legislation, and if they seriously believe that the Afrikaner must preserve his identity within the White community, they must be logical and introduce legislation to preserve the Afrikaner’s identity by legislation. But this is not done and no one is asking that it should be done. Yet the hon. member stands for the identity of the Afrikaans-speaking people within the White community. Therefore we say that within the greater South African community the identity of the Whites is not at stake. As the Afrikaner can preserve his identity within the White community without legislation, so the Whites are able to preserve their White identity within the greater South African community without the kind of legislation we are dealing with here to-night. I was amazed to hear that there was even a shadow of doubt on the Government side as to what the attitude on this side of the House was on race classification. The hon. member was quite right in quoting me as having said that if this side came into power, this would be the first Act we would tear from the Statute Book of South Africa. There must not be the slightest doubt about this matter. I am amazed that the hon. members on the Government side should have had the slightest doubt about the point of view of this side of the House about the question of race classification.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Were you not a party to this very legislation you are now saying should be torn from the Statute Book?

The hon. member is very welcome to ask a question. My answer to it is “no”. I was not opposed to a population register, because it exists in countries such as Holland, and in fact we got this idea from that country. It is the race classification part of the Population Register to which we are opposed. This has always been my standpoint. We on this side of the House in any case have too much self-respect, and it goes against the grain with us that race and blood should be made a golden calf. History, even in our own time, has always shown that a country that made a golden calf of race and blood has come to a certain fall.

The hon. member also attacked the Opposition for allegedly coming to Parliament with sob-stories. Again the hon. member cast a reflection upon himself and not upon us. It is my experience as a Member of Parliament that when people encounter difficulties, as they are encountering terrible difficulties under this legislation, they do not go to Government members, because they know that they will not get any sympathy there, but they come to hon. members of the Opposition. It is a matter of pride to me that a man has the confidence and knows that there are people who will act humanely enough that he may feel free to go to them with his difficulties. Even if the hon. member calls them sob-stories, we do not apologize for acting in the interests of other people if we feel there is justification for doing so. Attacks of that kind will not deter us. On the contrary, we believe that that is Parliament at its best. That is why we are here, i.e. to look after the interests of people. That is also what Parliament is there for. When people are in distress and they come to us, we regard it as something to feel flattered about, and not as something to feel ashamed of.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Yes, Sir, I shall. However, I should also like to reply to arguments that were advanced against hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member also advanced another argument which is so often used against hon. members on this side in this House. I have to make use of this opportunity to reply to that. Hon. members opposite have repeatedly asked us, in this debate as well, how we would differentiate at school, on the voters’ roll and in residential areas. Hon. members opposite asked us how we would do that without this legislation. The answer is very simple. The old National Party governed the country for nine years. Was there any integration when the old National Party was in power? How did they see to it that there were separate schools? How did they see to it that on the voters’ rolls and even on the so-called common voters’ roll the White men and women were listed separately from the Coloureds? There was no integration and there were no mixed schools either. I can tell hon. members opposite that in our attitude we stand exactly where the old National Party stood for nine years. When you are attacked in this connection, you really see how illogical members on the opposite side are. The hon. member asked us how we wanted to bring about separation in the case of residential areas. But Athlone, the best Coloured residential area in the Cape, was established by this side of the House without race classification. This has always been the customary way and it would still be done in this way by us. We reject that those charges that are always levelled against us, such as the charge that was levelled by the hon. the Minister to the effect that the choice was between integration and segregation. It is a pity that charges of this kind are levelled, because it makes it difficult for one to deal with the Bill in a purely factual way. It is difficult to do so if this kind of charge is levelled against the Opposition. We accept the fact that we in South Africa are a series of natural communities and nothing in the world will change this. We have the White community, but within the White community there are two language groups, and they will always be there. There is a Coloured community, and within that community there is a Malay community, which came about without any form of legislation. In this way we also have the Indians with a Hindu community and a Moslem community, and we have a large number of Bantu communities. These are all natural communities with natural dividing lines. We have never deemed it to be necessary to support the separation by unnatural means.

As I said, the hon. Minister himself could not resist the temptation of presenting this Bill as a choice between segregation and integration. He said it was the cornerstone of their policy. I want to test the hon. the Minister by just asking him a few pertinent questions. His party has now been in power for 21 years, and it has also had control over South West Africa for these 21 years. In South West Africa the policy of the Government is also applied, but race classification does not apply there. The Bill which is before the House at present has no provision to the effect that it has to be applied to South West Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is integration in South West Africa. The Leader of the National Party in South West Africa is sitting in this House. There the policy of the Government is being applied without this Bill and the Act which this Bill seeks to change. Must I now infer that the hon. the Minister is accusing his own party of practising integration in South West Africa? How do they implement their policy there? How do they maintain a White voters’ roll? How do they maintain White schools in South West Africa without race classification?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Salt River …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a question. On what grounds can we not follow the normal procedure in regard to interjections now?

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is now no certainty as to what is allowed and what is not allowed in this House. I am now addressing you on a point of order. We were given the warning that anybody who interjected in any way would be ordered out of the House. The hon. member for Salt River made a very mild interjection and nobody could even tell what he said, but he was ordered out of the House. I should like to know whether we are allowed to interject or not.

Who gave the ruling that no interjections would be allowed?

The Speaker in the Chair.

Was it I?

No, it was the Deputy Speaker.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, to help you I want to say that I do not mind in the least if good interjections are made and if good questions are put to me. It does not bother me. I inferred from the Minister’s attitude to-night that this Bill and race classification in general either would not be applied to South West Africa in future either. In other words, we have the position that in the case of a territory two-thirds the size of the Republic the Government says that race classification and this Bill are not necessary there. They say that it is not necessary there for the implementation of the Government’s own policy. I ask the hon. the Minister to explain this to us. Why do we have this double standard? Why are charges levelled at us if the Bill is not going to be applied to almost half of the area which falls under the administration of his Government? And, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get a clear answer to that, we most certainly have every right to throw the same charges that are thrown at us, back at the Government.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that this Bill was aimed at ensuring further that descent would remain the decisive factor. I asked the hon. the Minister earlier on in the session about the position of immigrants in this particular connection. What was the reply of the hon. the Minister and of other hon. members on the Government side? It was that in respect of new South Africans entering the country there was only one norm. It is not the norm that is embodied in this Bill, but the norm of acceptability and appearance. No other test was going to be applied to new South Africans entering the country. We all know that they come from countries where, at birth, people are not registered according to their race. And again one has the contradiction in the Government’s attitude. Am I not then entitled to say that this is sufficient proof that this Bill is not necessary, is not necessary for our policy either? And in that connection the hon. member for Prinshof is completely wrong. This Bill is not necessary for a race federation or anything of that nature. The Government does not even need it to implement its own policy in a large part of the country. Within the next ten years or so we are easily going to get another half a million new South Africans in this country who will be exempted from the provisions we are being asked to accept to-night. Is it fair then to have a double test, one for old South Africans and one for new South Africans? The hon. the Minister himself said that the test for new South Africans was one of acceptability. Here we are dealing with people to-night who have already been accepted by the White community of South Africa, and whose position now has to be plunged into uncertainty. I want to accuse the Government of applying a double standard. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as we are concerned, the point at issue here is not integration or segregation at all. The difference between the two sides is a difference in method—what the best method is to handle population differences existing in South Africa. We think it is a reflection on the hon. the Minister himself that he did not confine himself to the facts of the Bill, but that he proceeded to make the political accusations he did make.

I have pointed out that this Bill is not necessary. If it had been so urgently necessary, the Government would have made it applicable to all South Africans, both new South Africans and old South Africans, and also to the entire territory over which it has jurisdiction. We can also point out that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which spoils South Africa’s image so much as legislation of this nature. In conclusion I want to say that it is our standpoint that any Bill which has the effect this one must have, that is to say, that people’s lives are ruined, families are divided, children are separated from their parents and marriages are destroyed, does not belong in a country which calls itself civilized. Therefore we will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advanced arguments here why race classification would be unnecessary under the policy of the United Party. To support his argument he did not, strangely enough, he did not fall back on the days when the United Party governed this country from 1933 to 1948. He fell back on the years 1924 to 1933 when the National Party governed this country. He used that as the lever for arguing that this legislation was unnecessary. Why did he avoid referring to the United Party government from 1933 to 1948? He tried to avoid that because it was in fact under the United Party Government of those years that it became evident that the policy of that Party led more and more to a mixing of the races and to racial integration in the education, residential, economic and political spheres. That is why the National Party, when it came into power, deemed it necessary to deal with this problem on this fixed basis.

There is no point in the United Party and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout arguing that they are going to act in the year 1970 as though it were 1924. The hon. member must remember that there has been a process of urbanization since 1933, as a result of which the Coloureds, who used to be spread over the rural areas in large numbers, have moved to the towns where they have taken up residence in the White residential areas under the United Party Government, and have become so intermingled with the Whites that their identification has become more and more difficult. This process of urbanization is still going on. What would the position have been if there had been no group areas to-day? Group areas are in fact based on race classification. If there had been no race classification there could not have been group areas. If it had not been for that the identification of Coloureds for the purpose of drawing a distinction between them and the Whites and often also between them and the urban Bantu would have become more and more difficult. It is of no use to the hon. member to hide behind such flimsy excuses.

The question which the United Party refuses to answer, and has tried to evade by means of the reply which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave, is how the United Party, for the purposes of its policy of race federation, is going to distinguish among Whites, Coloureds and urban Bantu? They refuse to reply to that question. The hon. member took refuge to 1924 in order to answer the question in the hypothetical way in which he did. Then he brought in South-West Africa and said that there was no race classification in South-West Africa. But surely it is obvious that in respect of South-West Africa, with the demarcated residential areas which exist in that territory for the Rehoboth community and the other non-White groups, for example, there has been no need to introduce race classification in order to determine the identity of those non-White groups. It is of no use to the hon. member to try to draw a comparison between South-West Africa, with its composition and distribution of its population and its small degree of industrialization, and South Africa, as justification for the United Party’s policy.

Why not?

But is the hon. member still unable to understand that South-West Africa to-day can be compared with South Africa of 1924 when the National Party was governing the country without race classification? After all, it is not so difficult to understand that. If the hon. member still does not understand this, I, unfortunately cannot help him. I can just present the knowledge to him, but unfortunately I cannot present him with the intelligence to understand that as well. It is for him to reply to the question that has been put to the United Party. In terms of its policy of race federation, as that has repeatedly been put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Whites and the Coloureds will be regarded as one group for the purposes of the “intimate” matters affecting them, for example, educational and health services, in other words for the purposes of schooling, university training and hospitalization. I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to deny that that is the policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated.

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