Mr. Speaker, I move—

Unfortunately this will be a fairly long Second Reading speech in order to deal with all the details of the Bill. However, I hope that the House will bear with me in connection with this matter! This Bill is the result of the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been agreed to by this hon. House and by the Senate. In the light of all these facts I now present this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not intend to oppose this Bill. We intend supporting it in view of the fact that it gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. The hon. the Minister’s speech does not really require a lengthy reply, but I would like to make certain comments in regard to the Bill that is before us. This Bill sets out in the Schedule, and therefore accepts, the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions in 24 cases. Two of these items were on the basis of memoranda submitted to the Select Committee by the Cabinet. However, I think it is significant if one looks at the Bill before us and compares it with the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. The reason I want to make such a comparison is the fact that on this occasion a large number of the petitions that were submitted and recommended by the Select Committee are now omitted from the Schedule of the Bill now before us.

Order! Those items are not under consideration now.

Is the Schedule not part of the Bill? I have the impression that the Bill consists of a schedule.

The items that were omitted are not under consideration now.

I am comparing the Schedule that is before us with the report of the Select Committee that was considered by the House.

The hon. member may only deal with the items enumerated in the Schedule.

In dealing with the items enumerated in the Schedule one sees that there are only two items which concern the South African Railways Superannuation Fund. Actually there is only one item that affects that fund, namely item 23, as item 24, which also deals with a railway employee, can be dealt with in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Item 23 deals with the question of a person being able to contribute for pensionable service to the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund. It is an important item because it highlights the difficulty experienced in regard to the transferability of pension rights. We have heard on many occasions about the shortage of staff experienced by the Railway Administration. It therefore becomes important that these recommendations that are made by the Select Committee should receive favourable consideration when they are considered.

They are receiving favourable consideration and they have been incorporated in the Bill.

Several recommendations were made by the Select Committee, but only the one was incorporated in the Bill.

Order! That is definitely not under discussion now.

I am merely illustrating the fact that the transferability of these funds and the condonation of breaks in service as far as these employees are concerned, are only provided for in one recommendation of those which are included in this Bill. I believe it is a pity that it is not possible to bring about a greater degree of transferability when it comes to a person’s pensionable rights as far as these people are concerned.

Order! The hon. member must seek another opportunity to discuss this matter. All that the hon. member may discuss now, are the items included in the Schedule to the Bill.

I am discussing item 23, which is included in the Schedule, dealing with the transfer of a person who is able to contribute on a rand for rand basis, plus interest, so as to bring about a greater period of pensionable service so far as his service is concerned. However, if I am not able to continue along these lines, I merely wish to say that it is time the Government gave serious consideration to the recommendations of the Cilliers Committee to endeavour to bring about a greater degree of transferability of pension rights.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond in general to a few cardinal points raised by hon. members opposite in the course of the discussion of this Bill and, in particular, in the course of the previous debate. In particular I want to reply to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as to a few of the other speakers. However, I am not doing so in the light of the comments they made, but in the light of what I want to be said here, and in the course of my speech I shall refer to what was said by hon. members.

Before dealing with these points, I should like to remind the House of what I have said before, here and outside this House, namely that in regard to the development, implementation and continuation of our policy of separate development there are five very important determining factors, five determinants, which have a very important effect on the implementation of these activities and, especially, on the rate at which they are implemented. These factors also determine the extent to which and the speed at which successes are achieved in regard to the implementation of this work. At the moment I do not wish to discuss these five factors, or rather determinants, at length. I have already done so before and I just want to mention them now. In the first place, there is a very formidable factor, i.e. the human capabilities of the Bantu persons themselves. The second one I want to mention to the House is the natural urge towards self-realization which is to be found amongst all Bantu peoples, including those in this country. In the third place, I want to mention the means required for implementing the policy. I am now referring to means in the form of funds and manpower which are required for the implementation of our policy. The fourth determining factor is the public consent and support, i.e. on the part of the white population of South Africa, which are of course necessary. In the fifth place, there is another very important matter, i.e. that time is passing so rapidly. We as human beings only have a very limited time in which to do such important work.

In order to realize our general policy of ensuring the white people and also every Bantu people (and, of course, each of the other non-white peoples as well) its separate existence in South Africa, its separate survival and its separate coexistence, there are certain groups of specific tasks which have to be carried out. I want to confine my attention more specifically to four of those specific groups of tasks which must be carried out in order to implement our policy. In the first place, I mention the great specific tasks, namely that the political authority of every individual people in South Africa must be confined to its own territory or its own ranks only. This is an extremely important specific task. Just as we as Whites have already, without any doubt, established our white authority thanks to the energetic persistence and the ceaseless perseverance of the National Party, which will especially be the case in its purest form in two years’ time, when, in addition, the last representatives of the Coloureds will no longer have seats in this House; just as we want the authority of the Whites to be established in this Parliament, so we want, in terms of our policy, the political authority of a Venda people or an Ovambo people, or a Tswana people to be established in its own ranks and in its own homeland. This is an inescapable premise in the implementation of our work under our policy.

The Bantu in general and every Bantu people—and this also applies to the Coloureds and the Indians—will therefore not be able to have in this Parliament any hold whatsoever on the politics of the Whites. Nor will they obtain such a hold in the future, i.e. as long as the National Party holds the reins of government in this House, and that will be as long as all of us are going to be alive and even longer. For that reason, because this is such a cardinal point, I have had a Bill drafted this year, a Bill which has been tabled here for our attention, i.e. the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill, to put it beyond all doubt that every Bantu person shall have his own citizenship of his own nation, in his homeland area, which, evolutionarily, will of course still have to develop further, so that every Bantu person in South Africa will statutorily have a proper connection with his own nation, just as we as Whites are and want to be connected with our white nation. Sir, I do not know what is going to happen in this session; we know that that Bill will not be introduced during this Session, but I want to give this House the assurance to-day that that Bill will still become an Act of this House, no matter when.

Sir, from what I have now said it should therefore be understood that the political system to which the National Party adheres and which it applies under our policy of separate development, is a system of national government for every nation over that nation alone. Therefore, we do not have in South Africa a system of a minority government, of a minority people ruling over other peoples. It must be understood very clearly that in terms of our policy this is not the system which obtains in South Africa. It is true—we admit it—that other peoples in South Africa still do not have their own sovereign authorities, but whose fault is that, Sir? In order to get to the root of this one has to go to those peoples themselves and to the work of the Creator; it is not the fault of the white authority in South Africa that, as far as their political authority is concerned, they have, over the same period we have had in South Africa, not yet been in a position to accomplish what we have in fact accomplished for ourselves.

Sir, consequently we as a white people are granting each of those peoples, on the road to their destination, which they may reach if they have the ability to do so, every assistance so that as distinctive peoples, under their own authority, they may triumphantly attain the highest form of self-government. In terms of our policy it is therefore possible for them to develop to the full, i.e. to full independence, if they are capable of doing so. We are not evading that implication of our policy at all, and we are not drawing up a time-table for it either. We are not doing here what was done in the Congo, where it was said: “On 30th June, 1960, at 12 o’clock midnight, every single Belgian is to withdraw and the other people will take over.” We know what chaos resulted there. What we do in fact say, is that the white public of South Africa, to be specific—and I again want to emphasize this very strongly here to-day—should realize that one of those determinants, as I called them, is that that urge towards becoming independent is present in each of these peoples. The white public must realize that those urges will find expression and will be intensified until they are realized, and that in the case of some of those peoples it is likely that this will still happen within the lifetime of those of us who are sitting in this House. We must accept this; this is a logical point of our policy, and it is being accepted by the public to an increasing extent.

Would you do the same for the Coloureds?

Sir, let us now contrast this with the attitude adopted by the United Party, which says that the political authority of the Whites in this Parliament should be shared by the Whites with all the non-white peoples in South Africa. There is no need to argue about this any further. Any person who approaches this in a logical and objective manner, will tell you that under that policy of the United Party the only logical consequence would be—and I assume that this is without the will and intention of the United Party—that the authority of the Whites here in their cradle, i.e. their Parliament, would eventually be swallowed up.

Sir, there is a second group of tasks which is very important, i.e. that the numbers of the Bantu persons present in the white area should be restricted and reduced. It is a universal phenomenon, as I have said before, for a nation to want to have in its homeland the maximum number of its own people and the minimum number of other people, especially if, what is more, the latter cannot be assimilated. It is also the fundamental principle of our multi-national development that we want the maximum number of Whites and the minimum number of Bantu to be living in the homelands of the Whites, and the reverse is also true, i.e. that we want the minimum number of Whites to live in the homelands of the various Bantu peoples.

Sir, it follows from this that there should therefore be development in the homelands of the Bantu so as to enhance the carrying capacity of those homelands so that they may carry a maximum number of the members of those ethnic groups. For that reason there should be as much agricultural development in the Bantu homelands as possible—and I am not going to elaborate on this now as my time is too limited. For that reason every effort should be made to create the infrastructure which is lacking there, i.e. in respect of roads, bridges, water, etc.; there should be social development in the Bantu homelands; there should be educational development and there should be economic development in general. We are doing our level best in this connection, due regard being had to the retarding effects of the five determinants I mentioned here at the outset. As regards the economic aspect, I am pleased to be able to tell this House to-day that in two days’ time, on Friday morning, I shall attend in Pretoria the first meeting of the newly established Mining Corporation, in which some of our most eminent mining experts and mining entrepreneurs in South Africa are participating, and that I shall launch it as a mining corporation which will do everything in its power in the Bantu areas to develop any possible deposit which may be profitable, even if it merely covers the expenditure without yielding profits, for Our policy in the Bantu homelands is that of creating labour. In point of fact, this is even more important to us than profit is, irrespective of how important profit may be to us. This Mining Corporation is about to be established and we have great expectations.

Over the past few months we have also initiated a number of growth points for industrial development inside the Bantu homelands. For instance, such a growth point was initiated at Butterworth, and a week or two ago it was announced in public that a similar growth point had been initiated at the Temba Bantu township in Tswanaland, north-west of Pretoria. Sir, in recent times have said a great deal and earlier this year I made several announcements here in Cape Town in regard to the application of our old system of enterprises on the agency basis inside the Bantu homelands, an old basis on which too little was said and too little was elaborated in the past and on which I spoke at length when I recently addressed industrialists here and invited them to show interest in such agency enterprises inside the Bantu homelands.

I outlined the system to them and a great deal of interest was shown. But we are not merely leaving it at that. We are also inviting entrepreneurs who in our opinion are eligible for undertaking enterprises of this very nature inside the Bantu homelands. It also gives me pleasure to be able to disclose for the first time this morning—without announcing details, for I dare not do so as yet—that in the recent past I have personally succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of an established, large-scale manufacturer in Paarl to establish for us, at Butterworth in the Transkei a bag factory on an agency basis. This is a bag factory which will produce up to 7 million bags a year from the fibre being produced in the Bantu areas of South Africa, more specifically in the Transkei. At this stage I am not in a position to furnish more details. I dare not do so, but I may just say that this is a very fine prospect, and I hope that this will be the forerunner of many enterprises of this nature, which therefore goes to prove that we do hot sit and hope that the factories will fall out of the skies like manna, but that we are doing the necessary within the development of our policy. I also want to call to mind the fact that over the past number of years we have developed quite a number of Bantu townships in the Bantu areas, together with everything which goes hand in hand with a Bantu township, and that these are also increasing all the time—all of them things which are necessary for stimulating the economic development inside the Bantu areas.

But my time is too limited and I do not wish to go into too much detail in regard to this matter. While we are speaking about the numbers of the Bantu in the white areas, I just want to repeat—I suppose I shall still have to repeat this very often in my life—that fewer and fewer Bantu persons should be employed in the white areas by employers of all types, from the householder down to the farmer and the manufacturer. That is why we have been imposing influx control over all these years and, let me warn hon. members, are prepared to impose it more and more strictly, without fear or favour. [Interjections.] No, we shall see to it that the country does not come to a standstill and, in particular, that the white people do not come to a standstill. Hon. members must realize that there is a major increase in births amongst the Bantu, even amongst those who are resident here in our white areas. That is why it is necessary that the influx control over Bantu persons from outside the urban areas should be imposed in a strict manner; that is why we have an extensive network of labour bureaux all over the country, extended to within the tribal areas, to assist in these matters; that is why the Government passed the Physical Planning Act, an Act which my colleague the Minister of Planning is administering in conjunction with us and which I hope he will administer in a wise and strict manner. Through that legislation we have control over industrial land and the establishment of factories; that is also why we have the Western Cape policy, in terms of which we are saying that the numbers of the Bantu here in the Western Cape should be reduced and that the Coloureds and the Whites should perform the work here and that the Coloureds are quite naturally—for historical reasons—being preferred here to the Bantu. In this regard I should like to tell the hon. member for Sea Point, who spoke about this matter last night, that he should realize that before the Bantu entered this area—and not many years have elapsed since the Bantu started flocking into this area for employment—all the work of the Whites was in fact done here, and with an equal measure of discretion and initiative we may also adapt ourselves here in the Western Province to this policy, i.e. that the numbers of the Bantu here should decrease. That is why we are pleased to have been able to announce this year that here in the Cape Peninsula the first signs of the way in which the numbers of the Bantu labourers have decreased this year as against last year’s figure, have already become apparent. The hon. member for Sea Point should understand clearly that we shall do this type of work gradually in order that the Whites and the Coloureds here, and more and more Bantu elsewhere, may be furnished with employment.

Sir, I want to repeat: Every employer in South Africa should learn that we must employ fewer and fewer Bantu labourers, that we must apply rationalization and mechanization in our labour and that in all sorts of ways we simply must employ fewer Bantu labourers because—I am no prophet, but I should like to repeat this prediction I made in the Other Place—as sure as the sun rises every day, so sure it is that the time will still come when Bantu labour will be a scarce article here in white South Africa.

You are dreaming.

The hon. member for North Rand is laughing about this; he will live to see this yet. Sooner or later he will come to my department to ask us to help him because of the scarcity of Bantu labour. It is going to become a scarce article as the result of the control in white areas, and as a result of the demand on the part of the Bantu homelands themselves for those Bantu to be employed inside the Bantu homelands and in border industry factories adjoining those Bantu homelands. Sir, I therefore want to appeal to every white person not merely to stand by idly and see whether the numbers of the Bantu in the white areas would automatically dwindle in some mysterious way or other; on the contrary, every individual should make a positive contribution, take steps and undertake planning in order to reduce the numbers of the Bantu in our white areas in every sphere, including our Bantu domestic servants, farm labourers and factory workers. We must accept, propagate and support this idea in every respect. If we want to implement this policy, and we are going to do so, each and every one of us should be inspired with this aim. It should become an obsession with all of us. It should be a status symbol for a person to say that he is upholding the policy of separate development. To the upholder of the white people and the upholder of this policy, this has to be a status symbol. Those people for whom such things have no value, need not aspire to that status. We shall merely have to go on trying to help and save them. Contrast this with the United Party’s attitude in this regard. What is their attitude? They are saying openly that we should use more and more Bantu here. This is also in line with the famous words of the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss. He said: “Let them flow into our workshops, our factories, our homes and our farms.” This is a pernicious political outlook to those of us who wish to uphold the universal standpoint that in our own homeland we want to have the maximum number of our own people and a minimum number of foreigners and especially those who cannot be assimilated.

I shall now mention to hon. members the third major task to which I referred and which is important. What this amounts to, is that in as far as Bantu are in fact present in our white areas, we should ensure that the basis on which they are present here should be one of non-integration as determined by the National Party. For many years to come the position will still be that Bantu will be present in the white areas, because of the fact that we have to carry out our task gradually. This is our policy. Integration used to be called “equalization”; now if has once again been given a fine, new name. We hear all sorts of new names for it. Under our policy the standpoint has always been that the Bantu who are present in the white areas, may not be here in our fields of employment as real or potential equals of the white workers or of the white entrepreneurs. It does not constitute integration if Bantu are only present in a certain profession or in a certain industry. It depends on the way in which they are present there. The National Party states openly that in white areas the Bantu may not be present in our fields of employment on an equal footing with the Whites. In their homelands this is in fact not possible. In their homelands the Bantu can go where they please and rise to the very highest positions in their field of employment. In their areas we, in turn, are present on an unequal footing as against the Bantu. Sir, let me mention an example, which can also be applied to all sorts of other branches of industry in general, so that this standpoint may be understood clearly. In a white area a Bantu person cannot become an apprentice, complete his apprenticeship and then become an artisan. That cannot happen here in Cape Town or in Kroonstad. He cannot subsequently become a foreman, a manager of a factory and eventually the owner or the co-owner of such a factory. This is the process he will follow in a case where integration is applied. There it will be possible for him to be an equal or a potential equal. Under our policy this is not possible. That is why we are opening up these possibilities to the Bantu in their own homelands. That is why, as I have already announced, we are at present engaged in designing for the Bantu, in consultation with the Department of Labour, an apprenticeship of their own in their own homelands. Such an apprenticeship is being modelled on their own lines and in accordance with their own needs. That is why there are separate fields of employment for Whites and Bantu in South Africa. That is why restrictions have been imposed upon Bantu, so that it may not be possible for them to do everything in the white areas, but that is also the reason why in this regard no restrictions are being imposed upon them in their own homelands.

We are always told what they are going to do.

This is not merely what we are going to do. We are already doing it at present. That hon. member should only afford me an opportunity of finishing what I want to say. In view of the fact we must have this control in the fields of employment in the white areas, where the Whites must have the monopoly in respect of all employment, we introduced the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill in this House. This legislation contains, inter alia, a provision which provides for the control over the employment of Bantu persons in specified classes of employment in the white areas. In this regard I want to say that that provision is going to become an Act of this Parliament. I am saying this now, no matter when it will be effected.

Contrast this standpoint in respect of the basis on which the Bantu are present here, with the United Party’s standpoint. The United Party states openly: “Open up all the fields of employment in the white areas to the Bantu, and by doing so we shall alleviate the manpower scarcity and the manpower shortage.” The United Party boasts of that. It does not hide it.

Now I want to mention to hon. members the fourth group of tasks. This is in respect of the territorial separation between the homelands of the Whites and the homelands of the Bantu. Generally speaking, we know where the Bantu areas are situated. That is why this principle has been firmly established, i.e. that the Bantu receive property rights in their homelands and the Whites receive property rights in their own homeland, and not vice versa. In other words, one only receives landownership in one’s own homeland. We still have consolidation work to do. This includes the exchange of wrongly situated Bantu areas, the purchase of certain tracts of white land which are still required, and also the excision of Bantu land. We know that we still have to do this. The task which has to be done is a gradual one, in view of those determining factors which I mentioned earlier on to-day. In addition there are certain practical and substantial facts which we have to take into account. The work we are doing in respect of the separation of the territories of the Whites and the Bantu is, no matter how gradually this may be done, nothing but a gradual partition which we wish to introduce in South Africa. If it were possible, we should have liked to effect that partition all at once. But when one has regard to the practical realities, one finds that it cannot be done in that way. For that reason this is nothing but a gradual partition which is now being introduced by us. For that purpose we need the cooperation of everybody, including hon. members opposite.

One logical step which also arises from this, and with which we hope to be able to come forward before the end of this year, is that we shall still have to change our district classifications in South Africa where the Bantu areas are adjoining. This is an important matter, and that is why I am now mentioning it here. This has to be done in order that we may no longer have anomaly of a white district which extends into the homelands of the Bantu. In future white districts will therefore be situated exclusively in white South Africa. Inside the Bantu homelands the Bantu districts, which will have their own functions and names, will be situated. For instance, we now have the position that the district of Pretoria extends into the Tswana homeland and that certain districts in Natal extend into the Zulu homeland. This will also be changed, because in terms of the separation of territories between white and Bantu homelands, this is also an anomaly.

One again, let us contrast with this the United Party’s policy. They say that there is no homeland concept for the Whites and the Bantu in South Africa. They say that a Bantu person and a white person can obtain property rights anywhere in South Africa, inside or outside the homelands of the Bantu.

That is not true.

The new mentor, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, says that this is not true. I hope he is right, because if that is so, I also want to hear this from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is no longer the policy of the United Party that Bantu persons should obtain property rights in white areas; in other words, in places such as Soweto, Kroonstad, Cape Town and in the other Bantu residential areas. [Interjections.]

In the execution of these specific tasks all of us have very important tasks to perform. All of us are very much concerned about the rate. I myself should like to see the completion of these tasks in my own lifetime. But we dare not bungle matters by acting precipitately. For that reason I say that what we need, is that a loud and clear clarion call should be heard in South Africa, a call which will be heard and accepted by everybody. It should be a clarion call which would appeal to everybody, including the Whites, the Bantu, the Indians and also the Coloureds. They should be told: “Do your duty by the nations”. This is our task for the future. If we want to do this, we should see to it that we leave our self-complacency and satisfaction behind. We should not always wait for shocks, such as onslaughts on our leaders or incidents such as Sharpeville or World Court cases, before we undertake the implementation of our policy in a vigorous manner. By being inspired with the wish to achieve our goal, we should seriously implement our policy every day. This is a clarion call which should go out to every white person and every non-white person in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr.

Speaker, two days ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and certain other hon. members on that side of the House made the statement here that this Session of Parliament was ending on a note of tremendous uncertainty in many spheres, inter alia, the political and economic spheres. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to charge the Government with the uncertainty prevailing in these spheres. Since that uncertainty prevails in respect of financial problems, he want to charge me as Minister of Finance with it. If there is one truth which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition propagated in his speech, a truth which is not really a great wisdom, then it is the fact that we are indeed concluding this Session with a great deal of uncertainty, both in the political and the monetary spheres. When he spoke, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was as yet unaware of the speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was to make here last night and of the tremendous uncertainty this has once again created in respect of the future policy of the United Party as regards the colour question. In the months that lie ahead we shall want a reply from the Leader of the Opposition and from his members to the question of whether the policy which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocated here last night, i.e. the policy of further integration, is the policy of the United Party. If this is not the policy of the United Party, they must tell us what the hon. the Leader is going to do with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

But as regards the uncertainty in the monetary sphere, I want to repeat that I agree with him that in South Africa, too, some uncertainty is prevailing in the financial and monetary spheres. I am saying “South Africa, too” on purpose, because the existing uncertainty is not in respect of South Africa only, but because of the fact that we are living to-day in a period of tremendous monetary uncertainty throughout the world. In the monetary sphere we have witnessed over the past year or two one crisis after the other throughout the world. We have seen how the powers have made attempts at averting those crises one after the other, but in spite of the methods they have applied in order to avert these monetary crises, the whole world is still enveloped in a cloud of uncertainty, the after-effects of which are also being felt in South Africa. South Africa is not an isolated phenomenon in the monetary sphere. South Africa is being affected by what has happened in other countries and, in turn, South Africa itself has an effect on what happens in the monetary sphere in other countries. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members will know that there is uncertainty in the world to-day in respect of the franc. There is uncertainty as to what is going to happen to the French franc in the next few months. In addition there is uncertainty in respect of the pound sterling, and there is even some uncertainty as to what is going to happen to the German mark, although the German government has recently stated plainly that it was not going to revalue the mark. In spite of that some uncertainty and doubt still prevail in the world as to whether a revaluation of the mark should not take place in the future. The hon. the Leader will know that uncertainty has arisen in respect of the dollar and as to what is going to happen in America. Uncertainty prevails as to whether America is going to succeed in combating her inflation which at present amounts to as high a rate as 8 per cent per year. If she does not combat that inflation and it should continue unchecked, there is uncertainty as to what effect it will have on the rest of the world. If America is in fact capable of combating inflation, there is in addition uncertainty as to what its effects on the rest of the world are going to be. Recently we received the astonishing news that interest rates on the Euro-dollar market has already reached the astonishingly high level of 13 per cent. If this is the case, i.e. that interest rates on the Eurodollar market have already reached the level of 13 per cent, I want to call attention to the very extensive doubts which exist in regard to the monetary front. At present the position in Europe and America is such that financial experts virtually refrain from taking the risk of looking ahead further than three or four months. Uncertainty prevails in regard to the monetary front of the whole world. It is obvious that since that uncertainty prevails in regard to the world monetary front, its effects must also and will be felt here in South Africa, and that we would be closing our eyes to a fact if we were to deny that that uncertainty will also have an effect on South Africa.

This brings me to the question of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, to which the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown referred so often. The phenomenon of speculation on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange which we witness to-day and have in particular been witnessing over the past few months, is not attributable to a lack of confidence in the economic future of South Africa, because the economy of South Africa is still as sound as it could ever have been, because the rand is still in as strong a position as it could ever have been and because South Africa has succeeded in curbing inflation as no other country in the world has been able to do. Over the period April, 1968 to April, 1969, the rate of inflation in South Africa was only 2.9 per cent, as compared to a much higher rate in other parts of the world. In saying that we have not succeeded in curbing inflation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is displaying ignorance of the facts. The state of affairs on the Stock Exchange, to which hon. members referred, is, in the first place, attributable to the excess liquidity which exists in our system of credit. This should be attributed to the tremendous growth of our country in the economic sphere and confidence in the future. This is also attributable to the large salaries and the large savings put away by our people. In particular it is attributable to the international uncertainty in other parts of the world, which must necessarily have an effect on South Africa. The hon. member for Parktown said that we should now start dissociating the Exchange from gold, but we cannot do that. The position on the Exchange is inevitably linked with gold. He said that we should dissociate share prices from gold. The position on the Exchange is inevitably linked with the question of gold and the two cannot be separated. The fact that we in South Africa have to a large extent succeeded in curbing inflation, is attributable to the monetary and fiscal policy of the Government. This is the case in view of the fact that through our monetary and fiscal policy we as the Government have, in the first place, succeeded in absorbing a large part of the excess liquidity in the country by means of loans and taxes, for which I am often attacked by hon. members opposite, namely that we have in point of fact set aside and sterilized between R300 and R400 million. This has to be attributed to the fact that we have induced the banks to impose credit restrictions. The next step we shall have to take if we wish to curb inflation further, will be to drain away the liquidity, not only by means of various measures taken by the State or by imposing a restriction on the credit of the banks, but also by draining away money towards countries abroad. We shall have to export money to countries abroad as far as possible. We can only do so when we succeed in solving the problem of marketing gold and in obtaining by those means the necessary exchange so that we may then once again drain away money from the private sector towards countries abroad.

The hon. member for Parktown touched upon the question of building societies. The hon. member for Pinetown did the same. These hon. members wanted to know from me whether these questions were bound up with each other. They wanted to know how this question of the Exchange and the draining away of money out of the country, could have any bearing on the building societies. I can tell hon. members that this will in fact have a bearing on building societies. If we were to succeed in solving the problem of marketing gold, and if we could obtain the foreign exchange and by doing so relax our exchange rate control and send more money to countries abroad, I am convinced that share prices on the Exchange will show a downward trend. Once share prices on the Exchange show a downward trend, people will be more inclined to invest money in fixed interest-bearing securities, which include building societies. One of the reasons why the building societies are experiencing these difficulties to-day, is the very fact that people do not want to invest in fixed interest-bearing securities because they want to play on an Exchange which is rising all the time. Once that rise has been curbed and that spirit of speculation has been subdued, people will be less inclined to withdraw their money from the building societies and then to speculate with it. Then they will be more inclined to invest money in fixed interest-bearing securities, such as at building societies. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Florida have already pointed out that building societies, as we all know, are in fact in difficulties. They have also pointed out that the past year has been a record year for the building societies and that the difficulties in which they now find themselves have been caused by the conditions prevailing on the Stock Exchange. I have been asked what we intend doing. Of course, the State cannot be expected simply to intervene anywhere. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the very numerous controls and control measures which were being introduced all the time. I agree with him that we do not always want controls and new measures. But according to their pleas it would always appear that they want us, the State, to intervene more and more in the workings of the Exchange and the building societies. Hon. members want us to apply more and more control measures in order that funds may be canalized towards them. We, the Government, have done a great deal for the building societies. Hon. members will recall that the State gave them a certain sum last year. It will be recalled that we permitted them to make tax-free share issues. In the course of this Session we permitted them to enter the field of township development. Recently we granted them the right to issue debentures, by way of which they will obtain new funds. Up to the present we have acceded to all the important requests made by the building societies. In circumstances such as the present ones, which are abnormal, we shall not be compelled or forced into taking precipitate and injudicious measures to meet what is perhaps a temporary, abnormal situation. I may tell hon. members that I am leaving for Pretoria this week-end. My first task on Monday morning will be to have talks with the building societies to see what more we can do for them.

The hon. member for Pinetown spoke about the gold price. He said that my predecessor and the one before him had both spoken about the increase in the gold price which we expected. He wanted to know how long we would still be kept on a string and when we were going to obtain that increased gold price. I wish I could give the hon. member an answer to these questions. I do not know how the hon. member can ask me such questions. The person who knows at present when there will be an increase in the gold price, must be the wisest man in the world. We as Government maintain that we believe that an increase in the gold price will at some time or other be brought about by force of circumstances. We believe that this is the solution to a major part of the world’s monetary problems. We believe that once the experts, governments and monetary authorities of the world truly realize the significance of an increased gold price, they will take that step. But when that will happen, the hon. member cannot tell me. We as Government and, to an increasing extent, other people as well, only hope and trust that this is one of the solutions to the problems of the world. If the world wants to act judiciously, they will have to arrive at the solution. Of course, the hon. member is correct in saying that this is not a solution to all problems. This is not a solution to all our problems. This is only one phase in our financial endeavour. An official increase in the price of gold will entail many problems for us. It will entail new inflation problems. It will not solve the problems of the world as long as there are countries which cannot keep their own domestic economies in order. But this is going to be one of the means which will lead to the solution of the various problems enveloping world finance.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to the question of gold marketing. The hon. member made a remark here to the effect that the Minister supposedly has the tendency “to indicate certain things that tell us nothing”. In this regard the hon. member was, of course, referring to certain statements I have made concerning the future marketing of our gold. He maintains that I should rather not have made them. I can tell the hon. member that when I see dangers threatening South Africa in the financial sphere—be it in a month’s, three months’ or a year’s time—and I were to fail to sound a note of warning, I should be neglecting my duty. If I can foresee the possibility of a solution to our gold-marketing problem being found, a solution which would make it possible for us to sell gold more freely and in that way to earn more foreign exchange and to export more money out of the country, which would inevitably lead to the Exchange showing a downward trend as well, then would be my duty to sound a note of warning. I did not say that I was sure that it would come. What I did in fact say, was that I expected and hoped and trusted that we would find a solution to the problem shortly, perhaps before the end of this year. What I did in fact deny, was when I was asked whether I expected this to happen shortly, to-morrow, the day after, or next week. Since there are people who are of the opinion that this may happen to-morrow or the day after, I made a statement to the effect that there was “no imminent solution” to this problem. The hon. member will perhaps know that on the monetary front to-day statements are continually being made abroad as well as at home. In those statements it is often said that South Africa and America have already arrived at a solution. It is being said that a solution is imminent or likely. Various forms of possible solutions are continually being suggested in the world Press. These statements are inconsistent with one another. This is often done with evil intentions. This is often done with the object of forcing down the price of gold on the free market. If everybody outside is making statements and if our own people are asking me what the position is, it is my duty to say in as few words as possible what the position is as far as we are concerned. I want to repeat this. I do not expect to find an imminent solution to that problem. But I nevertheless trust that in the immediate future we shall be able to find a solution. I hope this is clear to the hon. member now.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked two more questions to which I want to reply. The first was whether at this stage I had arrived at an estimate of what my surplus for the current year would be. He wanted to know what my revenue and expenditure would be. I am not a prophet, Mr. Speaker. I know more or less what my expenditure will be, but not what my revenue will be. In fact, no Minister of Finance can say in advance what his revenue in any particular financial year will be.

I referred to last year.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member. But there were other hon. members as well who elaborated on the accusation to the effect that I was continually over-estimating—i.e. under-estimating the revenue and over-estimating the expenditure—and therefore ending up with tremendous surpluses. As far as this year is concerned, it would be impossible and unwise of me to try to risk a prediction as to what the balance at the end of the year will be.

May I point out to the Minister that my question was concerned with the year which ended on the 31st March, 1969. We do not expect the Minister to give us that information in respect of the coming year.

I am sorry, but in that case I misunderstood the hon. member entirely. At any rate, I do not have the figures for the past financial year available as yet; I shall make them available as soon as they are available.

Then the hon. member for Pinetown made a statement, apparently with the intention of filling us on this side with fear and trepidation. What he said was that after this Session they would go to the public and tell them that this was a rich man’s budget in that it granted tax relief to the rich and imposed heavier taxes on the poor. In other words, they want to make the public believe that they are the party for the poor man and that we are the party for the rich man. Well, they are welcome to do so. But we shall also tell the public what we think of the position. We shall tell the public that the party opposite boasts of their having pleaded here, year after year, for tax relief to be granted to the rich man. Year after year they have been pleading here for the progressiveness of our tax rates to be reduced, for the tax paid by working wives to be reduced, and for the bulge to be ironed out. Year after year they have been pleading for these things, but whenever we asked them how this was to be done, where an alternative source of revenue was to be found, they remained silent. I repeat what I have said before, i.e. that they do not have the courage to introduce this new system of taxation and that if they were to introduce it, they would have done so just as we are doing it now. But they have never had the courage to say where the extra money was to be found. We shall tell the public that they have continually been pleading for a reduction in the taxes paid by the higher income groups; we shall also tell them that the hon. member for Constantia and others have said that they accept this reduction in the income tax rate in principle; they accept that we must introduce indirect taxation. The principle has already been accepted by them. We shall also tell the public that the hon. member for Constantia even went so far as to say that they would start with a tax on luxuries, without specifying what luxuries, plus a limited tax of 2½ per cent on a small group of selected articles. Well, this source of taxation will prove to be too small. But they say they want to gain experience of this form of taxation on a short, selected list of articles and then they want to introduce a more extensive scheme next year. In other words, to those who can understand this, it is clear that hon. members opposite have accepted this whole system, the exception being that they do not wish to introduce it as soon as this year, except for luxuries and for another small group of selected articles. But they want to experiment for another year before implementing such a system in its entirety next year.

That would have been better than the muddle we are having at the present time.

In other words, they have compromised themselves to be completely in favour of this system. The only difference is a question of deferring it for a year. But what is meant by deferring this for a year? Hon. members on this side, the hon. member for Wonderboom amongst others, pointed out that this would enable the rich to buy up as much as they possibly can before the end of the year since they would know that a full sales duty would be imposed next year. In other words, deferring the introduction of this scheme would benefit the rich and not the poor. But a second implication of their proposal is that it would not bring in enough money for them. Now they want us to meet the deficit by way of a loan made from the previous year’s Loan Account and from the Stabilization Fund. In other words, we are to budget for a deficit and then we are to finance the Revenue and Expenditure Account by means of loans. This is one of the greatest inflationary factors one could have in a budget, a factor which will not only have an effect on the rich man, but also and particularly on the cost of living of the poor man, to a much greater extent than will be the case as regards this sales duty.

Therefore I am telling the hon. member for Pinetown and his fellow members that they are welcome to go to the public with this; in fact, we are requesting them to do so. We are also asking them to go to the public with the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to elucidate and explain that speech and to clear up the uncertainty as regards the future policy of the United Party. Let them therefore carry out their threat; we on this side are prepared to accept the challenge.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the few minutes available for this reading of the Bill, I should like to sum up the debate which has taken place on this measure, and which the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, has taken further. There are two aspects to this Bill: Firstly, the method of application and, secondly, the schedule of taxes imposed. The hon. member for Wonderboom chose to quote from Commercial Opinion of May, 1968. I want to quote from this month’s issue of the F.C.I. Viewpoint to sum up what we feel about the measure which we are now asked to vote upon. This is the view of industry. I quote:

This sums up exactly the view of this side of the House. We feel that this measure, having gone through the Committee Stage with no amendments, remains ill-planned and complex and creates difficulties for the industrialist. The hon. the Minister has met the main request in regard to the method by which this tax will be applied, but the Bill itself remains unchanged. He has given no indication that the administrative paper work, which goes with it, will in any way be simplified or changed. In fact, he refused to consider amendments aimed at simplifying the system of record keeping and paper work.

I only want to say a few words about the method of application of this tax. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take a personal interest in what this Bill will mean in the way of clerical and administrative work to industrialists. I also want to ask him to eliminate, wherever humanly possible, unnecessary form-filling, unnecessary records and impracticable controls. That is all I can plead for at this stage. I believe this Bill should have been withdrawn and a new Bill, simplified and based on the new method of calculation on sales figures, should have been drafted. Obviously, at this stage of the Session we realize the impossibility of that. But it indicates again the evil of rushing legislation through at this time of the year.

Then there are the schedules themselves. This side of the House pointed out our objections at the Committee Stage and moved amendments in regard to the taxes which we felt would press unduly and unfairly on the people of South Africa. In passing, I must say that I am rather touched by the tributes from some of the Government backbenchers, who, when this tax was introduced, sent me a piece of soap. When I opened the parcel I found that this was not taxed soap; it was tax-free and it was bought at Government expense. So they sent me another piece of soap. To-day, realizing the hardships of this tax, they sent me a bigger parcel, which contained a loaf of bread, two sweets and various other items, of which only one was subject to a sales tax. I studied the parcel, and only one of the items was subject to a sales tax. That indicates that even the Government back bench, when expressing their sympathy for the hardship of this tax which we are debating, could not afford to buy any item, except two little sweets, which carried a sales tax. They sent me a loaf of bread, but no flask of wine. At least they appreciate mini-skirts, because that was associated with one of the contents of the parcel, which indicates a very verligte outlook.

We have moved amendments and I want to put them in a nutshell. These amendments were aimed at lightening the burden on the home and on the people. For example, with regard to the home we moved amendments to delete items like paints, polishes, disinfectants, furniture, carpets, kitchenware and tableware. These items are essentials for creating a home, and they are the items which every person who has a home has to buy. Then we moved the deletion of items affecting the person; items such as cosmetics, tissues, soaps …

Oh, cosmetics!

The hon. member says “Oh, cosmetics”. He does not want the women of South Africa to use cosmetics, but we do. We believe that that is not a luxury but an essential. Other items which we moved to be exempted from the sales tax are soap, toilet paper, razors and razor blades. All these things affect the person. Then we also moved the deletion of items affecting daily life; items like tyres, retreads and batteries. I have not got time to deal with the effect of this tax On transport operators but I have a case here showing the impossible position in which private transport operators are placed, because they get no rebate of tax. The load on the cost of batteries and tyres is going to affect them seriously. In regard to other items like radios, we merely moved a reduction of the tax rate. We were responsible. We left items like sweets. If we had wanted to exploit this politically, think of the case we could have made about taking candy from kids, robbing toddlers’ money boxes, etc. What a wonderful case we could have made, but we did not. We stuck to items affecting the home, the individual and the essentials of life as we see them. The hon. the Deputy Minister said this would lead to a shortfall of R40 million. We believe there will be a surplus this year, as there has been year after year. We also believe that these deletions could be made with no compensating cost to the taxpayer. We shall oppose this Bill, because we are certain that that hon. Deputy Minister will have to apologize to us next year when he finds that he has made R200 million on this tax, instead of there being a shortfall of R40 million. We also believe that there is absolutely no need to have alternative taxation to justify the removal of these items which affect the home, the individual and the daily life of the people in South Africa. These items could have been removed without any detriment to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, by way of recapitulation the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned the items which they proposed should be left out. I can tell the hon. the House which items they did not in fact move to be omitted or to be reduced. These items include sweets and biscuits; or that they overlooked them; they considered biscuits from many sides. However they saw their way clear to including ordinary dry biscuits and to equating them with a 10 per cent tax on articles of mother of pearl, as the hon. member for East London (City) mentioned here. After thorough consideration they saw fit to include articles made of leather and

Col. 8394:

Line 23: For “Population Registration Bill”, read “Population Registration Amendment Bill”.

untanned hides and skins such as satchels, toolboxes and clothing made of leather. They also saw their way clear to uncluding writing pads and envelopes, which are also articles which are used in the home. They also saw their way clear to leaving other household articles such as bulbs, wallpaper and Mrs. Ball’s Chutney to be included. On the other hand the hon. member for Constantia wants to exclude the black man’s iron cooking-pot, but he also wants to exclude the most expensive china. It is in fact a feature of our scale that you pay 10 per cent on a cheap article as well as 10 per cent on an expensive article. They want to exempt the most expensive chinaware from tax. They also want to exclude carpets, the most expensive Persian carpets which are collector’s pieces to-day. These are the things they want to exempt from tax. They want to exempt cosmetics and perfumes which costs R1 per drop.

I am sorry, but I have to put the question now.

Business interrupted in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Sessional Order adopted on 10th February.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—96: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; 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 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, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentsel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Noes—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; 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.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned I was referring to the statement made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, i.e. that the U.P. would tear this Act out of the Statute Book because they were not in any way in favour of the classification of the various race groups. I shall not follow up now on what he said in that direction, but I will return to it later on.

This legislation we have before us at present is intended to make the existing Act more effective as a basis on which members of each race group can be identified with a view to the separate development of each of these groups and peoples in South Africa. That is the objective of the Act. We know that the United Party rejects it. Few of the provisions in this Act are new. They deal primarily with the abolition of third party objections, the retrospective effect of the provisions, and the recognition of the factor of descent. Both of these provisions deal with the determination of the dividing line between Coloureds and Whites. Most of that work has already been done in terms of this Act. What is involved here is the relatively small number, in regard to which it is still possible to split hairs.

The standpoint of this side of the House is that the Act, as far as these cases are concerned, should be made to be more strict. The United Party wants to abandon this legislation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated that colour consciousness in South Africa was so strong that it was not necessary to pass unreasonable laws in order to bolster it. It is a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present at the moment, for I want to tell him that this is a very serious misconception of the nature of laws as the embodiment of the moral standards of a community. The fact that colour consciousness is strong, is precisely a reason why legislation should be passed. I want to put the following to the United Party: If this is the point of departure of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, do they consequently want to allege that legislation should only be passed when colour consciousness has grown so weak that it is almost non-existent? Is it their standpoint that legislation should then be passed to make colour consciousness stronger? If that is so, how on earth will any political party that is in earnest about this matter succeed in doing so? From whence will it obtain the mandate to do so in Parliament if it wants to wait until that colour consciousness has diminished in intensity?

No, legislation on matters such as these is usually passed when two conditions obtain. The first condition is that the conventions, the views and the feelings of the community in that regard should be intense. And the second condition is that it should be passed when a community discerns tendencies which will demolish and undermine these conventions, views and feelings. When those two conditions obtain, there is reason to pass legislation. The colour consciousness to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred is the resistance in the white community in South Africa to the idea and the practice of racial integration, which resistance lies at the root of our white people’s existence.

The difference in approach between this side and that side of the House depends on two questions. If colour consciousness is intense, is it good, and is it right that it should be intense? That is the question. It seems as if the hon. member for Durban (North) is going to speak after me. I would be pleased if he would furnish us with a reply to that question. That would give us the answer in regard to what the attitude of the United Party is. If colour consciousness is intense, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says it is, is it a good thing and is it right that this colour consciousness should be intense? Does the United Party want it this way? If it is a good thing and if it is right that colour consciousness should be intense, they must furnish us with a reply to the further question: Must that degree of intensity be maintained in future? Or should it be increased even further? Then, in the second place, they must furnish us with a reply to the question of whether there are tendencies both inside and outside South Africa to-day which want to make colour consciousness less intense and undermine it? If so, must resistance be offered to those tendencies which the community has discerned?

As far as this side of the House is concerned, in its endeavour to maintain the separate identity and development of each of the race groups, which we regard as a moral and correct endeavour, it is axiomatic that the intensity of the resistance to race integration among each of the various race groups will to a large extent determine the will to have separate development. That is why we believe it is a good thing and right that colour consciousness should be strong. We believe it is a good thing and right that it should be maintained in this way and, if possible, intensified. That is why we believe that the dividing lines between the various race groups should be strictly laid down. The National Party also realizes that there are different series of factors at work diminishing and breaking down the conventions and traditions, feelings and views in the field of colour. We are saddled in South Africa with the heritage of the United Party’s mixed residential areas and intermingling over the years. This has led to the colour consciousness becoming dulled in many spheres. We are sitting with the tradition of United Party opposition in this House to every measure by means of which separation between the various race groups was to have been effected. But apart from the United Party there are other factors as well. We admit that a process of industrialization and urbanization has taken place in South Africa which has resulted in a population shift. In that population shift the factor of descent is often lost. A person is not so familiar with his new environment as he was in the environment from which he came. We are also dealing with the cold fact that city life results in an indifferent society, even at the cost of the most hard-earned and precious values of society. In addition, with the growing economic strength as a result of industrialization, we also have to do with the fact that the economic endeavour is naturally aimed at larger sales and larger profits. Any boundary, whether cultural, religious, racial, or geographic, is an obstacle in the way of greater markets and greater profits. And that is why it is obvious that the economic powers and the economic endeavour is very easily associated with this attempt to level all boundaries, racial boundaries as well.

In the second place we have an international situation in which a large-scale offensive is being launched on the part of the liberalists and the communists throughout the world to demolish all colour consciousness. The white community in South Africa, from the nature of its physical existence here, is being exposed to tremendous moral pressure to try to disregard racial differences. Powerful propagandistic media are being used against us. The powers launching this offensive want to deny the existence of racial differences, for if they admit that racial differences do exist and are real, the political principle of equality will grow weaker and become inapplicable. That is why South Africa, as far as this matter is concerned, has a greater significance than merely its own national existence.

In the third place there are political parties and organizations in South Africa as well which are for the most part simply an extension of this international offensive and which are, deliberately and in an organized way, pursuing the same objectives in South Africa, namely to break down racial boundaries.

Such as what organizations?

I am glad the hon. member is putting that question to me. Does the hon. member have any illusions as to what the objectives of Nusas, the Black Sash, the Christian Institute and the University Christian Movement are? Does he have any illusions as to what their objectives are?

How many people pay any attention to them?

I have already mentioned to the hon. member the names of those organizations. This is in fact the distinguishing feature of the United Party. The United Party is always trying to act as apologist for these organizations. Show me the United Party man who has ever made an attack on these organizations, which are deliberately and in an organized way acting as an extension of the international offensive to break down racial consciousness.

I exposed Nusas in regard to the Botha Hill activities.

I was present in this House when the hon. member for Yeoville did that. If that is how a man attacks another person, then I do not know how it is when he embraces him. The National Party recognizes the existence of these powers both within and outside South Africa which are deliberately endeavouring to eliminate the racial boundaries. That is why steps are being taken, as is now the case with this Bill as well, to maintain the racial boundaries against these onslaughts. I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that a good government recognizes and protects the conventions and the traditions of the community whom it must govern. A good government is not there to destroy or to disregard the traditions and the conventions of the community over whom it has been set. We lay claim to having a good government because it is doing this. We accuse the United Party of not wanting to recognize the established traditions and conventions of South Africa when it comes to matters of this kind. We do not sheer off because the Act, as it exists at present, is not effective and is difficult to apply. We know that it is not an easy task to reduce the private and public morals of the community to legislation and to incorporate these in that legislation. One is not dealing with logic, but with experience.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The life of law is not logic, but experience.” Here we are dealing with the accumulated wisdom and experience of generations, which has been built into our society. We are not dealing here with cold reason. The solution to this is not easy or simple, but I allege that no community and no government may or dare abandon legislation because it is ineffective or difficult to apply. On the contrary, the law must be changed to meet the most stringent of standards. In all probability any change in any legislation dealing with such matters will always tend to greater strictness, rather than to increased relaxation. This is once more apparent from this case. The United Party complains year after year that amendments should be effected to this law. These matters deal with the standards for the ideal person in the community. It is the approach of the community that wants these matters reduced to legislation. On the other hand it is a fact that the law is inclined to impose only the minimum standards which are indispensable to the existence of the community, hence the fact that court decisions are often so far removed from the intentions of the legislature.

As far as the two questions, to which I referred earlier, are concerned, I have tried to present the standpoint and the views of the National Party. Now I would be grateful if the hon. member for Durban (North) would tell us where the United Party stands. Is it a good thing and is it right that colour consciousness should be intense? I do not want to put trick questions to him. This is a simple question which can be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. Is it a good thing and is it right that colour consciousness should be intense? If so, should that intensity of feeling be maintained, or should it be intensified even further? If they refuse to reply, we can only deduce their reply from their deeds over the years. Over the years they have opposed every measure, whether it was in respect of group areas, separate universities, population registration, separate trade unions or work reservation. Every measure which was aimed at that the United Party has opposed.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that we now have an amending Bill before us. The hon. member cannot cover the entire original Act in his speech as well.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated that this legislation was unnecessary because colour consciousness was so intense. He said that this feeling did not need to be supported. In all honesty I want to say that I think that this is political dissimulation, and that the United Party does not want that colour consciousness to be preserved. On the contrary, they want to break it down, because that is what tallies with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s entire view in regard to this matter. In the second place I do not think the United Party, as its entire past testifies, is in any way prepared to throw up entrenchments against this major offensive which is being launched, internationally and internally, to break down the colour consciousness of the Whites.

There is, as far as this legislation is concerned, a test for them. They can furnish us with a reply to these questions. They can confirm whether they are prepared to encourage or to oppose these powers. Do they want to safeguard these conventions and traditions of white society, on which their entire existence is based, or do they want to destroy them, no matter how gradual the process is? There is only one test for this legislation: Is it aimed at stabilizing the conventions and traditions which have been built into our society by our history, by means of which the Whites want to safeguard their identity? Is this legislation aimed at that? Descent as a factor of classification is a traditional criterion, and has always been in our history. If the legislation is aimed at stabilizing these conventions and traditions, and if that is the premise of this legislation, then the provisions thereof can only be labelled as drastic and cruel, as the hon. member for Wynberg labelled them if the traditions and conventions of this white society can be regarded as being drastic and crude. If the United Party is labelling the conventions and traditions of this white society as drastic and cruel, they are already rejecting the moral values of this community. The United Party can put forward any argument it likes, but that is the significance of its attitude, unless we hear another reply from them to-day.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a speech by the hon. member for Innesdal. He does not often make speeches in this House these days. However, we heard one of his colleagues make a speech here on another matter, Calvinism. We have now heard the hon. member for Innesdal pronouncing the true Nationalist Party policy as far as colour is concerned. I should like to tell him that it is very cold logic which he put forward. Many of his colleagues, who are probably more to the left of him, do not think as he does.

What has that to do with the legislation?

I am replying to what the hon. member said. Sir, the hon. member put a number of questions to the hon. member for Durban (North) and no doubt the hon. member for Durban (North) will reply to him. I would like to say to the hon. member for Innesdal that we do not think as he does.

That is your downfall.

We have heard hon. members on that side of the House describing race classification as the corner stone of their separate development policy, and if race classification fails, so must their policy. The hon. member for Innesdal also dealt with this measure in terms of the cold logic of National Party policy. Sir, I do not know whether it has just been coincidence but the fact remains that since this measure was originally introduced in this House, there have been numbers of changes in this portfolio. Every Minister who has been in charge of this Department and who has introduced an amendment to this measure has had a different approach, an approach which at the beginning was a reasonable one. I see the former Minister of the Interior sitting over there. I do not know whether he found this portfolio too much for him but at any rate to-day we have a new Minister. It is a strange thing that as soon as the Minister in charge of this portfolio introduces an amendment to this measure, he either loses the portfolio or he goes out of the Cabinet, and one wonders what is behind all this.

Sir, the amendments which are being proposed in this particular Bill are not being introduced to help the people whom they affect. I want to get away from the hon. member for Innesdal and talk about the people who are affected by this Bill. This Bill will not help them to settle their problem of classification; it makes it much more difficult for them to establish their correct identity within the community in which they live. As far as the Transvaal members are concerned, I want to say to them that they do not realize what suffering this particular measure causes amongst the people in its cold, ruthless application. One only has to read the letters which come from the Department to the people who are affected to realize that these people have no redress.

Why do you not read the Bill?

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about; he has not even spoken on the Bill.

And he would not dare.

If the hon. member had read the Bill he would not make these interjections. Under this measure we find that one half of a family can be classified White and the other half classified Coloured. These people go to the Classification Board and then they find that half the family has been classified White and the rest of the family is classified Coloured. There is a case where a young man who had gone through his period of training in the army, and who was indentured as an apprentice with a firm in Cape Town, was the only one in the whole family who was classified as a member of the Coloured group. He applied for reclassification and he was told that he had not applied within the period of a year and that he was therefore disqualified. His application through his attorney for an adjustment of the position was rejected by the Department. This one individual in the family now has to go through life classified as Coloured while the rest of the family is classified White. It is against the law for him to live with his family. I do not think hon. members over there realize what is happening. It is not just a matter of having Coloureds on one side of the fence and Whites on the other side of the fence to ensure the maintenance of a pure white race. You know, Sir, years ago we had an individual who was a painter and who tried to do the same thing; we know what happened to him.

Sir, I listened here to the hon. member for Parow who is a so-called expert on classification, although I do not know whether he has had much to do with it. It is interesting to see what the hon. member said in this House about classification. I would like the Transvalers to listen to what he said here the year before last. He said (Col. 3203, 1967, Hansard)—

That was what the hon. member said.

What is wrong with that? It is true.

There is an old saying in the Cape that in order to become White you get on the train in Cape Town and by the time you get to the Transvaal you are a white person.

Do you approve of that?

Sir, I could go on and tell you about cases where senior members of the Government staff in this country have been affected by this classification law. You see, Sir, originally a person was classified according to his appearance and according to the way he lived. Changes have been introduced over the years and to-day your classification depends on whether your mother or your father was Coloured. As my hon. Leader has said, your family history is traced back to the grave. Sir, I would like to say what General Smuts once said: “How can you classify the unclassifiable?” What the Government is trying to do is something that scientists have not been able to do and that is to determine the biological status of a person according to the pigmentation of his skin. While applying race classification in this country, the Government brings immigrants into this country without inquiring into their background in Germany or elsewhere on the Continent or in Britain. When immigrants come to this country it is assumed that they are white persons. Immigrants therefore are classified as White, but the poor people in this country who may have a touch of Coloured blood in their veins are classified as Coloured. If a Coloured person has a touch of Bantu blood in his veins he may be classified as a Bantu. I defy anybody in this House, including the Minister, to tell me that everybody in this country who has been classified as White is pure White. Why does everybody not have to apply for classification? Let us dig right down to the bottom.

Will you ask for it?

I am very happy; I do not know whether the Minister is very happy. Sir, what are you going to have now? As a result of this law you are going to have the most terrible things happening, for example, the case of a divided family on colour whose members have not been classified in the same category; they will be reporting the members of their own family.

I have dealt with numbers of cases and you constantly find this position arising. Surely, with the handful of people affected at the present time, the Minister could allow people to be classified by association and allow the position to rest there? If the Government wants this classification law, let us start de novo instead of going back to 1950 when the original measure was passed. Every time we have an amendment here, it is introduced with retrospective effect to the date of the passing of the principal Act. Surely the time has come to take a humane view of this whole question of classification. What is happening at the present moment is that the relevant documents are examined in Pretoria and on that basis the board decides whether a person is Coloured or White. In 1966 a case came on appeal before Mr. Justice Van Zyl here in the Cape. The people concerned, under this Bill to-day, would have been classified as Coloured. They had completed the census form in 1951 and had indicated on the form that they were “mixed”. The Judge, however, was not prepared to accept that, and he directed that the board reclassify these people as White. Here you had a Judge of the Supreme Court who with the evidence in front of him had difficulty in interpreting the classification laws. But under this Bill Judges will no longer have that discretion. Once you admit that there is Coloured blood in your family, you are going to be classified as Coloured and there is nothing you can do about it. This law has already created a great deal of unhappiness and after the passing of this Bill it is going to create even more unhappiness, because under this amending Bill the Department can now start another witch hunt.

A witch hunt?

Yes, it can start another witch hunt and create more trouble and more unhappiness. What for? To realize the ideal of the Nationalist Party, this cornerstone of their policy, and yet they ignore the background of thousands of people who come into this country as immigrants. They admit as immigrants people who come from Arabic countries and the Department has no record of their background; they have no census form to guide them. These people are classified as White, but the people in this country who have pulled their weight here are going to have their history dug up. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Parow know how many borderline cases there are in the Cape. The Transvaal members are not aware of the position down here. They think that it is simply a matter of saying “Coloureds to the left; Whites to the right; let us get on with the job and lay this cornerstone of Nationalist Party policy”. Unfortunately, Sir, they are not qualified to tell who is White and who is Coloured. You cannot rely on pieces of paper, on admissions and on forms completed by other people in determining a person’s race classification. The people who completed the census forms are unqualified to decide what a person’s race is, and yet the Minister comes here with this Bill which provides that once you have admitted that you are Coloured, you are Coloured. If any person whose census form shows that he is Coloured, challenges his classification as a Coloured, the Department would have nothing else but a form to produce. That is what we have in front of us to-day, Sir. This law has divided families and brought unhappiness to families. Because of this law people have had no alternative but to leave this country. I have had cases where young people who have decided to get married, who have lived as Whites all their lives, in responsible positions, have produced white birth certificates and their identity cards show that they have been classified as Coloured. There is nothing they can do about it. These people have lived as Whites. What do you expect them to do? Where do you expect them to live? Where have they got to go to? Are they to go to the constituency of the hon. member for Innesdal? Under the cold logic of the policy of the Nationalist Party there is only cold comfort ahead for these people.

I put the question … The hon. the Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal was on his feet before the Minister.

Hon. members should pay attention to the proceedings. The hon. member for Port Natal may proceed.

In the course of my speech I shall deal with what one or two hon. members on the Government side said about this matter.

What qualifications have you got?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg has been making interjections daily right throughout the past week. Is he entitled to go on doing that?

I do not need the direction of the hon. member to keep order in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the best qualification I have is that I care about what happens to South Africa while the hon. member there only cares about the Nationalist Party. Mine I think is the best qualification anybody can have. The hon. member for Maitland has not spoken in the debate so far. It is perhaps because he does not know sufficient about the subject. So I should like to ask him a question. What would he have done with Simon van der Stel? What would he have done had Simon van der Stel applied for membership of the Nationalist Party? Well, the hon. member does not answer. In South Africa to-day there are numerous institutions named after Simon van der Stel but in terms of this Government’s legislation he was a Coloured; he was a Coloured and his mother was a Coloured.

Then the hon. member for Musgrave must be a Coloured, too, because he was born in Mauritius.

What the Government has ignored, year after year is the role in history …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Parow entitled to say that the hon. member is a Coloured?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if the hon. member for Port Natal argued on that basis, the hon. member for Musgrave must be a Coloured too, because he was born in Mauritius.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Parow refer to the hon. member for Musgrave as being a Coloured?

Order! The hon. member for Parow interpreted a definition put forward by the hon. member for Port Natal. I appeal to hon. members to stop being personal.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Parow to make light of this matter because he is accepted as a White. If he had been classified as a Coloured, he would not have looked upon this matter in quite the same lighthearted manner. But what I was going to say to hon. members opposite is that they are deliberately ignoring the role the non-White, particularly the Coloured, has played in South Africa’s history. But let me tell hon. members that they may ignore it, but that it will never be forgotten. The interesting thing is that as soon as we come to a debate on race the “verkramptes” on the other side shoot to their feet. One wonders why that should be so. Apparently the reason is that they see in race nothing but a danger to themselves and to their existence as a white race.

Here, once more, we come with an amendment to an Act originally passed in 1950. I think this is already the eighth amendment, and with each amendment the legislation gets worse. Let us look at those who are empowered to make classifications. It has been said by many a person that no man is wise enough to be entrusted with absolute power over somebody else. However, this Bill gives certain persons that power. It says that any person employed by the State, the holder of a post in the Public Service, shall have the power to decide who shall be White, Coloured or Bantu. But what special qualifications do these people have for that task? Merely that they are employed by the State and hold a post in the Public Service. Does any hon. member opposite feel that it is wise enough for such a person to have such wide powers over any other human being? Does the hon. Minister regard himself as being wise enough to have these powers? The hon. member for Parow said that all we were doing was to mention the tragic side of this legislation. But let him illustrate to us the good side of it. What about jobs, about housing, families and schools? What about the manner in which this classification is being applied—where, how and when? What about the Immorality Act. Let the hon. member tell us what worthy advantages this legislation has. Time and time again hon. members opposite ask, what is wrong with being a Coloured? Well, what is wrong with being White? How many of the hon. members opposite would like to be Coloured?

Are you proud to be White?

I am proud to be a South African. If being White means separate bus queues and separate entrances to post offices, then I do not think one ought to be proud to be White. It has been said that Nationalism makes men indifferent to the rights and interests of all others who do not speak the same language. This is precisely the attitude of hon. members opposite. Last week, I think it was, a German professor declared that Whites in fact descended from Blacks. On that basis we are all Coloureds! Last year in America a pill was discovered which make of a white person a black person. Well, this Government is bound to ban that pill; it will never allow it to come to South Africa. What would happen if somebody dropped that pill in the coffee of the hon. member for Innesdal? Would he get up then and make the same type of speech as the one he made here this morning?

I say the Government will go on amending this Bill without ever being able to put matters right. The hon. member for Witbank the other day got very angry over the percentage of Whites with Coloured blood. But what is the difference? How many members on the other side are prepared to get up and say that they do not have even one per cent of Coloured blood in their veins? I challenge anyone of them to say so. Let them get up and say that they can guarantee that going back three, four or five generations no Coloured blood will be found in their veins.

Order! The hon. member is now arguing against the principles of the principal Act instead of this Bill. He should come back to the Bill.

Let me proceed by saying that we have an ally on the other side. About the question of defining who is Coloured and who is White an hon. member said on the 24th April, 1967 (Hansard, column 4765)—

Mr. Speaker, that was said by the hon. member for Umlazi in 1967 when he sat on this side of the House. In that year he moved an amendment rejecting the Bill. The amendment was that the Bill should be read “this day six months”. It is a pity that the hon. member for Umlazi is not in the House. I should like to know what his attitude towards this Bill is today. I believe that this matter is one of deep principle, as the hon. member for Umlazi said when he dealt with this matter before.

I should, however, like to return to the question of how one finds who is Coloured and who is not. The onus to prove his case has now been placed on the person concerned. I know of a case in Durban where a woman married a soldier during the war. This soldier came from Mauritius or the Seychelles. She had a child by him, and was later deserted by this man. She then remarried and had three children from her second marriage. When the eldest child, a girl, reached the age when she wanted to get married she applied for an identity card. She was then told that she was a Coloured. We are now left with the position that the woman I have mentioned has four children, one of whom has been classified as Coloured and the other three as White.

Why do you not read the Bill properly?

Sir, the onus is on this woman to prove that her first husband was White. But her husband disappeared off the face of the earth ten or 15 years ago. There is no possibility of ever proving that the father of her first child was White. So what is left for this woman to do? If the hon. member for Maitland would tell me the solution, I would be very pleased. This woman now has four children, one of whom is classified as Coloured, while the other three are classified as White, Does she throw out the Coloured child, or does she throw out the three white children? This is what I should like to know, because there is no possible way of ever proving that her first child is in fact not Coloured. Now the onus is being placed on her to do so. Can hon. members opposite tell me how this woman can solve her problem? The only solution for her is in fact to pack up and leave South Africa, the country in which she was born and the country in which all her children have been born. This is the sort of treatment people get from this Government, which then comes forward each year and says: “What is wrong with being a Coloured?” I should like some of the hon. members opposite to place themselves in the position of the people they are affecting by legislation of this sort.

Another member has said that, with legislation of this sort, we are helping to build the Coloured nation, so that they can have a nation of their own. My first question is: “Where?”; the second is: “When?”; and the third is: “How?”

That has nothing to do with this debate.

The hon. member says that this has nothing to do with the debate, but this is the whole purpose of this legislation. Another member has said that this legislation will help to strengthen the white race. May I ask also: “When, where and how?” If those hon. members are so nervous about the future of the white race because one or two people who may have Coloured blood in them are classified as White, then I do not believe that the white race is worth preserving.

The hon. member for Innesdal said that we need legislation of this sort so that we can implement group areas. But the definition of race groups for group areas is completely different to the definition in this legislation. The other interesting aspect is that there are members sitting in this House who have never had identity cards, saying whether they are White or Coloured. I think there are at least six members in this House who do not hold identity cards.

Why not?

Because they come from, South West Africa and there is no legislation of this sort applicable to South West Africa. That is why. These hon. members sit in this House although nobody has asked them to show their identity cards because it is not considered necessary in South West Africa. The hon. member who interjected is quite happy to accept those members as part of this Parliament.

Are you suggesting that they are not White?

I am not at all suggesting that they are not White. I am suggesting to the hon. member that it seems strange that he should place so much emphasis on identity cards and race classification in South Africa, while in South West Africa, which sends members to this Parliament, they find it unnecessary. I want to conclude by asking those hon. members a question. What sort of people are we and what sort of people have we become? Have we lost all pride in ourselves that we must protect ourselves with this sort of legislation? I believe that we cannot hold our heads up with any degree of pride and that legislation of this kind does nothing but hurt the name of South Africa and ultimately also the White race.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of Bill the introduction of which no one is usually happy about. I do not think the hon. the Minister is very happy in accepting responsibility for this kind of legislation. There is not a single person in South Africa who has not seen the tragedy of this whole matter of the classification of people into certain groups. I know that to-day I cannot speak too much about the original Act, and therefore I shall not do so, but I want to focus the attention of the House on clause 2. The new provision will now, inter alia, read as follows:

1. (e) 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.

Most of the people in the Republic have now already been classified or they ought to have been classified. It was said that in South West Africa there is no such classification, and the dangers which the hon. the Minister envisages in leaving people unclassified also exist there. The people in South West Africa can therefore interbreed. I wonder whether in his heart and soul the hon. the Minister sincerely believes, and whether there is any hon. member in the Nationalist Party who believes, that it is not possible for us to see that the hon. members who come from South West Africa are white people. We should at least be honest sometimes. Do the hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Party truly believe that there is any danger of the white people of South West Africa becoming an interbred, coffee-coloured nation to-day?

Order! Does the hon. member mean that we are dishonest most of the time?

No.

The hon. member said that we should at least be honest sometimes.

I meant that we should always be honest. If the hon. the Minister wants to be honest this time as well, as he always has to be, he will not be able to tell me that the people in South West Africa are becoming a lot of coffee-coloured imitations. He cannot say so.

The hon. member for Middelland is altogether White.

That hon. member was not born in South West Africa. He is of Portuguese descent.

No, that is a lie. It is not true. I was a Thirst-land trekker.

That may be so, but the hon. member was born in Angola, and according to the laws of this country one derives one’s descent from the country of one’s birth.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member aware that a special investigation was conducted in respect of the Thirst-land trekkers and that it was found that not one of their marriages was a mixed marriage.

I want to give the hon. member my word of honour that I would be the last person ever to make an insinuation about it being a question of a mixed marriage or something like that. That was not what I said. The hon. member did not listen to me properly. I said the hon. member was born in Portuguese territory. That is all I said.

You said the hon. member was a Portuguese.

Well yes, of course. A person born in South Africa is a South African. One born in Portugal is a Portuguese. One born in England is an Englishman. The member may be a South African citizen to-day.

I have never been a Portuguese citizen.

I do not want to go into that matter any further. It has nothing to do with the Bill.

That is precisely what I wanted to say to the hon. member.

You are off the point, Jack.

I am not the one who is off the point. If we are honest, as we are, no one in this House can stand up and say that there is a danger that South West Africa is becoming interbred. I do not believe it. I do not believe that the people in South West Africa are interbreeding. Let us now, in the first place, ask ourselves what a natural father is. What is a natural parent? I notice that the de jure and de facto expert is not here at the moment. When is a person a natural parent?

When you are not an unnatural one.

When you are not an unnatural one. That is the difficulty.

The hon. member must now confide himself to the amending legislation.

What then am I dealing with, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you which clause I am dealing with.

In which clause is this referred to?

The proposed subsection (5) (e) on page 6 reads—

But the words “natural parents” are used in the existing Act as well.

What difference does it make? You must at least decide now what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say. These are words the Minister is proposing to be inserted. You now want to prohibit me from speaking about that.

The hon. member is discussing matters now which have been discussed here many times.

Who discussed them, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. member may continue, but he must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I promise you I shall not be out of order. I first want to know what a natural father is. Who is now the natural father in the case of a white woman who has a child who is subsequently not allowed to enrol in schools as a result of her appearance. There were such cases. The natural or de jure father, according to our law, is her husband. We experienced difficulties there. The opposite can be true.

Under this Bill one could surely not have that difficulty.

How can one not have that difficulty? Who is the natural father? Is it that woman’s husband? Is he the natural father? Let the hon. the Minister tell us that in reply.

[Inaudible.]

It is not. It is the legal father.

It is the legal father. But who is the natural father? It could surely be another person. As I understand the law in this country, we took over the Roman Dutch law which provides that a mother cannot breed a bastard and that that woman’s husband is the father. He is the father, although he may not be the natural father. But he is certainly the de jure father. He may not be the de facto father. These are things about which one must know something before one can speak. The hon. member can explain his view of the matter at a later stage. I mention this because it is one of the difficulties the hon. the Minister is going to encounter. I am glad that in clause 2 the hon. the Minister has empowered the Secretary to make recommendations, with people’s permission, with a view to their classification. I hope the hon. the Minister will issue instructions that as much use as possible be made of that provision. I am therefore glad that the hon. the Minister has come forward with that part of the amendment. I do not want to elaborate on it, but I want to tell him that I, at any rate, am very satisfied and very grateful for it. It will eliminate a great deal of unhappiness and heartbreak. I want to give members an idea of how much heartbreak and trouble such an Act can cause. It was mentioned here that this Act now makes provision for a person to be classified after death. This is nothing new. I remember an occasion where a person was classified after her death. I know of a person who, if she had only kept her head and had not lost courage, would not have come to a sad end. This was a person who had applied for reclassification and who had committed suicide at Kommetjie. This person left a letter in which she asked to be reclassified so that she could be buried in a graveyard for Whites. It has already happened before and is the result of this kind of legislation. It is a sad day that we are being forced, as a result of political motives and for no other reason, to come along with such legislation. I should like to mention what the hon. the Minister said:

That is what the hon. the Minister said. But surely he does not believe it. In any case we do not know where Bantu citizens fit in. Is there, in any case, such a thing as a Bantu citizen in the white Republic? Is legislation which we still have to deal with not aimed at making them citizens of other states? What special benefits are there for people who believed that they were Whites all their lives and now find that they are going to be classified with the Coloureds? What benefits does the hon. the Minister have in mind when he says: “They are proud of those benefits?” I do not know, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would tell me. All of us who are not wilful have already encountered such cases. I myself as well, and I was ashamed as a white man to have had to see people fleeing from flat to flat in order to avoid classification. I am now speaking of people who were so white they were received in this House by Cabinet Ministers, and after they had been classified as White and had married white people. However, because there was a flaw somewhere among their forebears, they had to flee like rabits being chased by dogs.

[Inaudible.]

Of course it is true. The hon. member for Piketberg is an ex-Minister of Religion who taught me that “One should love one’s neighbour as oneself”. It will be a nadir in the history of our nation if we harden our hearts to the extent we are doing. If this legislation had been introduced a hundred years ago, and I say so without a blush, there are many hon. members now sitting in this House who would perhaps not have been able to sit here if they had been classified then.

Now you are exaggerating.

No, I am not exaggerating. I have evidence before me which reflects the descent of certain people. I could quote some of it and I am certain that many people would not like it if I did so. However, I shall not do so.

The hon. member is proving now that this legislation is essential.

It proves nothing. [Interjections.] If it is essential here, surely it is also essential in South West Africa. Why does that hon. Minister have so little respect for the people of South West Africa?

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the principal Act, which was passed a long time ago. Race classification was introduced by the principal Act, and the hon. member is now arguing against the principle of race classification.

I am not opposing the principle of race classification. I am opposing the principle of page 7 of the Bill which I read out a moment ago.

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

I am dealing with the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with clause 2 and I want to restrict myself to this clause alone. This clause only applies to the Republic of South Africa. If it is a danger here, as the hon. the Minister has said by implication, it is surely a danger in other places as well. Why then does the hon. the Minister want to throw the people at other places to the wolves? I do not know when things began to go wrong with our Afrikaner nation, to such an extent that we must now be so callous towards the hardships and suffering of other people. Many times it is suffering which we ourselves have created for them.

It was when the United Party was in power that things took a wrong turn.

I want to repeat that I do not know what has come over our people. The hon. member for Piketberg was originally in the Ministry, but he apparently now no longer has any feeling for anyone else. I do not understand it. I do not know what has come over our people. This people has not interbred over the past number of years. If a degree of Coloured blood has trickled into our white population, it happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. The greatest infiltration took place during the first hundred years of our existence at the Cape. There is no question about that. If one consults history …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now. He is discussing the original Act. The principle he is discussing was accepted long ago, when the original Act was accepted.

The fact that one is now being classified was not accepted …

Yes, it was.

But, Mr. Speaker, I shall read it to you again. The new subsection (5) (e) on page 6 reads:

Why am I not allowed to speak about that, Mr. Speaker?

Then the hon. member must explain where this differs from the original.

It differs a great deal from the original principal Act. If I am speaking about a matter concerning a new clause, since when do I have to prove where that clause differs from the original Act? I have nothing to do with the original Act.

The hon. member is discussing the general principle.

I am not discussing the general principle; I am only discussing this Bill.

The hon. member must stop arguing with the Chair now.

May I discuss this clause, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. member may discuss the clause, but he may not discuss the general principle of the Act.

I am discussing the question of what would happen if this Bill became law. I repeat, this paragraph provides that no one shall be classified as a White if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu. I say that this is wrong and I want to speak about it.

It is an old principle and is embodied in the principal Act.

It is an altogether new principle. Why was it then newly added? The paragraph was not previously contained in the principal Act. Who printed the Act? Anyone who has a copy of the Bill will see that it is a new insertion.

The hon. member must stop arguing now. He must continue with his speech on the Bill.

But that is what I am doing.

No.

No one can come along and tell me with a clear conscience that this provision is now suddenly necessary. If such a Bill was necessary to keep our stud book pure it was perhaps necessary for the first 100 years of the existence of our nation at the Cape. To-day it is no longer necessary, because to-day the people of South Africa have sufficient opportunity of mixing with and marrying their own people. This was not the position 100 years ago. There was miscegenation. We read about it in the history books. At that time our parents married slaves and they were adopted into the white community. For example, if we trace the origin of the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank, we find that this bank was specifically established to make provision for those people. To-day this kind of legislation is not necessary. It is not necessary to-day to plunge people unnecessarily into misery and hardship. We shall solve nothing in that way and shall only increase the misery further. I do not believe the hon. the Minister is very anxious to introduce this kind of legislation. I do not think we shall solve anything in that way. Neither do I think that the miscegenation in our people will decrease as a result of this legislation. Most of the interbreeding which takes place to-day does not take place as a result of marriage, but as a result of immorality. The Minister knows this and we spoke about those matters yesterday evening. One simply needs to look around in the country towns, in the cities and on the farms and one would see that on the one side there is a white race being bred and on the other, as a result of this particular clause, some of the Coloureds will be classified as Bantu. What will now happen to a Coloured woman’s child if that child’s father is a Bantu who has come to work in the Western Province? If a Coloured woman now has a child by a Bantu, the child must, according to this legislation, be classified as a Bantu. The hon. the Minister is shaking his head, but that is what is going to happen. What else then?

Where do you read that.

I read it at the very top of page 6 of the Bill.

Let him continue in his ignorance.

No, it is not ignorance; I am right. The hon. the Minister wants to become quarrelsome now, but I can tell him that that is not necessary to become quarrelsome. If he wants to become quarrelsome we can fight back.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause now. The principle was accepted when the original Act was accepted.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the new insertions in the Bill. Surely I am allowed to discuss them?

They do not alter the principle.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that clause 2 (d), as mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point, is an entirely new provision. This clause is an amendment of section 5 (5) of the principal Act, as it is at the moment. Section 5 (5) (a) of the Act, as it is at the moment, reads as follows:

The new paragraphs (e) and (f) are entirely new paragraphs and they prohibit a classification in certain circumstances. This is an entirely new provision.

If one of the parents is a non-White, the same principle applies.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is an entirely new clause.

It is exactly the same principle. The hon. member for Sea Point may continue, but he must not refer to that principle again, because it was already accepted in 1950.

Mr. Speaker, I am now discussing the insertion of these words, whether it is a principle or not. I am discussing the proposal to insert these words.

Yes, but the hon. member is advancing arguments which, in fact, are also opposed to the principle of the principal Act.

Subsection (5) (f), which is being added by paragraph (d) of clause 2, reads as follows—

That is for the hon. the Minister’s information—

Let me now understand the hon. the Minister correctly. Does this then not mean that if a Coloured woman has a child by a Bantu father…

Where do you read that?

I read it on page 6 in line 6.

Read it again.

It reads as follows—

Is that correct?

Where do you read Bantu?

But mention is then made here of coloured races. The hon. member can make his speech at a later stage. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell me into what group a person would be classified if his mother was a non-White while his father was a Bantu? Then we can facilitate matters.

You have already asked too much. I shall tell you at a later stage.

The hon. the Minister could say it now across the floor of the House, but he does not want to. He does not have a case. We are making Bantu of the brown people in the Western Province. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Parow said that I would have liked to say that the people must be upbred. I now say that if there must be a choice between having our brown people bred whiter or blacker, I hope they are bred whiter. I say it without a blush.

What kind of a statement is that to make.

What kind of a statement is that to make? [Interjections.] Before I resume my seat I just want to say that my experience has been that when a person drinks too much he is too ashamed for words to say that he drinks, and when someone is just a little worried about his descent he is quick to say: Look here, I have a card and it says I am White.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point, who has just resumed his seat, had a very difficult job, i.e. reading the Bill while delivering his speech, particularly the initial reading. Therefore it is not surprising that he even came along with such wild statements about us wanting to dig people up after their death in order to classify them and to ascertain to what race group they belonged. While the hon. member was speaking, he did not have a chance to read subsection (6) which is being added by clause 2 (e). I want to read it to him now for his information. It reads as follows—

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was reading the proposed subsection (6) in clause 2 (e) to the hon. member for Sea Point. It reads as follows—

The assertion which the hon. member, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, made about us even wanting to go so far as to dig up people’s graves in order to classify them after their death, is altogether in conflict with what is emphatically provided in this clause. Here it is simply provided that the classification of someone who is classified during his lifetime remains valid because it has a bearing on his descendants, i.e. his children or grandchildren.

I should like to come back to the general statement which the hon. member for Sea Point made, i.e. that this legislation of the Government, the original Act as well as this amending legislation, is legislation which creates tragedies. Then the hon. member for Sea Point referred to people who, in his Sea Point constituency, fled from flat to flat in order to avoid classification. I want to make the statement here to-day that if there are people in Sea Point who fled from flat to flat they did so on the basis of the wild and irresponsible claims which he made as Member of Parliament for Sea Point. He gave people the impression that their past and their family trees would be investigated and that their stud book, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition claimed, would be examined. This would then have been done in order to reclassify them if possible. The hon. member for Sea Point also claimed that the same people who, according to him, fled, hid away and took shelter, were classified as Whites. This emphasizes a very important fact. Whereas, in the composition of our population there was in the past a measure of uncertainty among a number of people of mixed blood with some coloured descent, this legislation has brought certainty to many of them. The hon. member himself said that they were classified as White. They now know where they stand. They now have their white identity cards and they know that no doubt exists. They are accepted by the community as Whites and are indicated as such by law. I, therefore, reject this wild statement which the hon. member for Sea Point made, as well as the more general statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, about this legislation continually creating major tragedies and opening old wounds which had healed.

It is true.

It is not true. I say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that it is not true. In the history of our people there have always been tragedies. There is no people who has not had its tragedies. There is no society that does not have its tragedies. There have always been people and families who have been subjected to tragedies, specifically as a result of mixed descent. That type of tragedy was to a large extent eliminated by the Population Registration Act. One reaches a position of consolidation. One gives one’s population and one’s people certainty and one puts an end to a process of miscegenation which could possibly continue.

I now also want to point out another of the hon. member for Sea Point’s statements. He has repeatedly made the claim that he would like to see us classify the descendants of Bantu and Coloureds as Coloureds. In other words, he would like to leave a door open for the Bantu to move towards the Coloureds. This morning, in rather vulgar language, the hon. member made the statement here that if one now wanted to up-breed people, he was in favour of up-breeding them as Whites. Those were his words. If, in addition, one were to keep an ear cocked for the Opposition’s arguments, one would see that, not only do they want to keep a door open between the Bantu and the Coloureds so that the Bantu may move in among the Coloureds. They also want to keep a door open between the Coloureds and the Whites, and this was also their entire argument against this amendment Bill.

Are you not ashamed of yourself …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words.

The hon. member is constantly making these wild statements, and if one points out to him the implications of what he has said, then he gets excited. With reference to the Coloured population, the hon. member repeatedly said that a door should be kept open between them and the Bantu. They want to keep that door open, and that is also the argument of the hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in so many words that they would tear out of the Statute Book not only this legislation but also the original Act. What does this mean? This means that they are also leaving the door open between the Coloureds and the Whites. In other words, there is direct access even for the Bantu via the Coloureds to the Whites. These are the eventual implications of the policy of the hon. Opposition. This is why they voted against this legislation in the past and why they will also vote against this amendment Bill.

There is something else I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members on that side of the House. When they are blind to, and make a great fuss of, the number of cases coming before our courts, or that are dealt with by the Classification Board, they want to create the impression that our whole population must now, as it were, be taken to court and be classified by Judges and the Secretary for the Department. In reality our population in general co-operated particularly well in the implementation of this legislation. In general the Population Registration was originally drawn up on the basis of the census returns for 1951. People classified themselves. People presented themselves as Whites, Coloured and Bantu. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Green Point now want to tell me that this is nonsense? The people accepted what stood in the census. They co-operated with the census enumerators, and how many objections were there? From a population of approximately 18 million, statistics show that we are dealing with 1,157 cases of objections that came before the Race Classification Board. From a population of about 18 million there were 1,157 objections. 99.9 per cent of our population accepted the fact that they were White, Coloured or Bantu. How can one classify and group 99.9 per cent of the population and then say that the 1,157 can simply receive a White identity card? They can move over the colour bar wherever they want to. What conditions would they create?

In pursuance of that I want to come back to the statement of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who said that if they came into power they would tear this legislation from the Statute Book. It is conspicuously clear why the white constituents of South Africa have time and again rejected the Opposition as an alternative government, because theirs is an irresponsible party. They refuse to take a stand in respect of one of the basic principles of our whole national economy.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. members a simple question. I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here. I shall, however, put this question to the hon. member for Sea Point and to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. How are they going to apply our pension laws if they refuse to have a person properly classified, and registered as a White, a Coloured or a Bantu? How is this Opposition going to apply our pension laws? To whom are they going to grant pensions in terms of the Act? Are they then going to grant the same pensions to Whites, Coloureds or Bantu? How are they going to manage this? Let the hon. members tell us how they are going to apply our industrial and our labour laws. What are they going to do with people who can present themselves as Coloureds or as Whites, just as it suits them? I want to tell hon. members opposite that they are consistently running away from reality. They are consistently fleeing from a truth and a fact in connection with the composition of South Africa’s population. The reason they give for their flight is always the small number of exceptional cases which come before the courts or are dealt with by the board. Those are the cases in respect of which a pertinent decision must be made. I can bring hon. members identity cards and applications to-day of people who were classified as Whites because of this type of agitation which they advocate. I can mention instances of people subsequently saying: “I miscalculated, and under the pressure of the propaganda exercised on our people, I applied to be classified as White”.

Give me one instance.

Yes, we shall give it to the hon. member. I shall give it to the hon. member. When such a person fully realizes his position and begins to live among Whites, he realizes that he is not happy, that he does not feel at home and that it is not his society. He then requests reclassification as a Coloured. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are running away from this reality in connection with the composition of our South African population. They refuse to accept it. It is a millstone around their necks. One cannot build an argument upon a small percentage of exceptional cases. Therefore they are, in all their endeavours against this legislation and against this amendment Bill, presenting South Africans with a future of confusion. They are not building up a decent future and peaceful co-existence among the various population groups and peoples. They want us to give a blank chart for the future, in order to lay the foundations for chaos and disorder. By way of a question I have indicated that it would be impossible to administer even so simple an Act as our Pensions Act if they do not make use of and build upon this Population Registration Act. That is why I say that it is a party which is creating chaos for the future of South Africa. It is a party wanting to ignore the realities of South Africa, but nevertheless still wanting to govern this country. [Interjections.] The hon. member may take the Bill and read it, but it is an elementary fact in our Pensions Acts that payments are made according to a person’s classification. They are adjusted according to the person’s classification. I think the hon. member knows this. The question in connection with South-West Africa has also been explained and satisfactorily replied to during this discussion. It does not help to make light of it, because the situation in South-West Africa is very plain and simple. I can tell the hon. member for Green Point that in South-West Africa even the Basters of Rehoboth are proud of their nationhood. They are committed to their nationhood.

Without any Act.

They are proud of being what they are, and in South Africa we are merely confirming reality by legislation. That, Sir, is why we are continuing with this amendment Bill, and these provisions are being entrenched in it to remove the doubt which has developed in exceptional cases in the courts, and to make the further implementation of the original legislation possible. Therefore, in the future, the National Party will still always be the party carrying the responsibility here and holding the reins of Government, because it takes these realities into consideration.

The hon. members for Piketberg and Innesdal once more made a statement here about this Bill merely being an effort to put an end to any form of miscegenation which could still take place, and, in addition, they said that the United Party refused to take a stand. Sir, in 1950 when the original legislation was before the House, the United Party very clearly stated its attitude in connection with this matter.

You were opposed to it.

Exactly. Why were we opposed to it? Because this party is, in fact, fully aware of the conventions and the traditions of this country; and then the hon. member for Innesdal comes along and says that the object of this Bill is merely to lay the traditions and conventions of the country down in legislation. Sir, it is seldom if ever necessary to lay a tradition and a convention down in legislation. It is specifically because this Government, as far back as 1950, put its money on the wrong horse that they are still in this difficulty to-day. That is why they have to come from time to time with additional amendments. The argument is now being used that this Bill is only being introduced to deal with the little more than 1,000 cases in respect of doubtful classifications. Sir, I simply cannot understand how the classification of about 1,000 people, in connection with whom objections were submitted, can in any way prove a danger to our white civilization. Hon. members opposite are very interested to know what the attitude of the United Party is. They virtually imply that if we do not vote for this legislation we are in favour of miscegenation, because that is the conclusion to which those hon. members always come. Sir, let me put this question to hon. members on that side: What did the Government itself do during the past few years when it declared certain people, who had always been accepted as Coloureds in a certain part of the country to be Whites? There are also certain cases here in the Cape Province which the hon. member for Namaqualand is, in fact, fully aware of and which the hon. the Minister of Tourism, as member for Caledon, ought to be aware of as well. If the United Party, by not voting for this Bill, is then in favour of miscegenation, what did this Government itself do in respect of these people? The attitude of the United Party has always been that one could determine a person’s race on the basis of his associations and appearance. The hon. member for Piketberg said here that if we did not accept this legislation we could not apply our pension laws. Sir, what a ridiculous statement, because our pension laws have been in force since 1928 and we only obtained the first Population Registration Act in 1950. Particularly with clause 2 this Government now wants to make it increasingly difficult for someone, whose classification is doubtful, to come over to the Whites. That is the whole reason why this Act is being changed.

What is wrong with that?

That is the whole reason why they want to query the decisions of the courts. That is, surely, the only important principle in this Bill. But, Sir, this is something that has been taking place in this country for centuries and it has not placed South Africa in any danger. But if this Bill is accepted as it stands, it becomes increasingly difficult to give the person concerned the benefit of the doubt in a case where doubt exists. The benefit of the doubt is specifically given to people in order not to cause additional difficulties in family circles; to avoid further inconvenience and further unhappiness, and hon. members on that side must take these facts into account when we are dealing with a matter as important as this. Rather give those people the benefit of the doubt instead of coming along each year and trying to draw the net tighter and tighter, because all that happens is that one casts more and more suspicion on certain people in the country. This only gives people who want to poke their noses into other people’s affairs a greater opportunity for doing so, and for bringing some of the best families in South Africa under suspicion. I consider this to be the greatest disadvantage of this amendment and I think it is a disgrace for the Government to be placing this legislation before the House at this time.

We are of course dealing here with one of those Bills which often give rise to feelings and emotions, because it deals with delicate matters. That is why I should like to make use of the opportunity to say right at the outset that as far as I am concerned, there is one part of the Bill which in my opinion is very welcome. That is clause 2 (a), in which the powers of the Secretary of the Interior to act in certain cases in order to make the necessary alteration to the classification of persons are defined much more clearly. I notice that it is provided that the Secretary may in his own discretion alter a classification if the person concerned submits that it is incorrect, and the Secretary, after he has heard him, is satisfied that it was an incorrect classification. He may also in his discretion alter a classification with the concurrence of the person concerned, and Where he has any doubt he may refer the case to the board. One is always glad to know that where powers have to be granted under State policy the senior officer concerned is left a measure of discretion, because we are all confident that our Public Service, especially in the high ranks, are doing their best to act in a just, humane and Christian manner in these extremely difficult cases. But for that very reason we find it such a pity that even the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior is restricted in so many respects by the provisions of this Bill. If, for example, the Secretary refers a case to the Board because he is in doubt about the validity of the classification, an appeal may be lodged against the decision of the board only if an alteration is made. But if the board should decide that the original classification in its opinion is the correct one and that the Secretary’s doubts are unfounded, there is no appeal to the court to solve the matter finally. So in many respects virtually all the amendments in this Bill tend to place restrictions on the few rights that remain to the small minority of our citizens that are affected by the unfortunate aspects of the Act. There are very few amendments in the Bill which one can consider to be positive, generous and accommodating. Most of the amendments are harsh, drastic and, in the unpleasant sense of the word, hard-hearted and callous.

Mr. Speaker, we find it difficult to understand what is meant in clause 2 of the Bill with the amendment of section 5 (5) of the original Act. I take it that the object of the measure is to make the application of the original Act easier and more certain where doubt has been caused about classifications in the courts, where the application of the original intention of the Act has been made difficult by interpretations and circumstances.

Sir, I cannot find any definition of a “natural parent” in this Bill. One must assume that with “natural parent”, to take the case of the father, is meant the real father of the child, and not necessarily the father indicated on account of the fact that the father and mother are married. Sir, while the hon. the Minister is coming here to make the application of the Act easier and more certain, I would be glad if he would tell us how it is going to be applied and how far his Department intends to go in determining doubtful cases of this nature. We have already had cases in South Africa where in the case of white parents a child was born which in the opinion of the school authorities concerned was a non-White, although the father and the mother, when they married, were considered to be white. Where such a case occurs in which the race of the child is obviously or apparently different from the classification of the parents, what is the intention of the Government? Does the Government intend starting an inquisition in order to determine whether the mother concerned was unfaithful to her husband? Is the Government prepared to tackle that extremely difficult problem with all the sorrow and misery it can cause? If not, what is the purpose of providing that the natural parent’s classification will apply and not that of the legal parent who is indicated by the marriage, if one is not prepared to disrupt a marriage by inquiries of this nature? What happens if such an inquiry is made and it proves to be abortive, that it is a genetic phenomenon that the child is darker than the parents? What happens then? Then sorrow has been caused; the harm has been done and the gossips have been started up and where will it end? I believe that this provision, i.e. that the descent of natural parents is going to be decisive, must mean something. If it does mean something, how are the Minister and his Department going to determine whether a child has a natural parent other than his legal parent, the father in this case, by marriage? I think that the hon. the Minister owes us a full reply to this. We said this at the original discussion of the Act in 1950, and this type of amendment makes it necessary for us to say it again: With this kind of application of the Act and this new harsher interpretation of the Act, it is inevitably going to happen that there will be people who are obviously and clearly Coloured persons but who will have to be classified as Whites. And this is already happening, because each of us knows of cases where there are people who are obviously and clearly white but who will have to be classified as Coloureds. Under this Act, which so clearly has to be applied without exceptions, we may eventually get the position that we have a whole colony of white Coloureds and a whole colony of non-white Whites. We would really look ridiculous, and I should like to know from the Minister what he has in mind in order to cope with this sad kind of problem, of which he is aware and which is arising and which is going to arise to an increasing extent, if one takes the genetic laws into account. What is he going to do to prevent that ridiculous state of affairs, which can at the same time be a very sad state of affairs? How is he going to make adjustments if through the generations there are people who prove to be of a different race group than that under which they are classified? The Minister is now trying to make any possibility of reclassification as difficult as possible, to close the door to that and to place restrictions on it. What is he going to do to prevent us from getting a colony of white non-Whites in South Africa, or a colony of non-white Whites? When Dr. Dönges introduced the original legislation he realized these things and therefore he provided that appearance and whether a person is accepted as a White or as a non-White would be the test. This hon. Minister and his predecessor have deviated from this principle. By doing so he is creating problems for himself, and I think he owes it to this House to explain where such problems will arise and where they have already arisen. I do not want to mention names, because the hon. the Minister knows very well What I am referring to. But what is the solution going to be? I think we are entitled to a very clear answer.

I now come to clause 7, which deals with the onus of proof. The Minister said that his Department found it very difficult to disprove ex parte statements about racial origin. He also said that it was necessary to create a presumption as to whether a person belonged to the race he indicated on the original form, in other words, whether the entry was made by himself or by another person. Is this not an unheard of thing?

That does not stand in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal that one wants to say about this matter, and therefore one cannot dwell on one point unnecessarily. In the Bill as well as in the Minister’s introductory speech it is stated that there will be a presumption as to whether the indication of race on the original form was made by the person himself or by another person. My objection is to the “other person”. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that someone may act maliciously. But it is not highly unlikely that a person may through negligence make a mistake on such a census form or whatever form it is. It is true that this presumption is refutable, but why must there be such a presumption if the person against whom that presumption exists may perhaps not even be aware of the entry? I could stilt understand it in cases where the information was filled in by the person himself; then he is responsible for it, but in cases where another person classifies him without his knowledge as belonging to a certain race, why should such a presumption then apply against him?

It applies only in cases where a person himself has signed.

Clause 8 abolishes third party objections retrospectively. Third party objections were abolished for the first time in 1967. The Minister is now asking us to approve that, while people were granted that right prior to 1967 and are already exercising that right, that right should now be taken away from them. Is it really the intention of the Minister and his department to commit such a gross injustice? The rights involved here are no longer “dormant” rights, but rights which are already being exercised. No matter how far such a case has progressed, the Minister now comes along and says the matter cannot be taken any further because the right on which they base their case can now be taken away from them. I cannot see how this can be the Minister’s intention and I therefore hope that he will tell us in his reply that he is going to amend it. My Leader pointed out at the start of this debate that this was a good safety valve in the past. His main objection to clause 8 is precisely that people who are already exercising a right, a right that was granted to them by Parliament, are now being penalized in that the exercising of that right is now being stopped, no matter how far they have taken their case. This, I think, clashes with the instincts of our people, and we as Parliament, and the Minister as an executive member of the Government, must realize that this is going too far and that we must put it right at the first possible opportunity.

At the end of his speech the other day the Minister said that this is a very difficult Act to administer; that he often finds it unpleasant to administer this legislation. I accept that. In fact, we all feel that this is a very difficult and complicated piece of legislation to administer and that it often causes sorrow, grief and humiliation. Accordingly, no person with instincts of decency can be fond of this legislation. But what I am really concerned about is that this is the eighth time that an attempt is made to improve this legislation, to tighten the ropes and to reduce the possibilities for clemency. The Minister said that he would continue to do this and that he would introduce further amending legislation if necessary because he considered this legislation to be the foundation stone of the colour policy of the Government. But if one holds a view that can only be implemented by means of cruelties, unpleasantnesses, and difficulties, I wonder whether the time has not come that we should consider whether the original concept is not fundamentally wrong in some respect. After all, only something immoral needs immoral measures for its implementation.

I think it is a sad occasion that we as Parliament should have to deal with a measure such as the one we are dealing with now. It is sad because it epitomizes the strange creeping fear which the Government seems to have of a tiny touch of the tarbrush in the descent of a white citizen of South Africa.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I have allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion thus far. Every point made so far from the side of the Government has already been adequately replied to by the Opposition. Henceforth I shall require hon. members to confine themselves exclusively to the contents of this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am confining myself to the contents of this Bill by saying that I think it is sad that we should have a Bill before us which I believe has been inspired by the fear of a touch of the tarbrush on white society. This Bill provides machinery for an amendment to the procedure and rules and conditions under which persons will be racially classified. Surely, Mr. Speaker, at a Second Reading debate we are entitled to deal with the motives which inspire the measure with which we have to deal?

I have given my ruling and I hope the hon. member will abide by it.

I shall abide by it, Sir. We have before us a measure which seeks to make descent the primary basis for the determination of the race of a person. It seeks to make descent the primary, overriding and determining factor to the exclusion of those factors which have previously been the overriding and determining factors in this legislation.

This has already been in force since 1967.

It was one of the factors then. It is now being made the overriding factor. Hon. members who have spoken here this afternoon and earlier, have asked us the question: “How do you apply the traditional pattern of South African life unless you have a measure such as this, which enables you to classify your peoples without doubt and without question?”

But the principle of classification has been accepted.

I am not dealing with the principle, Sir. The principle is accepted. We disagree with the form in which it has been accepted. Judging from what we have heard this afternoon, and from what was said by the last Government speaker, there is a complete inability on the part of the Government to defend this measure.

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

Sir, a Government member …

The last Government speaker has been replied to very adequately.

Mr. Speaker, a Government member made a point to which I believe neither the hon. member for Newton Park nor the hon. member for Yeoville replied. Neither of them replied to the specific point with which I wish to deal, namely that this measure is essential if you are going to maintain the traditional pattern of race segregation. I want to ask how it is then that South-West Africa maintains racial separation …

Order! That is a point which has been raised over and over already.

In regard to pensions, Mr. Speaker …

That is a point that has been mentioned by almost every speaker.

The point was raised in regard to pensions, Sir?

Yes, that point has also been dealt with.

Well, Sir, then I assume that it has been dealt with and that the Government is unable to answer it. It is unable to answer how South Africa has managed to retain, for 300 years, a pattern …

Order! The hon. member is disregarding my ruling.

No, Sir.

The hon. member is continuing on the same lines.

No, Sir, I have continued on different lines.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill and confine himself to it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal then with my next point, which is the basis of the Mendelian Law. The basis of that law, which is accepted scientifically as a medical and a genetic axiom—as a scientific fact—is that, if White should cross with Black, the probable result of such a cross will be one White, one Black and two Brown—two mixed. I do not want to deal with that law in detail, but it follows that sequence. And so, out of such resultant offspring, one can equally get a Black, a White or further Brown. And so one goes on through the generations. We are now, with this measure, trying to cover cases where a white strain has continued through the history of a family. Somewhere in its background, there has been one non-White element in its history. Despite this the Mendelian Law has applied. This is the history of a human life, yet despite the scientific facts we as a Parliament are now denying the fact that White can have resulted from a cross when somewhere in a family’s background, White and non-White were involved. Are we now to say that the Mendelian Law does not apply in South Africa, although it is definitely possible to have a continuous strain of White from an original cross of White and Black, with the Brown strain being missed by the law of chance? We know that, because of the law of chance, a continuous strain of White can be produced. It can happen, Sir. After a number of generations one may then find a pure white person. This Bill, now before us, provides that, because somewhere in the past there was an element of colour, for example brown, and not necessarily black in a family’s background, that family must for all time be classified according to that one fractional element of colour in its background. I say that we as South Africans have no right to go against the proven facts of science and of medicine. We have no right to set ourselves up as a Parliament to determine that the lives of people shall be determined according to a fixed rule without any flexibility for the exception. When we plead for that, we on this side of the House are accused of pleading for “verbastering” of the white man. I want to say that we on this side of the House have never made any bones about where we stand. We accept …

That point has also been made repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what I am going to say?

The hon. member is stating the policy of his party. That was stated over and over again by his Deputy Leader just a few moments ago.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to deal with the question of social and residential segregation.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Yes, it has, Sir. How do you have social and residential segregation if your people are not grouped into the races which will form the pattern of that social and residential segregation? The point I want to make is that, in terms of the policy of this party, we have always stood for and still stand for social and residential segregation. However, we have believed that, in the application of that policy, the decision is made on the grounds of acceptance. I am not going to argue this point, because it has been argued before. It has already been argued that that was the policy of the late Dr. Dönges and the Nationalist Party, which we support. Therefore I shall not argue that point. The point I want to argue is that, in the application of the traditional South African approach to the co-existence within one country of people of different grades of colour, different civilizations, standards and outlook, society has developed a form of separation of the people based upon traditional tests. These tests have meant that if a person offends against the traditions he has moved to the lower of the groups—that with which he has integrated himself.

Order! The hon. member is now drifting away from the Bill. The hon. member is developing a theme which has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my theme is that in terms of this Bill, if a person is classified White and in terms of the Bill he is a white man, irrespective of what he may do, how he may behave, the people with whom he may associate or the pattern of life which he may follow, he is classified for ever and ever as a white man.

Which he is genetically.

Which he is genetically. If a person has Coloured blood, irrespective of his behaviour, his associates and his pattern of life, he is classified as a Coloured person. That is the effect of this Bill. It makes no difference how, or where, he lives. That hon. member interjected that that is what he is genetically. Our tradition in South Africa is that if a white person has come to associate, to cohabit and have children with a non-White person, that person has become part of the Coloured community. That has been the tradition of South Africa. In terms of this Bill that tradition is breached and ignored.

But that has never been the tradition of South Africa.

Does the hon. the Minister suggest that that has not been the traditional pattern of South African life and that a white person can live and have children by Coloureds and still be accepted in white society as a white person? Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister did say so.

I said that that has not been a tradition of South Africa. Do not misquote me.

I say it has been a tradition of South Africa. The hon. the Minister does not accept that it is a tradition of South Africa that a white person who lives with, has children by and associates with non-Whites should become a non-White. I say that that is the tradition of South Africa. Is that not the fundamental difference in approach which this Bill epitomizes? Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I should like to quote an example of something which happened to me at a meeting I was addressing in the constituency of the hon. member for Vryheid, who is present at the moment. There was a lady in the audience who kept shouting at me, saying: “Ja, jy praat maar so, maar na die vergadering sal jy teruggaan na jou meid toe.” She was cheered to the echo. After the meeting I found out that she had been in gaol serving a sentence because she had a non-White child by a non-White father. Because she was White genetically in terms of this Bill she was accepted back into the white community and was cheered when she stood up amongst white people at a political meeting and insulted a fellow White person. I say that that is not the South African outlook towards the matter. That is not the way we as South Africans have always judged these matters. We would have said that traditionally society would exclude such a person from itself. But I have also had cases in my constituency of pure white parents, pure white grandparents and pure white great-grandparents. I have seen the birth certificates of the persons concerned and their photographs and I have seen family histories. Suddenly there is a throw-back, a dark child in the family. I remember one tragic case where this happened. This child was classified Coloured on appearance and was refused admission to a school. In terms of this Bill that child would be a white person.

Do you not want that?

Yes, I want to deal with reality and fact. When that child was eventually accepted in a white school, because the child was a White person, the life of the child was made a misery by its playmates. Eventually the family was forced to take the child out of that school and put it in a private school.

But that has nothing to do with this Bill.

It has to do with the Bill, namely that according to this Bill that child is White, irrespective of anything else, but in its life that child was ostracized and victimized. What is going to happen when that generation grows up and that child is clearly a person with non-White blood by appearance, by behaviour and gradually by association? That child is still going to be White, because by its descent, as laid down here, the parents and the family are White.

The solution is in the new subsection (4) (c) contained in clause 2.

There is no solution in this Bill. The Bill has a watertight definition, making descent the overriding factor. What happens to the other relatives in such a family? I want to take parallel with this case another case which I handled at the same time, where because of such a throwback in an older child, a child of seventeen, the Department started an investigation. The parents were both classified as white and the brothers and sisters were also white. They all worked in white jobs; this girl also worked in a white job and associated with Whites. Because her appearance was questioned, however, there was an investigation into her background, because she herself appeared to be Coloured. They found that in the third generation back there was a Coloured mother. As a result the whole family was then re-investigated. When I last saw them about a year ago, the whole family was in the process of facing reclassification. They came to me and pleaded with me. I took them to legal representatives and we did all we could. In the end the father told me that he would have to leave the country as there was no future for him. He told me: “We are white. I am white, my wife is white and our home, our children and everything else is white orientated. But in my wife’s ancestry they have found a quarter of Coloured blood. Now, because one of my daughters is dark, the whole family is under the shadow of reclassification hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. We cannot live in this atmosphere.” I tried to find him a job in Swaziland but because of his qualifications I could not succeed. The last I heard was that he was trying to emigrate elsewhere. Here are two parallel cases which are affected by this Bill. In one case a completely white family living in a white area, possessing white identity cards except for the children who were then growing up. Suddenly they found that one daughter was a throwback. She was 17 and wanted to get married and therefore had to have an identity card. Of course the hon. the Minister is not interested in what I am saying. The hon. the Minister does not care about these human tragedies.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this girl, wanting to get married from a white family had to get an identity card. When she applied for it this investigation started. The other child was of a white family and classified as white but with the appearance of a non-white. Here are two parallel cases creating tragedy and heartbreak. An hon. member said that this measure, after all these years, is designed to deal with 1,780-odd cases of questionable appeals. Are we, out if 18 million people, not big enough to find within our hearts as Christians and as civilized people a modus vivendi whereby an established family accepted and living for a generation as a white family can be accommodated in white society? Are we so “eng”, so exclusive and ridden with fear that we might become tainted with the tarbrush that we cannot find within white society a little corner for people of that nature? Are we so afraid and small that this great South African white nation, this nation of which every one of us is proud, this nation which has built up its place and tradition and its history on its own pride, that we can find no place for that family that I have mentioned?

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

But this Bill, Mr. Speaker, closes off that little place, that little corner which there could be amongst us for such a family. It not only closes it, but after eight amendments of this law it now makes this retrospective. I do not want to repeat the arguments on retrospectivity. But I do want to say that I believe that we as white people can maintain and should maintain the traditional pattern of South African life. I believe we will maintain it. But I believe that this sort of Bill which is before us is the sort of Bill of which we as Whites have no right to be proud.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, judging from those hon. members who did speak, that none of them has ever dealt with a race classification case with any compassion whatsoever in their hearts or with any concern for the person concerned.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I talk nonsense, but that is the impression one gets from hearing what hon. members said.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. In justifying this Bill the hon. member for Innesdal said that if the colour feeling is strong you should therefore have stronger laws. That is the conundrum which he poses.

That is not what I said. I asked whether you regard it as right that the colour feeling is strong.

Then the hon. member went on and said that if the colour feeling is strong then you have to have stronger laws. That is what the hon. member said. The difficulty with that hon. member’s argument is the foundation of it. If the colour feeling is strong, and this begs the whole question, where is the colour feeling strong? The colour feeling is strong with the community. It is a matter for the opinion of the community. If the colour feeling is strong then a fortiori, if the community accepts someone as white then he should be accepted as white. Surely that is the test. The hon. member is quite right. The colour feeling is strong. That is why it was such a good rule to have, namely the one that is being completely abolished in this Bill. That is that acceptance by the community should be the test. Then there is the question whether one should bring out stronger laws. You get the situation that the community accepts the people, a community which has a strong colour feeling. Now we have to have a law to override the feeling of a community which is very strongly colour conscious. The hon. member quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American journalist. He quoted with approval his statement that “the life of law is not logic but experience”. I could not agree with him more. What is the illogicality of this Bill? This is not based on experience. This is based on logic or a form of logic. But it has a false premise. How can it be based on experience when you rely on census forms, filled in very often by someone else? How can it be the basis on which you classify people? Where is the experience that one gets of that? Where is the experience that can produce this? I quote—

Is that experience or is someone trying to be logical? This appears in the 1967 amendment. Surely the experience of centuries is what in fact is needed if we are going to try and provide some real and proper humanitarian basis on which to classify people into various races. It is not this sort of cold logic of cold-hearted, frightened and frigid hearts and minds that exist over there.

The hon. member for Piketberg stood up in this House and said that no tragedies follow as a result of the application of this law. This Bill will produce more tragedy. He said it would give people certainty. The only certainty that this Bill will produce is that there is no longer any certainty at all in the minds of those people who have already been classified as white.

What about those people whose cases are pending? What certainty is there for them that their cases will be disposed of before this Bill becomes law? None whatsoever. What about those that have already been classified in accordance with one test under this Act before it is amended by this particular Bill? What is the certainty for them that they will not after this Bill becomes law be reclassified because it was discovered by some neighbour who did not like them that one of their parents was classified as Coloured at some stage? Where is the certainty for them? And where is the justice in it? How does the hon. the Minister justify a thing like that, that so many of these people will now live in fear that they may be reclassified in terms of this Bill under another test.

I do not know how you can justify that argument.

This Bill says—

Now, if you have been classified as a Coloured person before these amendments came in and this is reported to the Secretary, he will be obliged to send the matter to a board. If this is brought to the Secretary’s attention he will be obliged to send it to a board because the law says: If one of your parents has been classified as Coloured then you cannot be classified as white. He then sends it to the board and the board will apply the law as it is. They will find that one of the parents was classified as Coloured and then the person concerned will be classified as Coloured.

We would like to know how this sort of thing can be justified. When a person has lived all his life as a white man and has been accepted as a white man and his whole future is in the white community, how can something like this happen? The position is much worse and I am going to deal with these problems seriatim. This Bill proposes to restrict even more the very narrow mesh sieve which this Government has produced up to date in trying to sift out people the Government does not want to be classified as White. When one looks at this Bill and considers how many people are going to be affected by it, one wonders how at this time this House should be asked to consider, in the many hours of debate there are going to be, a measure which affects so very few people. When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill he said that it will not affect the rights of any people. Does the hon. the Minister remember saying it? I see he is reading a note now.

Yes.

He said that this matter will not alter the rights of any people. It will immediately alter the right of employment. It will immediately alter the schools the children can go to. It will immediately alter the club such a person goes to and the friends he may have.

Where he lives.

No, not necessarily where he lives. I am coming to that. But it will certainly affect such a person’s status.

What clause is the hon. member referring to?

I am referring to the clause I have just read out, whereby a man who is now a white person, who is accepted as a white person and carries a white identity card, can be made a Coloured person because it is suddenly discovered in terms of this clause that one of his parents was classified as a Coloured person. Then his whole life changes.

This is not a new clause. It was included in the 1967 Act.

It is here again in a new form.

That was your motivation.

Exactly. That was the hon. the Minister’s motivation. He said it would not affect anyone’s rights. Does it not affect someone’s rights when he is classified as a Coloured person? The hon. member for Witbank went further than the hon. the Minister. He said there would be no “verlaging van mense”. We have had this argument in the House before, namely that there will be no diminution in a person’s status when he becomes a Coloured person. After all, the person will be a Coloured person and will not suffer for being a Coloured person. At least this is what hon. members on the other side say. I want to mention a case which came before the Transvaal Supreme Court, namely that of Brown and Brown versus the Secretary for the Interior. This case was quoted in another context by my hon. Leader. In that case His Lordship, Mr. Justice Hiemstra, in dealing with third-party objections, said the following:

Where is the equality and separate freedom? Those were the words of the Judge, namely to downgrade a person from White to Coloured.

That was the original intention and that is why you voted against it.

This is terribly interesting. The hon. the Minister now concedes by that interjection that it is a downgrading to a lower group. The hon. the Minister should read the debates we had on this matter before. The hon. member for Parow, especially, waxed eloquent about this not being a downgrading in terms of this Government’s policy, that everyone was equal in their own “kringe”, and so on.

I was not playing around with the meaning of the word “downgrading”. The hon. member has also used those words. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Minister has used those words how can he say that it is not going to affect anyone’s rights? I want to say that those words are not the words of the board. So they have informed me and I accept it. Those were the words of the Judge and that is his view of the particular Act we are now amending. We have heard a lot about de facto and de jure in another context, but I think that we should deal here a little more with the de facto and a little less with the de jure. We must not have all these strange formula being introduced to determine what is a white man and what is not a white man. Let us rather use the de facto test, which is a very strong test, with a community that has, as the hon. member for Innesdal says, a very strong colour consciousness, to determine in their own community whether anyone is acceptable or that he is not. Let us look at the restrictions and ask ourselves what the purpose of these restrictions is. Let us first of all look at clause 2 (b). This clause inserts a new subsection after subsection (4) of section 5 of the principal Act, and reads as follows:

That is, in terms of the provision just before that.—

That is fine. The case then goes to the board. Then there is the proviso:

In other words, what this subsection now provides is that if the board gives a decision that a person is classified as Coloured and the board determines that such a person is properly classified as a Coloured person and such a person then wants to appeal against the decision, he may no longer do so. Only the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for the Interior can appeal against that decision from now on if in fact it has been altered. In practice this means that only the Secretary of the Interior may appeal and that the person himself may not appeal. In practice this means that a person who is Coloured and wants to be White but the board is not prepared to make him White, has no right of appeal any more. The hon. the Minister and the Secretary for the Interior, however, have the right to appeal if the board refuses to make him White. What is the justice in this? What is the sense and the logic in it?

There is a lot of sense in it.

There may be from the hon. the Minister’s point of view. Why is there sense in that? Why should the hon. the Minister have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court to determine whether the board was wrong? If the board gives a decision against the hon. the Minister’s, he may appeal and get another opinion, but if the board gives a decision in favour of the hon. the Minister the person who is classified in that particular instance has no right of appeal. What sense is there in that?

What justice?

The hon. the Minister said there is sense in that.

I will explain it to the hon. member in my reply.

I hope the hon. the Minister will do so. This means that if you are upgraded by the board, the hon. the Minister may appeal against the decision, but if you are downgraded or left in your lower grade, you may no longer go to court or appeal against the decision. What is the object of an appeal to the Supreme Court after a decision by the Race Classification Board? The object is to test not only whether the board is right with its facts, but whether the board has properly applied the law. When one looks at Backhouse’s case, which I will quote now, one will find that the Supreme Court, which consists of trained jurists, has found that the board, which consists mainly of laymen, was wrong in applying the Act. There are many cases of this nature. Now the person will not be entitled to that remedy. If the board cuts right across the procedures laid down in the Act, such a person does not even have the right to appeal. What justification is there for that? We would like to know. Clause 2 (d) of the Bill adds two paragraphs to subsection (5) of section 5 of the principal Act. The two new paragraphs read as follows:

1. (e) 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;
2. (f) a person whose natural father has been classified as a member of any ethnic or other group into which Coloured persons may be classified, shall be classified as a member of the group of which his father has been so classified as a member.

I know of a case of which the hon. the Minister might be aware, his predecessor certainly was aware of this case. I shall not mention the name of the person concerned. This person’s father was a leading member of the Mauritian community in my constituency. He was 80 years of age. He suddenly got an identity card on which he was classified as Coloured. He could not care whether he was Coloured, Chinese, Japanese or anything at all. He was 80 years of age and he could not care less.

He was at the end of his life.

Yes, he was at the end of his life. He was living in his house and was accepted by his community as a leading member of that part of the white community, and he could not care less. Therefore, he did nothing about it. He was not going to be bothered to change his identity card, because it made no difference to him whatsoever. But his son as a result of this must be classified as a Coloured person because his father did not bother to have himself reclassified. That is the crux of the matter. I shall tell the hon. the Minister something else about this constituent of mine. He then took up the cudgels, because the house was left to him by his father. In terms of the Group Areas Act, as hon. members are aware, if a house left in the estate is owned by a Coloured person, a disqualified person, it can only be transferred to a qualified person. So, in terms of the Group Areas Act, he then made application and after a lengthy battle he was declared to be a qualified person who could then own that house. In other words, in terms of the Group Areas Act, he was declared to be a white person, which he was because he was accepted as such. In appearance he was not obviously not a white person, and he was accepted as a white person by the community. Therefore, in terms of the Group Areas Act, he is a white person and he can live there. However, in terms of this Bill, he is debarred forever from being a white person.

Although he is a white person.

Yes, although he is a white person, and he is so in terms of the Group Areas Act, as well as in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act. This is the sort of nonsense which is produced by such legislation. I should like to get a justification from the hon. the Minister for this. This is an actual case. I am not going to bandy his name across the floor of this House, but the hon. the Minister can have his name. I hope the hon. the Minister can do something about it. This is the result of such legislation. That man is faced by many difficulties at the moment. Firstly he faces difficulties with his work. Secondly he faces the difficulty that he does not know to which school he has to send his children. How can you put a man in this position? Hon. members can imagine themselves in this position. Just imagine, you are a white person in so far as you are living in a white group area, but you are a Coloured person in so far as the education of your children is concerned. If you divorce your wife, and afterwards want to remarry her, you cannot get married in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.

I can name a similar case. The department classified the girl concerned Coloured. She wanted to marry a Hungarian immigrant who was classified as white on his identification card. The department would not do anything about it, although the girl was pregnant and they wanted to get married. I advised them that under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act they were both white people. Then they went along to the magistrate with the affidavit I had given to them and they got married as white people. But the one is Coloured and the other one White in terms of this strange Act we are amending.

Although they are white people.

In accordance with the Act the one is white and the other is Coloured, but although they are married as white people in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act, every one of their children shall for ever be a Coloured person in terms of this Act. How can that be justified on any basis whatsoever? I may just say these people were married in church. How does the hon. the Minister justify this in any way whatsoever, in terms of Christian ethics, in terms of logic, in terms of decency and in terms of justice?

I want to take a third example. Clause 2 (e) provides for the insertion of a new subsection (6) and it reads:

My time is getting limited, but I just want to point out what this means. This means that if someone is classified as a Coloured person and he has a month to object, but he dies within that month after he received notification of his classification, his children are debarred from ever becoming white people. They are debarred from becoming white people even though that classification might have been a mistake. These mistakes happen very easily. A mistake can happen if you have to rely upon documents like the census forms, as the member for Pietermaritzburg (District) pointed out the other day. It can easily happen just because of a clerical error. Then the sins of the officials are visited upon the children for all time although their parents may have been white. Nothing can then be done about it. If you look at clause 3 (c), you will see that another restriction has been inserted into the original subsection (6) of section 11. It provides that a person must appeal within 30 days. It was the court’s inherent discretion that that period could be extended on good cause shown. Now the period of the court’s discretion is to be limited to two months. What justification is there for that? Surely the courts can be trusted. If you look at clause 7, as my hon. Leader said, hearsay evidence is now not to be allowed any more where pedigree is an issue. As my hon. Leader pointed out, there is no other way in which you can prove pedigree than by hearsay evidence. What I would like to point out now is the part the hon. the Minister proposes to delete from the Bill as it is at the moment. He wants to delete the proposed new sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) (d) which deals with a form completed by someone else in respect of a third person. This is hearsay evidence. That was going to be in the Bill. However, that is now to be taken out. What is the logic of this, if that is to be taken out? We are pleased it is to be taken out. Here he had in mind hearsay evidence, but when it comes to pedigree, no hearsay evidence is allowed.

The stated object of this Bill is to make someone pure White. I wonder how we are going to remain pure White, when you take into consideration that before we had this obnoxious Bill a lot of people slipped through the mesh and were White, persons who would in terms of this Bill be non-White. What about them? Do they not constitute a danger already to this pure Whiteness? Is there going to be a witch hunt in respect of them, or is there not going to be one? We should like to know.

No.

The hon. the Minister says “no”. Does he want to take a bet that it will take place? What happens if there is a vicious neighbour?

When there are objections they will be referred to the Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary for the Interior will be obliged to have regard to this law and pass on the matter. Why is it necessary to exclude the courts? Here is another example of this Government excluding the courts from the determination of the rights of citizens. Why? Does the hon. the Minister fear the courts? Does he fear that they will give a more compassionate decision than has been given heretofore? Might they try to find a way around the law? Why exclude the courts? Surely they are the best judges of how the law should be applied and the most compassionate people and the most experienced people in the lives of all of our people. I think this is summed up by the Presbyterian Church when they say that the Presbyterian Church of South Africa is concerned for those in this unhappy situation and for borderline cases, and believe that every consideration should be shown to this minority group and particularly that race classification should only be entrusted to senior, experienced officials who should use compassionate discretion. Existing rights and appeals should be allowed to stand or be extended. For these reasons the Presbyterian Church of South Africa urges that the Population Registration Amendment Bill be withdrawn.

That is the voice of true Calvinism.

I do not know whether it is Calvinism or whether it is not But that is what they say. I think that sums it up. Let us be compassionate; let us allow the best people to judge the facts of this matter, and let us rot restrict the rights of a citizen to have this most important fundamental matter determined for him if we can possibly help it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that without any doubt one of the most heartrending duties which an Opposition Member of Parliament is called upon to perform in this country is to deal with persons who are affected in one way or another by this population registration legislation passed by this Government. I think it is a great pity that more of the Government members do not have to deal with this, because I believe that if they did they would have adopted a more human attitude to this legislation.

This point has been dealt with over and over again. The hon. member must kindly confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with clause 2. I should like to be permitted to make a few general remarks. I will not go too far, but I would like to make a few general remarks to lead up to clause 2.

I have allowed a very wide discussion.

Mr. Speaker, may I then be permitted to simply say, before I deal specifically with clause 2, that I believe that one of the saddest aspects of this debate has been the callous attitude of the hon. the Minister in reference to the tragic cases which have been brought to his attention by hon. members on this side of the House during the course of this debate. This has been a very sad aspect of this debate, because it indicates very clearly the attitude of that hon. Minister and of Government members towards the tragedies which occur through this population registration. These are tragedies which can only be increased by the unjust provisions which the Government is seeking to introduce in terms of this amending legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling, and I now wish to come to clause 2. I should like to deal with clause 2 in some detail because it is my submission to this House that clause 2 is one of those clauses which contains some of the most harsh provisions of this amending Bill. It is also a good example of the point which I wish to make to-day, namely that with each succeeding amending Bill that we have had in this House to the original Population Registration Act, the provisions have become harsher and harsher.

That point has been made by the previous speaker and by practically every speaker that has spoken on behalf of the Opposition.

I will not labour the point. I wish to deal in some detail with clause 2, to draw the attention of this House to the provisions of this clause and the fact that it has progressively been amended to provide ever harsher provisions. Clause 2 introduces amendments to section 5 of the principal Act. Section 5 of the principal Act relates to the classification of persons whose names are included in the register. The original section 5 is relatively simple. Section 5 (1) reads as follows—

That was the provision of the original Population Registration Act, Act No. 30 of 1950. The first amendment to this section was a relatively innocuous one which was introduced in 1960 and which simply provided that the word “Director” be altered to “Secretary”.

Order! Yes, but we cannot again cover the entire field from the main provisions of the original Act right up to this Bill now. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the Bill under consideration and to that Bill only.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to you I submit that, in discussing the provisions which it is proposed to introduce in this amending legislation and which amends the original Act, I am entitled to draw the attention of this House to the effect of the previous provisions so that this House is in a position to compare the previous provisions with what is proposed under the Bill which is before the House to-day.

But the House is acquainted with the previous provisions.

Mr. Speaker, with respect …

The hon. member, however respectful he may be, must confine the scope of his arguments to within the long title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is not criticizing the principle of the original Bill. All he is doing is criticizing the amending Bill and indicating to what extent that differs from the principal Act. He is neither criticizing the principal Act nor the principles. I submit that he is entitled to do that.

I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member. My ruling is that he must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, would I be allowed to refer to the provisions of section 5 which are now being amended? Section 5, as it was amended by the 1567 Act, provides that every person whose name is included in the register shall be classified by the Secretary, and so on. I will not refer to the whole clause in terms of your ruling. Then it goes on to the very important subsection (5), which is now being amended by paragraph (e) of clause 2. Subsection (5) of the 1967 Act introduced one of the most far-reaching provisions which there is in this legislation. It provided that in an application under section 2 …

Order! The Chair gave a ruling a couple of seconds ago that the hon. member must confine himself to the long title of the Bill and not go back to the history of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, how can I possibly refer to the significance of the proposed new subsection (6), proposed in this Bill, without referring to the provisions of subsection (5)? The new subsection which clause 2 proposes to introduce affects the provisions of the existing subsection (5). It says—

I can only deal with the effect hereof by pointing out what subsection (5) provides. Subsection (5) says that a person is a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons—these are the words I should like to emphasize: “his natural parents have both been classified as white persons.” The same applies to the other subsections of section 5. In each case the classification is dependent upon the classification of both natural parents; (a) provides that a person is classified as White if his natural parents have both been classified as such; (b) that a person is to be classified as being Coloured if his natural parents have both been classified as Coloured, or one as Coloured and one as White; and (c) provides that a Coloured person whose natural parents have both been classified as members of the same ethnic group shall be classified as a member of that group. Similarly with regard to a Bantu person. I want to stress again that subsection (5) provides for the classification of a child to be dependent upon the classification of both his natural parents. Now we come to the proposal in this Bill to add a new subsection (6) to section 5 of the principal Act. The terms of the new subsection (6) must necessarily mean that a person can be classified after his death, otherwise how can the provisions of the existing subsection (5) be given effect, to, unless a parent who was not classified during his lifetime can be classified after death? In such a situation I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister can justify the introduction of this provision. It places a child in an impossible position. I refer specifically to a child …

It is not intended in that way; you cannot read that into the clause. There is no classification after death.

It is interesting to hear the hon. the Minister saying that it is not intended in this way, and I am certainly very relieved to hear it. But then the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, must elaborate on this provision and tell us exactly what this is meant to mean.

Your Leader already raised that point and I shall reply to it.

However, that is not the end of the matter; it is not the end of the matter when the Minister says that the interpretation I am placing on this new subsection (6) is not intended, because he must then tell the House what the position of a child is who has not been classified at the time of the death of one of his parents, a parent who also was not classified at the time of his or her death. What will the position of such a child be? I suggest that in terms of the existing legislation and in terms of the amendments proposed in this Bill, there can be only one result—that the dead parent must be classified in order to comply with the tests required by the existing subsection (5). This specifically provides that a child is to be classified in a way dependent upon the classification not of one or other of his parents, but of both. I need hardly stress that this places a very harsh, not onus, because that is the wrong word in legal terms, but a harsh test in respect of the classification of a child unclassified at the time an unclassified parent dies.

I want to move on to another provision of clause 2, a provision which is also a new addition to the existing legislation. I refer to paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (4) to section 5. That provides that if the Secretary doubts whether any such classification, that is a classification which has already been made, is correct, he may after notice to the person in question, and if such a person is a minor, also to his guardian, refer the case to a board for a decision on whether the classification of that person in the register should be altered. The effect of this is that no classification henceforth can ever be final. Is that what the hon. the Minister intends? He must intend it because that is what it says. I have no reaction from the hon. the Minister, so I must assume that he does intend it. If that is so, then I want to ask him on what grounds he can possibly justify it. The Population Registration Act already creates sufficient injustices without us having to introduce a provision of this sort, which means that there can be no finality in respect of any classification at any time. The hon. member for Durban (North) has already pointed out that the right of appeal to the courts is being restricted, drastically, by many of the provisions of this amending Bill. In some cases it is being done away with altogether. One case in which it is being done away with altogether is where a board or a court has up-graded a classification, as it were; for example, they have altered a classification from Coloured to …

You are not allowed to use the terms “upgrading” or “down-grading”.

I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister is sensitive about this. He knows very well that that is the attitude of the public towards an issue of this kind. The public does regard a classification as White as being an up-grading from a classification of Coloured. He knows that. However, the point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that in the case of a person who has been classified as White, or at least whose classification was changed from Coloured to White, the Secretary may appeal against that finding. But where a person was classified as White and has his classification changed to that of Coloured, he may no longer appeal. From this two questions arise. What justification is there for this? And, above all, why is the Secretary being given the right to lodge an appeal in such a case?

Another matter I want to deal with is the question of the retrospectivity of this legislation. This is laid down in clause 9 of the Bill. This clause provides that this amending Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 7th day of July, 1950, i.e. the date of commencement of the original Population Registration Act of 1950. Sir, all these provisions which are contained in this amending Bill, the effect of which has been drawn to the attention of this House by various members on this side, are made retrospective to July, 1950. This is practically 19 years ago; that is a very long time, Sir, and during that time there have been numerous applications made to court and numerous applications made to the Race Classification Board by people who have been aggrieved by decisions. They have had a decision, in many cases in terms of legislation which existed previously, which satisfied them in the sense that they were finally classified as White whereas previously they had been classified as Coloured. This is what they had been seeking and what they had achieved. They had achieved it in many cases after a long struggle, after application to the Classification Board first of all, thereafter an appeal to the Supreme Court, and thereafter an appeal to the Appellate Division. They did this in many cases, through all three procedures, at great cost to themselves and at the cost of mental strain. All this, Sir, is now once again to be placed in the melting pot, if I may use that expression. All this is now to be revived because in terms of this amending Bill provisions which existed previously and in terms of which an individual was legally entitled to be classified as White, are now to be wiped away and in terms of the proposed new section 5 (4) (b) the Secretary may at any time revive all this. This emphasizes why this proposed amendment of section 5 by the introduction of a new paragraph (b) is such a drastic provision. It enables the Secretary not only to revive cases that have been decided during the past 19 years, but it enables him to revive these cases on the basis of an entirely new test and on the basis of a much harsher test. Sir, it is for these reasons that we say that this is one of the harshest laws which this Government has sought to pass in this House. Sir, the hon. the Minister laughs.

No, he was not laughing; I drew his attention to something.

I am sorry.

Do not be so stupid; do not be so childish; this is not a debating society.

Sir, the attitude of the hon. the Minister throughout this debate has on many occasions made us wonder whether he does not think that this is simply a debating society instead of the highest legislature of the country which is asked to pass, in the words of my hon. Leader, one of the most vicious Bills, one of the cruellest Bills, which has ever been placed before this House.

Mr. Speaker, we will shortly be dealing with the question as to whether or not this Bill should be given a second reading. Before that the hon. the Minister will no doubt reply to the representations made by this side of the House. I propose at this stage of the debate to refer to certain facts and to present certain arguments which, I trust, will not be a repetition of what has already been said but which may lay emphasis on certain aspects of this Bill. Sir, before doing so I want to revert to the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg. The hon. member made two observations with which I should like to deal briefly. He contended in the first place that this amending legislation before us does not in fact provide for a reclassification of the dead. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will deal with this specifically in his reply, because if the new compulsory effect of ancestry is to be applicable, as it is in terms of this Bill, if one finds that his father, now deceased, was classified as Coloured and he is not satisfied with that classification, how does he attack it except by seeking a reclassification of the dead? A person may well find that his father, who is deceased, was classified as Coloured because a grandfather, who is also deceased, was classified as Coloured. One would have to go into that classification and if one can go back to test the correctness of a living person’s ancestry, then at the instance of that person the question can also be investigated whether his ancestors were correctly classified as White, for instance. That is how we read the Bill. That is why my hon. Leader raised this question, and that is why I believe that the hon. member for Piketberg is not correct. The second point which the hon. member for Piketberg raised, which really followed on what the hon. member for Innesdal said about race consciousness, is that the vast majority of South Africans indulged in what he termed self-classification in the 1951 census. Sir, if ever one wanted an argument in favour of the attitude of this side of the House, it is that very statement because we have said that over 300 years it has not been necessary to have a Population Registration Act for the people to sort themselves out in South Africa, by acceptance and by custom, into their respective groups. But that is now to go in terms of these amendments. Ancestry will be the sole test and the sole arbiter in determining the classification of a person of the present generation. Sir, I challenged the hon. member for Piketberg to give me an example of a Coloured person having been classified as White being unable to revert to Coloured. I am sorry that the hon. member is not here, but he sent across to me a document which he suggested gave me proof of a Coloured person having been classified as White not being able to be reclassified as Coloured. What were the circumstances? Here is a man who was born of a white mother and a white father, and because of legislation which is now proposed to be more binding then ever before, he is classified White. He is a white man, but because apparently this individual chooses rather to live among the Coloureds and to be accepted by them, the hon. member for Piketberg argues against his own case by saying that this is a Coloured man who has been classified as White. That is the example he gives me.

But, Sir, let me revert to the legislation that we have before us. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill he first of all gave us an overture. He made several interesting statements as to the necessity for the amendments which are before us to-day. He said first of all that he wanted to give the House an assurance that there was “geen inkorting van menseregte”. That was the first portion of his overture or of the prologue to his speech. The second contention which he offered was that “alle rassegroepe is trots op hul eie identiteit en geniet almal daardie voordele waarop ’n Suid-Afrikaanse burger geregtig is”. And then he suggested a third reason why these amendments should be accepted, and that is that “herkoms is nou bepaal as die deurslaggewen-de faktor” in the determination of race classification. Now that the hon. the Minister has listened to this debate, I want to ask him whether he will examine those premises which he put before us as well as the amendments in the light of those premises. Because this Bill before us now has retrospective effect and is to go back to 1950, I want to take the hon. the Minister back to the thinking and the motivation of his predecessors in the office of Minister of the Interior, and to see whether there is any justification whatsoever for any of the proposals which he now wants us to accept in the light of and against the assurances of his predecessors. Sir, these were assurances given by responsible Ministers of this Government, assurances given undoubtedly with Cabinet approval, assurances of the type that we are so often asked in this House to accept from Ministers who are in office at a particular time. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that these assurances are being fulfilled in the legislation which he now says must be accepted for the three basic reasons that I have mentioned.

On the question as to whether we are justified in making the present Bill retrospective to 1950 I want to go back to the remarks which were made by the then Minister of the Interior, now the hon. the President of the Senate. This matter was discussed fully in 1962, and certain provisions of that 1962 Act are now to be overridden by this Bill before us with its retrospective effect. I want to refer to what was said by the then Minister as to his approach. He said this—

That was said by the then Minister (Hansard col. 4436, 26th April, 1962). The hon. the Minister who is now in charge of this portfolio says that that is all wrong; that with retrospective effect a man’s ancestry shall determine his classification under this law for all purposes to-day. Sir, let me go further. The hon. the Minister at the same time quoted certain cases which had come before the Appeal Board and he said—

From 1950 to 1962—

I want to conclude by referring to one further remark about the motivation of this legislation, which must now be overridden and cast aside by the retrospective provisions of this Bill. I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that those are hollow words in the light of the attitude of the Government of to-day towards classification. I want to say that I will deal with it perhaps in a little more detail as to why I make that allegation, because I think they are hollow words.

Let us first look at the question in the light of the remarks of the previous Minister and of this hon. Minister’s contention that “Daar is geen inkorting van menseregte nie”. What are these assurances given by Senator De Klerk in 1962 of “these delicate matters”? “Unnecessary hurt must be avoided … Everything possible must be done to take into consideration the humanitarian factor.” Now we find this legislation being introduced, not to soften, but to entrench the type of provision which Mr. Justice Hiemstra referred to when he had to classify man and wife separately. I quote:

Now the hon. the Minister in motivating this Bill, says: “We must entrench 1967 laws; the courts have given other interpretations.” But even giving them the widest of generous interpretations, this is the comment that has been forthcoming from our courts in the intervening period. Sir, is this Bill rectifying what has been condemned as highly unsatisfactory? I believe this Bill goes to lengths which are not quite understood. It is unfortunate that not more of hon. members opposite have been able to debate with us on these points.

Let me ask the hon. the Minister to look at clause 1 (c). What does it say? Every South African who is not a Bantu, is assumed to be a Coloured man until such time as he proves that he is generally accepted as White. Is that how we start governing the white people of South Africa, to say that every one of them is assumed to be a Coloured man until he has produced evidence that he is generally accepted as White? That is what is in this Bill, which this hon. Minister has asked the House to pass and which hon. members opposite are going to vote for. Mr. Speaker, let me go further and say that that is a definition that is in this Bill, namely clause 1 (c) which contains an assumption of coloured blood being in every South African until the opposite is proved. What in fact has happened to these unfortunate people who have been dragged through the cost, expense and misery of appeals to appeal boards? The hon. the Minister gave me the information on what the position is under the present law, which is harsh enough as it is. 234 persons who had been classified as Coloured, proved that they were White. Not a single appeal arrived from a person classified as White who wished to be reclassified as Coloured. What is the deduction? Because of this approach of suspicion, 234 white people in South Africa have been dragged through all this misery to prove that they are white South Africans. It does not worry the Government one bit. But now the appeals are going to be altered. The hon. the Minister is not satisfied that it has been hard enough on these people. He is now altering under this Bill the burden, the hardship and the doubt; because under clause 7 these unfortunate people who are assumed to be Coloured under the definition, and who go along to an appeal court to try and prove the contrary, must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Is the Government doing what Senator De Klerk said in 1962, that these laws must be drafted in such a way that the greatest degree of humanity must be applied and that the objector must be given the benefit of the doubt to avoid unnecessary hurt? The objector now is driven to the position of having to prove what is necessary to convict a man of a criminal offence, in order that he might escape the assumption which is in clause 1 (c).

I want to go further. I want to say that the Minister, when he said “daar is geen inkorting van menseregte nie”, was guilty of using language which is far from appropriate for this measure before us. When the human rights of a person to associate with those who accept him as one of their own, is shattered, he wishes us to suggest that that is showing humanity and the recognition of human rights. The Minister wishes this House and South Africa to defend us against others who might criticize us from outside South Africa that this legislation falls within that particular category, i.e. of showing humanity.

It is quite correct as the hon. member for Piketberg said that race groups are proud of their identity. The Minister was correct when he said that in his opening remarks in this debate. But he was not altogether right when he suggested that all the race groups were contented and happy to enjoy “daardie voordele waarop ’n Suid-Afrikaanse burger geregtig is”. I do not want to talk any further of this matter this afternoon, Sir, because you will probably say I was guilty of repetition if I were to refer again to downgrading. But does the hon. the Minister suggest that the advantages to which a South African citizen is entitled, are quite similar and that there is no difference, whatever might be the classification under this particular legislation? Does he suggest that reclassification from White to Coloured or from Coloured to White should be accepted with a happy heart by the person concerned, because there is no difference in the rights of citizenship which he will enjoy? But surely the hon. the Minister does not seriously make that contention and offer that as a reason for us to accept this Bill? Does he suggest that persons who have been accepted and have lived and carried out their whole existence as white people, should suddenly have to terminate that connection, for the one reason that somebody has detected that an ancestor was classified as non-white, as Coloured; and that ancestor is not the father, but the father of the grandparents of the great grandparents, because the classification follows from one to the other. One may have a background of 16 antecedents; if one was Coloured, classification is perpetuated down to the present generation. The hon. the Minister says to us that this is a matter which should be accepted, because they can enjoy “die voordele van Suid-Afrikaanse burgerskap”. He knows as well as I do what some of the classification has meant to old-age pensioners, war veterans, pensioners who fought as white South Africans in the white army and who are now being classified as Coloured. The hon. the Minister knows what their pensions are now as against what they received as Whites. So it is with wages, facilities and residential areas. The Minister wants to suggest to us that this is nothing of importance. Ancestry now becomes the decisive factor. But why this change, with retrospective effect, to override every assurance given by the hon. the Minister’s predecessors? Senator De Klerk, when he was Minister of the Interior, said that we must “not delve too deeply” and that there was no need to ascertain whether a person “has a few drops of non-white blood in his veins”. The Minister now says that we must accept with equanimity the fact that if one parent is classified as Coloured, so must the children. I did not want to detain the House with cases which I have before me here. I have various letters here from various individuals. We have been told by the hon. member for Parow that we are being sentimental when we raise these matters. Those of us who have received these letters realize the extent of the tragedy caused to some lives because of this attempt at rigidity where rigidity should not exist, and because of the attempt at this form of classification which is beyond the philosopher and beyond the scientist. But this Government feels that it can evolve a definition. So, if ancestry is now, according to this Bill, to be of overriding importance, it will, as I have said, necessarily lead to the re-classification of the dead. This will become necessary, otherwise a person who has a deceased ancestor will be doomed for all time by the classification of that ancestor, who might have been classified as a Coloured, for instance. When the provisions, regarding ancestry and re-classification, are read with the provisions relating to the onus, which is now placed on the objector, and one adds to that the fact that he is assumed to be a Coloured man until he proves otherwise, and the fact that he has to prove the habits and background of a grandfather, without being allowed to produce hearsay evidence, and when one further adds to that the hon. the Minister’s reply to me during the course of this Session that I am not even entitled to go to his office to obtain a birth certificate of my ancestors unless he chooses to give it to me, one realizes exactly what this Bill is doing to South Africans.

Let me now turn to the epilogue, if I may call it that, to the Minister’s speech. When he referred to this Bill and the Act which it amends, he said:

What an incredible statement. It is incredible to say that the kraaling of 1,000 people between Coloured and white is the cornerstone of separate development in South Africa. If the Minister is serious and wants us to accept that, then separate development is damned in South-West Africa, because there is no population registration there. The whole policy is apparently based on a few hundred classifications which are still in doubt. While this “hoeksteen”, this classification, is given to the Minister’s followers on that side of the House as a reason for supporting this Bill, the policy of separate development of that side of the House is rapidly producing a new race group which has not yet been defined under the Population Registration Act, namely a mixed Bantu and Coloured people. This is the result of their own policies. I could understand it if this classification were necessary to delineate separation, but I believe that the provisions of this Bill are quire unnecessary. I want to say in all seriousness to the hon. the Minister that when this law was first introduced into South Africa in 1950, it was handled by two distinguished South Africans. One of them was the former President of the Senate, and the other one is now the President of the Senate. I know, from my own experience outside political circles, that a degree of humanity and a degree of flexibility was applied by those gentlemen in the application of these laws. This was done because of the very reason Senator De Klerk mentioned in 1962, namely that one did not want to cause hurt and that one did not want to delve into people’s pasts unnecessarily. I want to say to this Minister that he has the opportunity now of showing the same strength, and of ensuring that these inhumanities do not continue. The way in which he can best do so is by not proceeding with the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am at last being afforded an opportunity of replying to the few real points raised by the Opposition. As we have found, there are in fact only a few points in this legislation in regard to which arguments could be raised, and to which it is necessary to reply. These points were to a large extent repeated by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. That is why you, Mr. Speaker, found it necessary on so many occasions to indicate that certain points had already been raised. The arguments we heard were not in fact very productive. The reason for this is that the Opposition tried to criticize a Bill on which their own policy is based, or, at least, should be based. I think that much of the discussion here was play-acting. The Opposition was obliged to call on so many speakers to make a contribution here because on a previous occasion they had adopted a specific standpoint in regard to a Bill of this nature, and they had to a large extent, to justify their previous conduct. As a result of that it was in fact a sham fight.

I should like to begin with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to inform him that under the circumstances, and notwithstanding the poor case he put forward, he made a good speech. He made a good speech because he made full use of drama and emotion. To a large extent he utilized and exploited the qualities which were previously so characteristic of the speeches made by the hon. member for Wynberg. He even went so far as to tell us how tears came into the eyes of people who came to see him. He put certain questions to me. Inter alia, he asked me whether I thought this Bill would cause fewer heartaches than there had previously been. I should like to ask hon. members on the opposite side, particularly the hon. member for Musgrave, who spoke in such a sanctimonious way, whether they think they are the only people who have a licence to be reasonable, decent and humane. Do they think they are the only people who can lay claim to being humane? I want to give hon. members the assurance that we on this side of the House, particularly myself—and in my introductory speech, and also during the discussion of my Vote, I mentioned this—are aware that this is a Bill which will be difficult to administer. It will be difficult to administer because it affects the rights of people and their status in the country. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I do not think hon. members on that side, particularly the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, should create the impression here that we ride rough-shod over people’s rights; that we have no human feelings towards other people.

By way of introduction I should like to inform him that any alternative legislation on classification, something which is essential for the introduction of our policy of separate development and which, as I have already alleged, is also essential for the implementation of their policy, will result in far more heartaches than will be brought about by this Bill. Any alternative will result in far more heartaches, and I should like to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have found from experience, not only here in South Africa, but also in other countries, that those people who can be indifferent and often liberal are in the first instance the wealthy and in the second instance the so-called intellectuals. The rich people who can afford to be liberal and who can speak so piously, are the people who buy their apartheid. They buy apartheid every day of their lives. But, Mr. Speaker, you must remember that the bulk of the population, and also the bulk of our population, are not people who are able to buy their apartheid. If unfavourable circumstances set in around De Grendel, which is very unlikely because De Grendel is a large and valuable place where unfavourable circumstances cannot very easily set in, but if it should happen that unfavourable circumstances set in there, then rich Sir De Villiers Graaff can move away and buy himself a dwelling elsewhere. However, my poor family and many of our poor families cannot afford to move away from where they are living. They cannot afford to buy their apartheid somewhere else, as the wealthy are able to do.

What has this to do with classification?

I am being asked what this has to do with classification. Mr. Speaker, you yourself stated that you were allowing a wide discussion and you did in fact allow a wide discussion. Mr. Speaker, you allowed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to discuss these matters, and I think it is necessary for me to reply to them.

Yes, the hon. the Minister may proceed.

In the second instance I referred to the so-called intellectuals because they, firstly as a result of their academic training and favourable circumstances can to a large extent buy their apartheid, and secondly because they in most cases do not have their feet on the ground and do not have to live together with the mass of the people with whom you and I have to live. That is why one finds that these people often talk easily and irresponsibly. Consequently I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that any alternative, or the removal of this Act from the Statute Book, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout envisaged, would entail a hundred times more heartaches. I still do not know what the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. As far as I am concerned, I should like to administer this Act with the greatest degree of reasonableness, fairness and humanity possible. I think that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were honest, he would admit that he discerns signs of this in this Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville was the only member who made mention of clause 2, and said that it was an improvement. I do not want to elaborate on clause 2. However, I do want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he ought to discern the signs of reasonableness and fairness which are revealed in this Bill.

To do that one needs a magnifying glass.

But I am glad the hon. the Leader admits it is there; I found something at least. We on this side of the House believe in separate development. The United Party believes in a race federation. We are not ashamed to admit where we stand when it comes to the implementation of our policy of separate development. However, the hon. members on that side of the House, who advocate a race federation, do not realize that they cannot put it into operation without placing a Bill such as this on the Statute Book. There were other hon. members who even asked how and where the line was going to be drawn when it comes to pensions if there were not some system or other in order to determine that certain people were white and other people were non-white. The same applies to numerous other matters.

How have we been doing this all these years?

I shall also in due course furnish you with a reply to that question. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a similarly ridiculous statement when he said that during the first nine years of National Party Government, from 1924 to 1933, we did not need the Act. He also used the ridiculous argument that it is not yet being applied in South-West Africa to-day, and stated that South-West Africa had afer all not become a hotch-potch in the meantime. [Interjections.] Those are fallacious arguments. It does not mean to say that because the U.P. (Sappe) when they were in power, allowed matters to take their course and the order in South Africa to be disturbed, that we should now continue to allow the disturbed order to be continued. That is why we are rectifying these matters. It does not mean to say that because circumstances in the past required a certain form of administration that we should now continue with that. The circumstances are totally different. I shall subsequently elaborate a little further on that point. That is the reason I said that, because the Opposition did not have the courage of their convictions, and because they were unable to realize the consequences their policy of federation would have, and because they were too ashamed to face up to those consequences and admit this candidly to the world, the difference here was between segregation and integration. That is the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. I stated that this legislation was for the most part aimed at consolidating the legislation of 1967. It is intended to remove the confusion and uncertainty which has existed since the 1967 legislation was placed on the Statute Book.

And it will not succeed.

Hon. members, such as the hon. member for Wynberg in particular, are largely responsible for the confusion and uncertainty which exists. I have here a file on all Press reports concerned, but I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. She is a person who in public, through the Press, is making an appeal to the public to come to her with all their difficulties and objections. [Interjections.] She is the person who creates false hope in people as a result of her actions and who is causing the confusion and uncertainty which I spoke of. I admit that it gives her a measure of publicity, and now she apparently feels happier because she is getting this publicity.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to point out that the people for whom I appeal brought their cases to me. These are outstanding appeals under the third-party system.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the hon. member for Wynberg at that. I should like to proceed and argue the important points raised here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The first point of objection he raised was in connection with the abolition of the third-party objections. He said that that was the principle complaint he had against this Bill. He objected to it particularly because it had been made with retrospective effect. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether this is not what we did in 1967. He quoted to us from Hansard. He said that the 1967 Act, which abolished third-party objections, had been made with retrospective effect to 1950, and that it was then impossible to proceed with any third-party objections. He quoted from Hansard with the specific purpose of pointing out that there had been a difference of opinion between him and the previous Minister of the Interior because he had been of the opinion that the 1967 Act abolished third-party objections and had been made with retrospective effect as from 7th July, 1950. I should now like to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he wants to make a farce of this Parliament, or whether he wants the will of this Parliament to be enforced. If he wants the will of this Parliament to be enforced, he must come and stand behind or next to me and say: Look, it makes no difference whether I agreed or differed with you in 1967 In 1967 this Parliament adopted a resolution and placed certain laws on the Statute Book which this Parliament as a whole understood and comprehended, i.e. the abolition of third-party objections, and that it would be with retrospective effect up to 1950. If this is interpreted in a different way by anyone whatsoever, and if it is put into effect in a different way, then it must be rectified. That is what I expected of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not his desire that the desire of this Parliament should be carried out? That is the only argument I want to use in respect of this Bill. A great deal was said here about third-party objections which are now going to be abolished and the fact that it is with retrospective effect as from 7th July, 1950. Third-party objections were never intended for the purposes to which they have in fact been put recently. In 1950 the Opposition objected to third-party objections. The purpose of third-party objections was to afford people in the neighbourhood an opportunity of objecting to the incorrect classification of a person. That was the purpose of third-party objections. They objected because in 1950 they saw the possibility that people who are classified as Whites and who are in fact Coloured could be re-classified as non-Whites by a third-party objection. That is why they objected. But in the interim this matter has become a complete farce. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this. It is being used for a purpose. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did at least admit this. Initially they did not see it in this way, but recently they have come to realize that this is a good purpose for which the third-party objections are being used. That is why they have decided to leave it at that. However, it has degenerated into a complete farce. That is why we resolved as long ago as 1967 that they should be abolished, and that this should be done with retrospective effect as from 1950. The abolition of third-party objections, in regard to which such a great deal has been said, is not contained in this Bill at all. There is nothing about it in this Bill. It was abolished in its entirety as long ago as 1967. It was made with retrospective effect as from 1950. Whatever its merit is, this was, as far as I am concerned, the will of Parliament in 1967. I therefore expect members on this side as well as on that side of the House to ensure that the will of Parliament is enforced outside, that legislation as envisaged by Parliament is carried into effect. All that we are doing now in respect of this matter is to confirm that the abolition of the third-party objections should be with retrospective effect as we resolved in 1967. And what is wrong with that?

In the second instance, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that “officialdom has been dragging its feet in sending cases to the Board”. I should like to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this was a very unfair allegation he levelled. It is an unfair allegation because the officials to whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was referring, are not here to defend themselves. I think it was an unfair allegation; it was neither right nor fair that it should have been made. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in reply to this allegation. This article appeared in the Cape Times of 12th May, 1969, under the headline “Court orders action in race appeals”. In this article the following words of the Judge were quoted—

I leave the matter at that and should not like to elaborate at any great length on this. I would prefer to leave that unfair allegation to the conscience of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The next point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that persons must prove, beyond a reasonable measure of doubt, in other words the question of the onus. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate to any great extent on this. I think the hon. member for Prinshof dealt with that matter very thoroughly. My basic statement is that the person who alleges must prove. In this regard nobody in the world knows better than he does. He has the knowledge, information and ability to allege what he can prove. I am therefore not offering any excuse for the appearance of this clause in the Bill.

The following objection made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that clerks were making entries for race classification. We are now effecting an amendment in clause 1 (b) in respect of the clerks who were previously defined as officials, and who are now being defined differently. I should just like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that these people, regardless of how they may be classified, have the right to make objections within a specified time. In regard to this I should like to quote two extracts from statements made by Judges in these cases. The first is the case of M and Others v. Race Classification Board, 1962. In this case the hon. Justice Snyman stated as follows—

I should also like to refer to the case Phillips v. Director of Census, 1959. In this case the hon. Mr. Justice Van Blerk stated as follows by way of obiter dictum (translation)—

As a result of practical circumstances, it is not possible for the Secretary to deal with each separate case personally. I think the idea has been expressed here that this ought to be the case. Humanly speaking it is impossible, and one cannot really expect this to be done in any other way than the way indicated.

You are now providing that even if the official who did so is not authorized to do so, it is still valid.

But the official is an official of the department. This is provided in clause 1.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said “why the fuss about a few”. I just want to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we had a great deal to say here about where the line should be drawn and what the application should be and whether it should be appearance and acceptance or whether it should be origin. I asked where the line should be drawn. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the line he would like to see being drawn should be appearance and acceptance. Whether this is going to be his line, or whether it is going to be origin, I have no doubt that there are going to be heartbreak cases. Hon. members can take it from me that there will be heartbreak cases, wherever the line is drawn. Unfortunately this is not only the case in South Africa, but throughout the world. It is also the case in America where there is no such thing as we have here. Any person there who is not a White is a Negro. I have personal experience of this. I once had an interview there with a person who, for all practical purposes appeared to me to be a Negro. I subsequently asked him to tell me where the limit was between Whites and Negroes. His reply was as follows: “Sir, I can tell you that when you have a few drops of Negro blood in your veins, you are regarded as a Negro”. I then found out that that person was in fact a Negro and I asked him: “Are you regarded as a Negro?” to which his reply was: “Yes, I am regarded as a Negro”. For all practical purposes, that person was a White.

He is not classified under an Act there.

He is not classified, but I definitely want to indicate that we in South Africa, who want to draw the line just outside the white group, are no different from other people in any other country of the world. This is fortunately or unfortunately, it makes no difference, where the line is usually drawn between Whites and non-Whites. The same applies in South Africa, and in this way the Whites would like to keep the White race pure.

Hon. members opposite told me of the people who came to see them. I do not want to say that what hon. members said was not true, but I cannot understand why these heartbreak cases go to them, and so few come to me. Since I have held this portfolio there were, except for cases brought to me by Members of Parliament, two or three cases which came to my personal attention. The cases brought to me by Members of Parliament were by no means numerous. I want to state to-day that where there is deprivation and problems, these people should and will in the first instance come to the Government Department, which is able to help them.

That is exactly what we are doing.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that it is not necessary for us to have to place advertisements in the newspapers to inform people to what Member of Parliament they should come with their problems. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition concluded his speech with the following words: “The long agony goes on.” I doubt whether there is any person in this House, who was politically conscious in 1950 when this Act was placed on the Statute Book for the first time, who had any other idea but that we would eventually have to go over to origin as a basis. This is the obvious procedure which should be followed. My own opinion from the start was that appearance and acceptance should be the test and that we should undertake classification on that basis until the classification had been completed throughout. When we have completed the classification according to appearance and acceptance, then surely that was an end to the matter. Then surely there would be an end to these heartbreak cases so that we could, from then on, work on the basis of origin for the purposes of classification. Our streams would then be running in specific directions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me who the leaders were to whom I referred. The hon. member for Witbank read out to him what Dr. Dönges said. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition Dr. Dönges spoke only of acceptance and appearance. The hon. member for Witbank read out here that Dr. Dönges had envisaged all along that it would in due course be necessary to transfer to origin. Since the hon. the Leader has said here that “the agony goes on” my reply to him is that if acceptance and appearance were to be the permanent criterion, there would never be an end to that “agony”. The only end to that would be when a change is effected to origin in order to undertake final classification on that basis.

The hon. member for Parow referred to the disruption which was previously caused by the criterion of appearance and acceptance. As far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, I should like to make one or two remarks. Inter alia, the hon. member for Wynberg had the following to say about the Bill: “Legislation put through without much thought” and “legislation which blocks decisions by courts”. I should like to ask the hon. member who she is to say that legislation of this democratic Parliament, where we have had every opportunity of discussing it, as we have discussed it in this debate, legislation which is argued in this way in South Africa, can be passed without any consideration or without any serious thought?

I am entitled to say what I like.

The hon. member may say that. That just shows what a democratic country South Africa is. I admit that amendments have been made to the Act because the courts have in certain respects decided otherwise.

That is correct. And I admitted this candidly in my introductory speech. That is precisely why we are coming forward with this legislation. Because we want to enforce the will of this Parliament and apply it in practice, we have come forward with this legislation.

I do not know whether I should reply to what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Apparently the hon. member could not understand the division into seven ethnic groups at all. In the Bill provision is being made for the division of Coloureds into ethnical groups and that the children will follow the direction of the ethnical group of the father. The hon. member discussed this and I want to point out to him that we did this as long ago as 1959 by means of Proclamation No. 36, and made provision for this. This is nothing new. We did so at that time already and this was reconfirmed in 1967 in terms of Proclamation No. 123 of 1967. The hon. member also stated that at the age of 22 he was sent out to undertake census surveys. He said: “All the responsibilities were placed on my young shoulders.” At the age of 22 one is not yet responsible enough to undertake a census survey. Even if the hon. member completed the census forms correctly, or even if he did not complete them correctly, any person who was incorrectly classified as a result has a thirty-day period in which he can object to such a classification.

Can you deny the instructions I quoted?

No, I have not acquainted myself with those instructions. That classification creates no problem.

The hon. member for South Coast said: “But for the white man there would not have been Coloureds.” This is a very unfortunate statement which is often made. I do not want to elaborate on it. The white man has erred much in South Africa, but it is not quite correct to make a statement like that. It is a half-truth. I want to ask the hon. member what became of the Bushmen, the Hottentots, the Malays and the slaves. The white man did err. The hon. member is a senior and a responsible member, but he is presenting a picture to the world which is quite incorrect. I shall tell you what conclusion the world will come to as a result of the picture he is presenting. The conclusion the world will arrive at is simply and solely that the Coloureds we have in South Africa are a mixture of Bantu and Whites. That is the conclusion the world will come to.

Do you know anything about human biology at all? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member has said enough and he can speak again during the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Prinshof has dealt adequately with the question of onus. It is therefore not necessary for me to elaborate further on this. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, it is almost unnecessary for us to say anything to each other. In fact, the hon. member had no sparkle in this speech, for she completed it within 18 minutes. I got the impression that she was not really very serious.

I was very serious.

The difference between us is that she advocates a multi-racial community, whereas we do not advocate that at all. This is the basic difference, and it is therefore of no avail our taking the argument any further. I should like to give the hon. member the information she asked me for. She made inquiries in regard to the inter-departmental committee which was appointed a few years ago to effect uniformity in the definitions in respect of Whites and non-Whites in the various laws. This inter-departmental committee has reported to the Cabinet in the meantime, and has recommended that the race definition in the Population Registration Act be used as a basis for the definition of the various races. Accordingly amendments have already been made in various laws in this connection.

So you are back in square one. We have about eight different definitions in eight different Bills.

The hon. member for Mayfair made a very true statement. It was that the Coloured community were complaining to us, and quite rightly so, that if we did anything else but what we were doing in regard to drawing the line between Whites and non-Whites, it would be because we wanted to scoop off the cream of the Coloured community. It is in fact the cream of the Coloured community which has to become the leaders of this community now and in the future. It was a real objection which was raised by the Coloured community. In my opinion it is a well-founded objection.

I have furnished a partial reply to what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He did not discuss the Bill specifically; he spoke in general. He also referred to the nine years of National Government and the fact that this Population Registration Act is not yet applicable in South-West Africa to-day. This argument was dealt with very thoroughly by the hon. member for Innesdal. The hard facts of the matter are that the circumstances in South Africa during the years 1924 to 1934 were not yet such that the Population Registration Act was necessitated. In the meantime, however, it has become necessary. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, the Population Registration Act does not apply to them. I must in all honesty admit that the circumstances in South-West Africa have never in the past necessitated it. As I told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout earlier this year, when I dealt with the South-West Africa Act, the Cabinet and the Government will in due course have to give attention to that matter. Attention will in due course have to be given to that matter. Now the hon. gentlemen are kicking up a great fuss about this. They say that because we have not yet made the Population Registration Act applicable to South-West Africa, we should not have the Act in South Africa. What nonsensical arguments! They are not worth the bother of replying to.

The hon. member spoke about “all the suffering””. He is another of those people who mentioned the heartbreak cases here. I can inform him that there would have been far more heartbreak cases if we had not passed this Population Registration legislation. He says: “There is no appeal and there is no redress.” Surely that is incorrect. The right of appeal is there, and the right of appeal has always been there. How can the hon. member make such nonsensical remarks here? The hon. member spoke of “a touch of colour in their veins” and “then they are Coloured”. He also spoke about the increase in the number of Coloureds. I should like to inform the hon. member that they are the people who are humiliating the Coloureds. They do so by making speeches like that here.

You are not serious!

Of course I am serious. The hon. member for Green Point even spoke about “the classifying down” of the Coloureds, but when it suits them, they are sensitive about this matter. They have created an impression here that it is a terrible humiliation to be a Coloured.

It is.

I should just like to inform the hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Salt River, that the majority of the Coloured population do not look at it like this. There is a large measure of pride in many of the Coloureds. I do not say that there are not Coloureds who, as it is termed “try for White”. Of course there are many Coloureds who try to be White, but …

How many Whites have applied to be reclassified as Coloureds?

That is so. But this is for various reasons. One obvious reason is because the dividing line is drawn adjoining the Whites. The fact that the dividing line is drawn adjoining the Whites and not adjoining the Coloureds, is the first practical and obvious reason. There are other reasons as well. It is a fact that there is a greater desire to be a White than to be a non-White. I shall, however, not create the impression, by making humiliating speeches, that the Coloureds are something in the dust with which I want nothing to do.

They do not have the same rights as the Whites. [Interjections.]

Order!

In their speeches those hon. members humiliated the Coloureds throughout.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred here to Simon van der Stel. I have here a bulky volume about Simon van der Stel, but I shall not quote from it now. The hon. member asked the ridiculous question, i.e. how we would classify Simon van der Stel if he were living to-day.

Yes, do tell me what you would have done.

The question is so nonsensical that I would prefer not to reply to it. Then the hon. member mentioned an example of a woman who had one non-White child and who subsequently remarried. In the first instance I take it that she had that non-White child by a non-White.

How else?

He said that she had then married a White and had had two white children. The difficulty was that the first child was registered as a non-White. The first child could only be registered as a non-White if, by descent, and by appearance he was a non-White and was an accepted non-White. I can only say to the hon. member that that mother of the non-White child did in fact have an opportunity of objecting. Did she object? If the child was really not a non-White, surely he would have been classified correctly.

She then admits to her husband that she has had a lover?

No, the hard facts of the matter are obvious that this woman, to whom the hon. member referred had that child during the United Party regime when such things were still admissible. As a result of that we have these heartache cases. That is the cause of these heartache cases we have to deal with.

You do not sound sincere.

What we in fact want to do is eliminate these heartache cases. In order to eliminate these heartbreak cases we must begin by passing legislation such as this.

The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about a natural father. If the hon. member were to glance at section 5 of the principal Act, he would see that a great deal is said there about a natural father. The deduction made here was correct. We accept the principle which goes like this: “One mother does not make a bastard.” It is, in other words, the mother’s child, but in this case there are many reasons why it is advisable why the child should adopt the ethnic group of the father. There are various reasons for that, but I should prefer not to go into them. Actually, they are obvious and self-explanatory.

The actual father, or the woman’s husband?

“He is the father to whom the marriage points,” is the first principle which is accepted. In other words, if people are married, we must accept the legal position that the father of the home is the father of the child. That is the legal position. Surely hon. members ought to know that many children are born without their mother having been married. Apparently it never occurred to them that one must make provision for these circumstances. We have inserted a clause such as this to make provision for circumstances such as that. The circumstances necessitate our speaking of the natural father, and not only of the father to whom the mother is married.

The hon. member for Piketberg said that there are in fact cases of people who have been classified as Whites, but who want to be classified as non-Whites. That is in fact the case. I want to refer again to one of the cases to which I have already referred, i.e. the case Morrison v. The Race Classification Board. In that case the children subsequently returned to the Department and asked to be re-classified as non-Whites. There have been other cases, of which I could mention quite a few.

The last three speakers were the hon. members for Durban (North), Green Point and Musgrave. The hon. member for Durban (North) also spoke about the fact that acceptance should be the test. I do not want to discuss that. I do not want the hon. member to get the impression that I do not want to reply to his arguments, but I just want to say that this is a matter which is not contained in the Bill. This Parliament decided otherwise in 1967. I do not want to venture to discuss the merits of this case. In addition the hon. member also spoke about “down-grading”. Since I am dealing with this matter now, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. I almost think she also used that term.

Yes.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the proposed subsection (4) (c). The hon. member stated that this clause would probably be used to downgrade people. Now I just want to put one question to her, what is wrong with that?

People will lose their rights thereby.

No, what is wrong with that if we do so with the consent of the person concerned? The clause determines specifically that this can only be done with the consent of the person concerned. Now I am asking her, what is wrong with that? I shall leave the deductions she made that it would be used for “down-grading” only, at that. If she wants to think that, she is welcome to continue to think so and go on in that way. But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with this.

I think I must also reply to the hon. member for Durban (North). He as well as other hon. members referred to the proposed subsection (4A) where it is provided that there will only be a right of appeal when the classification is amended by the classification board at the request of the Secretary. The reason for that is that this person, a change in whose classification is being considered by the Secretary, by reference to the Race Classification Board has already been classified. He has already had the opportunity of objecting. If he objected within a specified period of time, he could have appealed. If that man has been classified and has not objected, then I take it he is satisfied with his classification. Because we must naturally accept that he is satisfied with his classification and because the Secretary is now referring the classification to the Board for amendment, he will only have the right to appeal when that classification is changed, because all the indications are there and he was satisfied with the previous classification. That is the reason. I think the hon. member probably understands now that it is not necessary to grant an appeal in any other case. The hon. member for Durban (North) also referred to that 80-year old Mauritian. I just want to inform him that if he refers the case to me and if, in my opinion, it is such an unfair case, I shall see whether anything can be done about it.

The hon. member for Musgrave objected vehemently to clause 2. As against that, this is precisely the same clause for which the hon. member for Yeoville praised me. There was only one item of praise, and that came from the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to clause 2. Then the hon. member for Musgrave came along and objected vehemently to it.

Lastly I should like to refer to subsection (6) which is being inserted by clause 2 (e). It reads as follows—

Upon analyzing this hon. members will find I am correct. However, I do not want to take up the time of the House with an analysis. I shall furnish the hon. members with an explanation of the purpose of this subsection. Previously it was provided that a person could only be classified as White when both his parents were classified as Whites; in other words, if one of the parents was classified as non-White, the child was also classified as non-White. Then the case was referred to the court. In that case one of the parents was classified as non-White. However, the other parent had not yet been classified. The subsequent decision was more or less to this effect, that since the one parent had not yet been classified, this provision was not applicable, and then the hon. Judge effected an amendment to the classification. Although there had been no previous court case in regard to such like this, the opinion was expressed that when a parent had died, that section which provided that if one of the parents was non-White, the child should also be classified as a non-White, was not applicable. As soon as one of the parents has died, there is no longer a classification of that parent. That is why we have inserted this subsection in order to indicate that the classification of the parent who has died will still be used for the purposes of the classification of the child. This is the only reason why we are proposing this amendment, and this is the only purpose for which we would like to use it.

The hon. member said for 300 years we were able to get along without this legislation, but what does the hon. member for South Coast say? The hon. member for South Coast said that the white man had been the cause of this major Coloured problem we had. It is precisely because we want to put an end to this problem that we want to put a stop to the sins of 300 years. That is why we want this. The hon. member also referred here to what a former Minister of the Interior, the present President of the Senate, said. He said that when we came to appearance and acceptance, we need not go into the people’s ancestry. That is correct. [Interjections.] Yes, that hon. member stated that if a person was considered on appearance and acceptance, we need not institute an investigation into his forebears. He stated that on the grounds of those considerations and that so-called promise we did not have the right to change the basis of classification to descent. That was surely not the intention of Minister De Klerk when he made this statement. These factors have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. I just want to add that the hon. member for Green Point stated that if the parent has not been classified, it means that he must be classified after his death in order to determine to what group the child belongs. No, if we have a case like that we will make use of section 1 of the Act. If the parents have not been classified, as in the case the hon. member for Green Point mentioned, classification is applied in terms of section 1, where it is provided that this can be done on the basis of appearance and acceptance. Therefore, that problem to which the hon. member referred, is non-existent.

The hon. member also spoke about suspicion we were creating. In conclusion the hon. member stated that I had said that this was the cornerstone of our policy. Our policy of separate development can only be successfully implemented if we have some or other form of classification of people. I want to emphasize that the separate voters’ roll which the Opposition Party wants to introduce can only be introduced if it is possible to determine in some way or other who should be placed on that separate voters’ roll and who should not. For those reasons I am not ashamed to say that this is the cornerstone of our policy. I called it a cornerstone. Call it a foundation. Our policy is to draw a colour distinction. This is not a “studbook” as they call it. These are not animals we are dealing with. In order to achieve success with our policy of separate development, and to be able to distinguish between our various race groups in South Africa, this legislation is essential to us. I want to emphasize that we will continue with it until we have brought it to a successful conclusion.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; 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, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; 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.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

My Department and I deemed it fit to draw up an explanatory memorandum which is before hon. members at the present moment. I trust hon. members have found the explanations useful, because I realize only too well that amending Bills of this nature sometimes are rather difficult to follow. As it happens, this explanatory memorandum makes my task this afternoon so much the easier as it obviates the necessity of explaining each clause in greater detail.

On account of normal departmental development, court decisions or the unfolding of our policy of separate development, it has become necessary to go through these laws yet again and to effect certain urgent changes. Of course, there are other amendments which are necessary and which have not been included in this Bill, but they are either not of a very urgent nature or further investigation is required or they relate to matters to which consideration still has to be given. As far as this Session is concerned, the endeavour has therefore been to restrict the amendments to the absolute minimum. Initially we drafted two amending measures, one of which dealt more specifically with the Bantu in our urban areas, whereas the other dealt more specifically with the Bantu worker and the Bantu in the rural areas. On closer consideration these two measures were consolidated into this single measure.

Judging from certain Press reports, I have to deduce that certain clauses are regarded as being contentious. However, let us take a closer look at them.

Clause 1: Section 9 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 lays down the purposes for which Trust moneys may be used. In order to render it possible to use Trust moneys for taking over certain loans, as I shall explain in a moment when I deal with clause 2, it is necessary to effect this amendment.

As regards clause 2, which seeks the insertion of subsection 10 (1A) in the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, the position is, as hon. members probably know, that quite a number of Bantu townships have been set aside and are being developed in the homelands. The situation of some of these is such that it is convenient for serving urban areas situated in the white areas. At other places, for example at Durban and Rustenburg, the sites which were found suitable are situated in white areas but adjacent to Bantu areas. In view of the fact that the South African Bantu Trust may not undertake any development in the white areas, the urban local authorities have developed the township mainly with funds of the National Housing Fund, but also by means of external loans and funds which the urban local authorities themselves have been able to provide. In implementing the policy of the Government, it is desirable for these townships to be incorporated in the homelands, and in order to be able to do so, it is necessary to make provision so as to enable the South African Bantu Trust to take over any debts incurred by means of loans from the Housing Fund or any other loan. Although it would be desirable if the Trust were to redeem such loans immediately on the incorporation of the townships in the homelands, it would, for financial reasons, not always be possible to do so. Any take-over of the assets and liabilities of such urban local authorities will in any event take place after the Minister of Finance has been consulted, and the method of redeeming any debts will be decided on only after such consultation has taken place.

Clause 3 deals with the steps to be taken in respect of Bantu on our farms who allow other Bantu to reside with them unlawfully, something which contributes to the presence of larger numbers of Bantu in our rural areas. Of course, the same principle applies in our urban areas as well. Section 9 (5)bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, Act No. 25 of 1945, makes it an offence for a Bantu to allow another Bantu to reside with him unlawfully in a prescribed area.

As hon. members know, it is, as the Act stands at present, an offence for a farmer to allow Bantu to live on his farm unlawfully. It is not always possible for a farmer to exercise personal control as regards who is present on his land. Now the proposed clause extends the powers to make also the Bantu co-responsible for Bantu who reside with them unlawfully in the rural areas. In addition a presumption is being created now, similar to that applicable at present in the case of the white farmer, for use in criminal proceedings, to the effect that a Bantu found in accommodation under certain circumstances will be presumed to have been an occupant on that land with the permission of the Bantu lawfully occupying the accommodation concerned.

Clause 4: Section 3 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, is being amended by the substitution of subsections (2) and (3). Fundamentally the present subsection (2) remains the same, except that it is being adapted to fit in with the provisions of clause 5 of this Bill. The new section 3 (3), as proposed, in the main contains the provisions of the existing section with the exception that the requirement of a public inquiry having to be held is now being omitted. The omission does not prejudice anyone as it will still be possible for representations to be made directly to the Minister by interested parties and there will still be consultation with the local authority concerned. However, a time-consuming procedure, which in practice has proved to be of no value whatsoever, is being omitted.

Clause 5 of the Bill contains a new principle to make the abolition of a location take place smoothly and to eliminate any delay, such as occurred in the case of the removal of the old locations of Windhoek and Harrismith, which were slums, to properly planned and established residential areas. Such delays often give rise to delays also in the planning of local authorities, or of other departments, which require the land on which such locations are situated for housing schemes or for other races, or for other purposes, which promotes better planning. Experience has taught that although the vast majority of Bantu living in such locations which are to be abolished, readily appreciate the advantages of better housing and services and voluntarily move from the old locations, which usually are extremely badly planned and in which conditions often are critical, there always are a small number of Bantu who, for their own gain, or with the intention of making trouble, refuse to heed appeals to move, appeals which are made in all cases, even if they are offered all facilities such as free transport, compensation for improvements, etc. The object of this section therefore is to create procedures which will make it possible for any local authority to take summary action against these people.

Subsection (2) authorizes urban local authorities to control the construction or alteration of buildings in a location which is to be abolished. Although the regulations of the Department for the control of Bantu residential areas provide that no building may be constructed in a location without approval, such urban local authorities cannot prohibit alterations to buildings which meet the requirements of the municipal building regulations, with the result that the compensation costs involved in such a removal are increased excessively to the detriment of all concerned in the matter. Agitators employ this as a means of complicating and delaying removals. The new provision empowers local authorities to combat and eliminate these malpractices.

Subsection (3) makes provision for the summary removal of persons who move into or remain in any area after a location has been abolished. It happens fairly frequently that as soon as the inhabitants of a location have been removed, other Bantu move into the abolished location unlawfully and refuse to move from there.

Subsection (4) lists the cases in which compensation will not be payable automatically unless otherwise ordered by the Minister. The reasons are obvious and what they amount to is that no person need have any fear that he will forfeit his compensation if he cooperates. Moreover, it is the policy of my Department not to allow the further construction of buildings in locations which are to be abolished in order to keep compensation costs as low as possible and to avoid unnecessary expenditure being incurred by the inhabitants. Some inhabitants are prepared, however, and often request to be allowed to make improvements at their own expense without their wanting to be compensated for such improvements. Subsection (4) (d) clearly states that when a written agreement to this effect has been entered into, compensation will not be payable.

Clause 6: This clause may be regarded as being a purely technical correction, in other words, a provision to the effect that a Bantu who is present in an urban area unlawfully and who has been ordered to go to a rural village, settlement, institution or rehabilitation centre in a Bantu homeland, is to be detained and treated in terms of the rules governing that institution or centre. I emphasize that this is a purely technical measure. In terms of the present section a Bantu may be referred to such a place, but the section is silent as to what is to happen to him. In the clause it is stated clearly that when he is removed somewhere else, he is subject to the law governing such a place or institution. Therefore this is not a new principle at all. The same principle is also contained in section 29 (7) (d) of the same Act, Act No. 25 of 1945, which relates to persons declared to be idle or undesirable. Of course, as yet no such institutions exist, although the intention is to establish such institutions in the Bantu homelands in due course.

The intention is to activate the Bantu authorities to establish such institutions in their areas and to keep people referred to such institutions in those institutions and to rehabilitate them. The first steps in this connection were taken when the Bantu Labour Regulations (Bantu Areas), 1968, were promulgated by Proclamation R.74 of 1968. These regulations came into operation on 1st April, 1968, and in terms of these regulations tribal labour bureaux were established at which all work-seekers are registered and at which contracts of service are entered into and bureau fees of R1 per contract (not exceeding one year) are paid to the authority. Furthermore the regulations provide that these bureaux have to receive the Bantu referred to them from our urban areas, but the details of how this is to be done still have to be worked out. However, the authorities must be brought into this, otherwise unnecessary misunderstanding may easily arise.

Should it become necessary to do so, regulations for the institutions will be issued in terms of section 25 of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, which will then be tabled in Parliament in the usual way.

Clause 7 amends section 18 by providing that alternative accommodation may be offered in any location or Bantu township, approved by the Minister, and which need not necessarily be in the area of the urban local authority concerned. This relates to housing which has been condemned by a medical officer of health, and only to that.

Clause 8: Section 19, as it stands, provides that the profits of the Bantu Beer Account may be divided into three parts. One-third share may be used for covering the expenses of brewing such beer and for providing social and recreational amenities approved by the Minister for the inhabitants of the location, and the balance of the account, i.e. the remaining two-thirds, may be used for losses on housing schemes, losses in the Bantu Revenue Account, capital expenditure on housing schemes, works or services, interest, redemption charges, maintenance costs for or in connection with a location, and any service in respect of which the Minister certifies in writing that it is in the interests of the Bantu, and in addition also for research projects to improve the quality and packaging of Bantu beer. The balance of one-third remains in the account until the next year, when the procedure, as now set out, is repeated.

This method has the effect that large sums of money are at present accumulating in the Bantu Beer Accounts of local authorities. I want to point out that this money has not been obtained only from sales of Bantu beer to permanent residents of Bantu residential areas, but also to contract and migratory labourers, who make a large contribution in this regard, and it is not fair that only the permanent residents should have the benefit of this, but the man of the homeland should also benefit from this. In my opinion it is very fair for this to be done. Local authorities appreciate these facts and many of them are prepared to make donations to the South African Bantu Trust for the development of amenities and other development in the homelands. This amendment which we are proposing in clause 8 of the Bill now, will enable the Minister to achieve also that objective in respect of one-third of the profit. There is a large shortage particularly of sport and recreational amenities in Bantu townships and in the Bantu homelands, and any donations made by local authorities will be used chiefly for the provision of such facilities. Here the keywords are “any donations made by local authorities”. All that is involved here is donations made by them from the one-third share.

Clause 9: The amendment contained in this clause has become necessary in that the Provincial Council of the Transvaal has placed certain “urban areas”, as defined in the Act, under the control of the Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas, which is not an “urban local authority”, as defined in the Act, and has disestablished the administrative bodies which used to exercise authority there. The result is that these places, which in fact are small towns, are no longer “urban areas” for the purposes of the Urban Areas Act, and the Act and regulations are no longer applicable to such places. Some of these places have their own Bantu residential areas and it is necessary to restore the status quo there so that the necessary control may be exercised. Because of the fact that the Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas has jurisdiction also over rural areas, it is not possible to amend only the definition of an urban local authority as rural areas will then become urban areas, which, of course, is not the intention. The only thing that will happen now is that the new body which will be designated for the purposes of the application of the laws mentioned, will step into the shoes of the local authority. Therefore this, too, is in essence nothing but a technical improvement.

Clause 10: This clause deals with the Director of Bantu Labour who has to perform various statutory functions. For the sake of good discipline, it is necessary to provide that he shall exercise his functions under the directions of the head of his department, which, as a matter of fact, has always been the case in practice. Therefore this, too, is merely a technical measure.

Clause 11: According to newspaper reports, this clause is regarded as being a contentious one, and there seems to be considerable misunderstanding as to the object of the proposed section, and for that reason it may be as well for me to dwell a little longer on this clause. I want to state at once, and I want to do so most emphatically, that this clause is not a job reservation clause. In brief it may be said that this is a precautionary measure against White-Bantu labour integration. This is the intention of clause 11.

Is this like the Extension of Universities Act?

Section 22 (6) of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964, sets out the circumstances when an employer may be refused Bantu labour. The new section 20A will empower the Minister to prescribe by notice in the Gazette that no Bantu is to be employed in any particular area or in any particular category of employment or by any particular employer. I declare with great emphasis that these provisions are supplementary to the job reservation provisions contained in the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, but they may, of course, only be applied in respect of Bantu persons. Therefore let me say at once that the respect in which the proposed section mostly differs from the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 is that the object of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is to eliminate competition amongst races, whereas the intention of the proposed provision purely is the prevention of labour integration, and therefore also integration, the improvement of race relations and the elimination of racial friction and embarrassment for both Whites and Bantu. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat this point.

May we please have a few examples of this?

What the department is mainly opposed to is the increasing number of Bantu typists, receptionists and counter assistants in white businesses in our white areas who have to serve the white public. The Government cannot tolerate this state of affairs and therefore have to arrest this tendency in good time in order to prevent such integration. The only object of this clause is to close in good time small cracks in the wall, where such cracks do appear. The white public is not content with being served by Bantu behind counters and this gives rise to friction which embarrasses both the Whites and the Bantu. I stress that the idea is not to prevent by means of the new provision larger numbers of certain categories of Bantu workers from being employed in any particular job. That is not the intention. Recently an allegation of this nature was made, i.e. that the Minister would prohibit Bantu from, for example, driving lorries or from doing any work in the Western Cape. This is not at all the intention with this measure, and the number of cases to which the prohibition will be made applicable will, in terms of the above-mentioned circumstances, be relatively negligible.

Have you read the clause?

I drafted it. Do not ask me a question like that. In terms of the 1956 measure there have to be time-consuming prior investigations and conferences and in the end the job reservation clause applies to the entire industry. Such a procedure is very cumbrous and each industry has to be investigated separately, whereas, under the proposed clause 11, a particular situation in any category of employment can receive the necessary attention immediately. Large-scale job delimitation, as has already been done in the building industry, etc., is, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, a matter for the Minister of Labour. This clause contemplates no change to that, and consequently it is nothing more but supplementary to section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. In order to eliminate overlapping and in order to ensure that there will be no economic disruption, I shall move during the Committee Stage that the proposed section be amended in such a way that any notice in terms of the proposed section will only be given after prior notice by the Minister of at least one month and after consultation with the Minister of Labour and with effect from a date mentioned in such notice. In addition I want to emphasize that the provision will not be applied in an unreasonable or inhuman way in any respect whatsoever. I pledge myself to this.

During the Committee Stage I shall also move that the clause be further amended in such a way that the prohibition mentioned in the new subsection (1) of the new section 20A may be withdrawn or amended in exceptional may be withdrawn or amended in exceptional cases or that exemption may be granted, if necessary. The new section 20A, after it has been amended, will read as follows—

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, the Minister may, after he has given at least one month’s prior notice of his intention in the Gazette, and after he has consulted the Minister of Labour, by notice in the Gazette, as from a date specified in such notice, prohibit the performance of work by or the employment or continued employment of a Bantu
   1. (a) in a specified area;
   2. (b) in a specified class of employment;
   3. (c) in a specified trade; or
   4. (d) in the service of a specified employer or class of employers.
2. (2) A prohibition referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) or (d) may be applied either in a specified area or generally.
3. (3) The Minister may by notice in the Gazette amend or withdraw a prohibition referred to in subsection (1), or may grant exemption from such a prohibition to a specified employer or specified class of employers.
4. (4) A person who contravenes a prohibition referred to in subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence.

I also want to point out that the Bantu are in the White areas on a temporary basis and should be allowed to be in employment here only as the Whites allow them to be. Since the territorial authorities are also being activated now, and I may say they are being activated very strongly, to do more in their own homelands, there is a shortage of precisely the people who are trained to do the kind of work which will be prohibited by this provision. Of course, the notice has to be tabled, whereupon it is referred to a Select Committee so that the Minister may duly be called to account if he were to exceed his powers in any way whatsoever. Failure to comply with the prohibition notice will, of course, be an offence. In addition to that, the contract of service may be cancelled.

Clause 12: This clause is in point of fact a continuation of the previous one and it lays down two additional grounds for the refusal of Bantu labour or even for the cancellation of contracts of employment. I have already dealt with the first ground in the previous clause. The second relates to those cases where the employer does not provide his employee with approved accommodation and that employee does not otherwise live in a municipal location, hostel or in a Bantu homeland. In this connection regard should be had to the fact that regulation 27 (c) of Chapter VIII of the Bantu Labour Regulations, 1965 (Government Notice R.1892 of 3rd December, 1965), already makes provision for the refusal of Bantu labour or for the cancellation of a contract of service on this ground, but there is doubt as to the legality of the regulations concerned, regulations which already authorize the situation we are legalizing here now. The Bantu Labour Act, 1964, authorizes regulations in terms of which an employer of a Bantu labourer, as defined, i.e. a Bantu employed at a mine or in an industry, which in terms of the Act is a place where there is machinery, may be held criminally liable to provide housing for that labourer to the satisfaction of the Director of Bantu Labour. Chapter VII of the Bantu Labour Regulations, 1965, sets out the employer’s liability in more detail. If the labourer is accommodated in a municipal Bantu residential area, i.e. a location or a hostel, or lives in a Bantu homeland, the employer’s liability terminates as is laid down by Regulation 7 of the chapter I have just mentioned. This proposed amendment extends the employer’s liability to all Bantu employees, but does not make provision for any penal sanctions. A labour bureau may refuse to register only a Bantu worker who is not accommodated in a municipal location, a municipal hostel or a Bantu homeland, if he is not accommodated by the employer. If the Bantu remains in service, the employer is criminally liable, of course, as in that case he is employing an unregistered Bantu worker because of the fact that he does not provide adequate accommodation to the Bantu. Up to now the department has been obliged to bring criminal charges against an employer if such an employer has neglected to accommodate his Bantu labourer, and in such cases the liability only applied in respect of Bantu employed at a mine or in an industry. The department trusts that it will be able to bring pressure to bear on White employers by means of the proposed amendment to ensure adequate accommodation for their Bantu workers. It is trusted that employers will now show an active interest in their workers and will make suitable arrangements in this regard with the local authorities. If there are simply no more housing possibilities in any particular area, it goes without saying that the employment in such an area of more Bantu cannot and will not be permitted, and these entrepreneurs will therefore have to investigate the possibilities at other places.

I now come to clause 13. A labour bureau is obliged in terms of its regulations, i.e. Chapter VIII of the Bantu Labour Regulations, 1965, to keep certain records and registers, but these are not necessarily public documents and are consequently not always admissible as evidence in criminal prosecutions. This clause will now make it possible to tender these records and registers as prima facie evidence of the facts recorded therein. During the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment to this clause, however, so as to make it possible to tender these records also in criminal prosecutions under the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945.

Clause 14: The existing section 24 (1) of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964, authorizes the collection of a monthly fee not exceeding 20 cents in respect of every male Bantu registered for employment in a prescribed area. This clause will authorize the collection of such a fee in respect of Bantu females. Revenue thus collected accrues to the Bantu Revenue Account of the local authority concerned. In this way the local authority can obtain additional funds which may then be utilized for better services, especially in view of the fact that it is becoming more expensive now for a local authority to properly apply its controlling machinery in respect of Bantu females as well. The payment of this amount of 20 cents in respect of Bantu females is divorced from the principle of consolidation of moneys, an aspect to which my department and I myself are paying very serious attention at the moment, but considering the financial need which exists, as I have already explained, there is no reason why this “registration fee” cannot be collected even now as Bantu females have already been brought in under the labour bureau system. The payment of the moneys will, it is hoped, bring home the fact to employers that they have to register all cases of employment of Bantu servants.

I now come to the final clause, clause 15. Section 28 (1) (f) of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964, authorizes the making of regulations providing for the voluntary, and I want to emphasize the word “voluntary”, grouping of certain classes of employers to facilitate the recruitment of Bantu workers for such groups. These regulations are contained in Chapter V of the Bantu Labour Regulations, 1965. This amendment extends this facility to all employers, and not only to those in certain specified categories of employment. In addition, the grouping need not necessarily be only for the purpose of recruitment of workers, but could be for all purposes in connection with their employment. The department has in mind the grouping of employers in similar types of employment, for example construction, catering, etc., in a particular area to permit the employment of a worker in such a class of employment. The intention is to arrange for his registration as a worker of that group, and to leave it to that group to assign the worker, as may be required by individual needs to the various members of that group. We are convinced of the fact that this will contribute to the more effective use of available labour. Co-operative action of this kind ought to contribute also to the elimination for the most part of the professional recruiter as middle-man, and in this way a personal relationship between employer and employee may be perpetuated. This will definitely contribute to greater happiness and peace in the field of labour and to better utilization of labour. Please note the following: Here there is no question of, and I emphasize this, compulsory grouping of employers in similar types of employment, nor of compulsory membership of such a group of employers if members do not want to join such a group. This is absolutely voluntary. Everyone is at liberty to come into the group or to remain outside the group in accordance with his own wishes.

That is very generous.

Yes, I am a very generous man. Then you will also notice, Mr. Speaker, that the proviso to section 28 (1) (u) is to be deleted. In this regard there need be no misunderstanding either. In terms of this provision, a Bantu may not be refused permission to return to his former employer after an absence of less than one year if there is a vacancy for him. The intention was, of course, to ensure that an employer will not lose his trained manpower, and in the end this has given rise to Bantu travelling long distances from their homelands to previous employers in the hope that they will find employment. Because such a Bantu did not contact his employer in advance, he finds that the employer has no vacancy for him and often he is stranded without money, accommodation and work, in which case he becomes a burden to the State. The proviso states very clearly that permission may not be refused, which implies that there has to be an application, and this can only be made in terms of the Bantu Labour Regulations. In other words, the proviso to section 28 (1) (u) did not authorize a work-seeker to return under his own steam to his previous employer. With the deletion of the proviso to section 28 (1) (u), it will be possible to retain the trained worker, even without the agency of the labour bureaux, by using the call-in card system, which has also been laid down in the regulations by Government Notice R.23/1969. Therefore there no longer is any reason for the retention of the proviso.

In conclusion I want to say that all these provisions have been widely circulated amongst interested parties, that proper consideration has been given to their comments and that these have been incorporated in most places. Originally this Bill also contained a clause which made provision for larger controlled areas and for a new controlling body in such larger controlled areas, i.e. a Bantu labour control board, but as there was a certain degree of opposition to this from the side of local authorities, we decided not to proceed with that this year. Since we believe that the local authorities are a very important cog in our controlling machinery and that it is necessary to retain their co-operation, we issued instructions for this measure to be held in abeyance for the time being so as to allow of the difficulties with the local authorities first being eliminated. In the meantime we have decided to proceed with these remaining measures. I want to conclude by saying that I trust that with this introduction I have removed any possible misgivings or doubt and that hon. members will realize that the measures are nothing but what they profess to be and that there are no ulterior motives here. It has always been our policy, and I myself stand by this to act honestly, fairly and justly towards all races, and I personally will not deviate from this policy. Therefore I am proud to move the second reading of this Bill, and it is an honour for me to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned just before dinner, the hon. the Deputy Minister had finished reading the Second Reading speech. Sir, I want right at the outset to say that I think this is a Bill of sufficient importance to have warranted the Minister himself taking it through the House, and not leaving it to the Deputy Minister. It is probably one of the Bills of more far reaching importance and of wider powers than any legislation that we have had in this House for many a long decade. These are not matters which should be entrusted to a Deputy Minister, in our opinion.

Why not?

I do not doubt the capacity or the capability of the Deputy Minister. He read his speech very well. The Minister could have read it just as easily. There is no difficulty about that. [Interjections.] That is not the point. The point is that when we are dealing with a measure of this importance, of such far reaching terms, a measure which is going to bring within its ambit 13 million people here in South Africa, it seems to me that at least the Minister could have piloted it through Parliament out of respect for his own portfolio. It is a matter of respect by the Minister for his own department, his own portfolio. If he does not feel that the department and the portfolio is worthy of that respect, he is the best judge and it is for him to say.

I want to say at once that, of course, we have had two Second Reading speeches already on this Bill. The speech of the hon. the Minister this afternoon in respect of another matter we had before us, was a Second Reading speech on this Bill. He forecast it. He obviously spoke on it when he made that speech this afternoon. The whole of that speech was tailored to be a Second Reading speech on this Bill. We have become used to listening to the Minister as a demagogue, judging by the type of speech he makes. We are used to that. So we knew at once what he was aiming at when he made that speech this afternoon. [Interjections.] Yes, it may have been a very good speech; I do not doubt that. But hon. members know the old gag about Mahommed. When Mahommed found that the mountain would not come to him, Mahommed had to go to the mountain. The form of the speeches of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education consists of gesticulations. The language which he used and his gestures point towards an attitude of “I’ll fetch that mountain in a wheelbarrow, if necessary, but I’ll make it come to me”. That is the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Now let us have a look at the Bill. [Laughter.]

Why this mirth? The hon. member is perfectly entitled to look at the Bill. He may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Minister when he introduced the Bill and dealt with clause 11, referred to an amendment which he was going to move at a later stage, and also with regard to another clause. Now, Sir, this Bill was read a First Time on 10th March. I am sorry that neither on the Order Paper, nor by any other means, have we been acquainted with the amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to move. I think it is very unfortunate. They had three months in which to put the amendments on the Order Paper, or they could have let us have a copy, even this afternoon. Now we have to debate the Bill merely as it is in front of us. It is not possible with a measure of this kind to be able to assess what the Minister is saying when he merely reads out something and says “This is what I propose to move at the Committee Stage”. One has to assess that in terms of legal language, with a measure of this kind and of such intricacy as we have before us. Sir, at the Committee Stage we will perhaps be able to evaluate these amendments better than we are able to do it now.

There is one point that I do want to make about a remark made by the Deputy Minister when he was dealing with clause 11. He said he wanted it to be understood that, in dealing with this clause, he would not be unreasonable. The whole Bill is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister, if they propose in the administration of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development not to be unreasonable, the time to have started was long ago. They can start right now without waiting for this Bill. Because, Sir, in the administration I believe one of the departments which is most unreasonable at the present time in South Africa, is the Department of Bantu Administration and Development under this Minister. So the Deputy Minister need not worry about making statements of that kind. We shall wait to see the fruits of his administration.

I said that we are dealing with the Bill which is going to affect the future of 13 million Bantu. I want for a moment to deal with clause 11, because the Deputy Minister spent a lot of time on that. He himself explained that it was one of the most important clauses. The hon. the Deputy Minister was at pains to say that this clause was not a work reservation clause. I understood him to say that it was a clause to prevent White-Bantu work integration. It was not work reservation of any kind. Did I hear that correctly? The Deputy Minister nods his head. That is what he said. It was to prevent White-Bantu work integration. But a White Paper has been issued in connection with this Bill. On page 4, clause 11, the second paragraph reads:

So, what will apply? The work reservation provisions, which are complementary to the other Bill. Of course it is a work reservation clause.

But I said it was complementary to that.

He said categorically that it was not work reservation. The White Paper says that it is.

I said it was complementary.

Let us look at the rubric for a moment and see what it says about this clause. It says:

Then the clause commences:

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, the Minister may by notice in the Gazette prohibit the performance of work by or the employment or continued employment of a Bantu—
   1. (a) in a specified area;
   2. (b) in a specified class of employment;
   3. (c) in a specified trade; or
   4. (d) in the service of a specified employer or class of employers.
2. (2) A prohibition referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) or (d) may be applied either in a specified area or generally.
3. (3) A person who contravenes a prohibition referred to in subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence.

That is a criminal offence. By that clause the Minister takes the power to control the destiny of 13 million Bantu people in South Africa. And he nods his head, Mr. Speaker! [Interjections.]

Order! Who is making the speech? The hon. member may proceed. I want to appeal to the House to give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

Mr. Speaker, this power that the Minister is taking is not only a power to determine employment, the kind and class of employment and the place where employment shall be engaged in. It is not only that. There are many other considerations. I want to say at once that in this Bill, because of the provisions dealing with the question of employment, the question of housing, the right to take over Native villages, townships and building schemes from local authorities, and so forth, the whole of the protection which the section 10 Bantu enjoyed, now goes completely. There is no longer any protection for the Bantu who in the past were protected under section 10. They can be deprived of their employment, they can lose their houses and the very protection which in the past was afforded them can now be taken from them. The whole of that protection is gone. If the Minister and his Department are going to administer this in the terms in which it is before us, then they have not the staff in South Africa to handle that. I want to warn the House and I want to warn the Minister against the feeling which this is going to rouse in so far as these people are concerned. I am going to be extremely careful in the language which I am going to use here to-night. But I want to say that this should be a warning to the Minister. He should know it. I have with me this morning’s Natal Mercury. I wish to refer to an article therein dealing with Kwa Mashu. I believe that one clause in the Bill is aimed at Kwa Mashu and the taking over of Kwa Mashu. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister will deny that. One clause dealing with the taking over of Bantu towns is aimed at the taking over of Kwa Mashu. The article reads—

This is what is happening in reality at the present time. This is not airy-fairy stuff about what is going to happen in the future. We had a wonderful story from the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon as to what is going to happen in the future. All is wonderful, pie in the sky by and by. This is reality. From a news item in the same paper, I see that the hon. the Minister already has before the Durban City Council a draft Bill for further powers to control Native labour next year.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members opposite say “hear, hear”. We have to make up our minds. We either want the Bantu to help the economy of South Africa or we do not want them to help build up the economy of South Africa. That is the point. We either want them to help or we do not. If we want them to help we have to make it easy and simple for the honest man who wants to do an honest job to come and work for an honest employer. That is the position.

That is what we are doing, not you.

That is what they are doing with 1,000 Natives sleeping on the floor at Kwa Mashu plus another Bill which is already in draft form and will be coming to Parliament next year according to this news report, for further control. Apart from the clause that I read out just now, what further control can there be over the Bantu?

Do you not want control?

I wish some of these people will get out of their cradle and just go away and get a nanny to look after them instead of making inane remarks like that. Go and get a titty bottle and suck it in the pub.

The same paper carries a letter from a Bantu from near Stranger. This man passed his matric and had been going for week after week to the labour bureau seeking employment. He gives his address as Stanger. Here is the basic trouble we are in. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development said the other day that there is not one of us in South Africa who can honestly say that we have not benefited, individually as people, somewhere or other, as a result of the fruits of Bantu labour. That is the position. Our economy has been built up on it. Here is one man with a matric certificate in Stanger who week after week, according to his own statement in the Press, is looking for a job suitable to his education. He cannot get it.

What type of job is he looking for?

I do not know what type of job it will be. It will have to be a job suitable to his education.

What will you give him? A pick and shovel?

These men will come in increasing numbers. And because of the training they will be in a position to add very considerably to the building up of the economy of South Africa. Instead of them getting encouragement and instead of us helping them, we find this kind of restriction. If you take togt labour and all the women and juveniles who work as togt labourers I wonder what the total labour force among the Bantu in the Republic will be. This clause puts them all in the hands of the Minister. I want to come right down to tintacks. I want to put this to the hon. the Deputy Minister. At Richards Bay a town is being developed which, as is anticipated and planned, will in the foreseeable future be a town as large as Durban. It is being planned on that basis now. The railway line up to Vryheid is being constructed. It will divide Zululand in half. Alongside of it goes a broad national road, a freeway. This road is being constructed alongside the railway line and divides Zululand completely in half. There are great works to be done at Richards Bay in regard to the development of the port and the construction of all the buildings. Then there is the building of the railway line as well as the construction of the national road. I want to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is the intention that all the Bantu employed there should come from the Zulu ethnic group? I understand that the Bantu employed in Durban at the present time are somewhere over ¼ million. I do not know what this is going to mean in terms of labour at Richards Bay. With all the development that is taking place I want to repeat my question and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to tell us.

I will reply to your question.

I want to know whether all the labour for that development which is to be employed in that centre hereafter is going to be Zulu labour.

I will reply to that.

I am prepared to wait for the answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister if he does not want to give it now. He may want to qualify it. The next point I want to raise is what is provided as far as the Bantu themselves are concerned, with all that development. There is not a single one of our larger white centres in South Africa which is not short of housing for Bantu. Will that position now be transferred to the heart of Zululand and Richards Bay? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what he proposes to do as far as those people are concerned up there when the time comes? I have dealt this week with the Bantu who have been endorsed out. These Bantu were sent back to their kraals. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied on the basis of Bantu who were going back, having served out a contract and having completed a period of labour. They were no longer employed and they had to go back to their homes. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a point of saying that the illegal Bantu who came into the towns to seek employment and who has not been furnished with adequate documents is sent back to the reserves very quickly. There is a difference.

Do you not agree with that?

There is a difference between these two classes of Natives. In the one case there is the man who has been working in an urban area, who has completed his work and who is casting around trying to find other employment. He has to do that either because his place of employment is no longer suitable or has closed down, or whatever the case may be. On the other hand, we have the Bantu who has come into the urban area illegally. At the present time one of the most difficult problems for the private householder is to get a domestic servant in, for example, a city like Durban. The procedure that has to be followed involves endless hours of waiting. At the end the householder may possibly find that the Native he wants to employ has not been adequately furnished with the proper papers in the tribal area from which he has come. I am not talking now about people who are criminals, potential criminals or scoundrels. I am talking about the Bantu who is honestly looking for a job with an honest employer. I said then that in so far as those Natives who were used to working in a town were concerned, for whatever reason, were no longer in a position to work, they were sent back to the rural areas. I want to emphasize this point. Those people do not stay there. I suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should come with me during the recess and that I would show him where they did go in tens of thousands. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us, in dealing with this clause, as he has the destiny of these people in his hands, how he is going to deal with the irregular urbanization and with the tens of thousands of Bantu who are at the present time forming fresh black spots around our major towns and our industrial areas.

Where do they come from?

I have just explained where they came from. Many of them come from the urban areas and are sent back to the rural areas. They may have been in the towns for 10 or 15 years. What can those Bantu do in the rural areas? What is the good of training a man until he obtains a matriculation certificate in a white area like Stanger and if he is unable to find a job?

I can give him a job tomorrow, provided he is prepared to take a job that is available.

I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister the letter with this man’s name and address in it.

I can place that man in a job to-morrow.

But will you contact him? [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot have half a dozen debates simultaneously.

Here we come to the crux of the whole matter in South Africa. We have this labour which we want and which wants us. These are respectable folk who have worked year after year for decades to help build up our economy. As is stated in one of the clauses of this Bill these people may be sent back to what is virtually a work colony if they are found to be illegally in an urban area. Clause 6 of the Bill reads as follows—

1. (1A) A Bantu removed under subsection (1) to a rural village, settlement, rehabilitation scheme, institution or other place indicated by the Secretary shall be detained thereat for such period and perform thereat such labour as may be prescribed by the law in terms of which such rural village, settlement, rehabilitation scheme, institution or place was established.

What is this place of detention? Where has one ever heard that a man who goes into a town where he may have been employed for years and who is not furnished with the proper papers, with the result that he is there illegally, is then sent to an unknown place for an unknown time to serve what? He has not been before a Judge, but is sent to a place of detention. Where does it happen to any other race in South Africa? Is there such a provision in respect of any other race? Do we do it in respect of the Indians? Is there such a law? Of course there is not. Do we do it in respect of the Coloured man? Is there such a provision for the white man in South Africa? Why then do we do it to the Bantu?

If you go to the homelands you will also be treated in the same way.

I am ready for all the criticism that I am going to get. I asked the other day why an hon. member stands up in this House to defend the Bantu. There are no votes for me in this. I know that and I am not a conservative for nothing. I know perfectly well that hon. members on the other side will ask: “Why?” I am prepared to stand up and defend the Zulu and the Bantu people. They are good, honest and respectable people who want nothing more than to be given a chance to live decently. They want nothing more than that from life. They do not want to elect a Prime Minister or even to elect the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. They are content to manage their own affairs according to their tribal customs and to work decently for decent people. They ask nothing more than a roof over their heads and jobs. [Interjections.] As I have said, I am ready for all the criticism that may be directed at me. I say that this is a scandalous matter.

I now want to deal with clause 8 of the Bill. The new paragraph (b) of section 19 (3) of the Act, as amended by clause 8, goes against all the principles that have been laid down by past Ministers of Bantu Administration. Provision is made therein for the profits on Bantu beer to be expended at the will of the hon. the Minister. The new paragraph reads as follows—

As the law is at the present time that money must be expended in the area in which the revenue accrues. The revenue which accrued from the beer halls in Durban, for example, must be spent in Durban for the Bantu. In the past, the department has quite rightly seen to it that that fund was not raided for purposes other than the welfare of the Bantu. The hon. the Minister now violates the very principle that has been guarded so jealously in the past. It is wrong for a municipality to take such money and to expend it for some other purpose in the area in which the money has accrued, but it is not wrong for the hon. the Deputy Minister to take that money now and to spend it in another area altogether. As long as the money is in the hands of the hon. the Minister, it is certified that it is in the interests of the Bantu. What Bantu are involved in this matter? What Bantu is he talking about? When the hon. the Deputy Minister made his speech just now he tried to gloss over this and made it appear as though it was a matter of little consequence. He said that the revenue that accrues from the sale of Bantu beer in a particular area comes to a great extent from togt labour and labour that comes in from outside and does not really reside in the area. Therefore the money can be spent outside, because he is basing it on the amount of beer that has been drunk by togt labour when it happens to be in a town. When did togt labour first start to drink Bantu beer? Was it in 1969? This is again merely flagrant covering up of what the Government has in mind. This is nonsense. It is not a question as to whether the revenue comes from togt labour. The question is that the Government has made up its mind that it is going to raid those funds. It is going to raid those funds and take the money away from those people who have earned it because it is the profits on the beer sold in their area and they are going to have it available, as I said, at the will of the Minister. He has only to satisfy them through his certificate that however it is being spent is in the interests of the Bantu. He can take money that has been earned in Durban and spend it down here in the Western Cape if he wants to. In terms of this clause there is nothing to prevent his doing that. Who will be the people who will resent this? It will be the people who in the past have been assured over and over again by the department, the Minister and his predecessors that that money belongs to them and that it will be spent only on them and their needs. That is the assurance they have had and now by a stroke of the pen it is being wiped out.

Then the Bill deals with the question of housing. I want to deal with this matter for a moment because I believe that this is to a very great extent the crux of the matter. As our economy develops and our industrial areas continue to grow, so the necessary accommodation for the Bantu continues to grow with it. We have on the drawing-boards a number of Bantu villages which are being designed for the accommodation of the Bantu in the areas associated with industrial development. When the hon. the Deputy Minister replies and he deals with this question of the development of the railway line, the national road and the industrial area of Richards Bay, I would be grateful if he would tell us where the Bantu are to be housed who are going to live and work there. What provision is being made for them? Work has already started there. Anybody who goes there can see for himself that there are already large gangs of Bantu labour working there. They can see for themselves the lack of proper accommodation for those Bantu and their families at the present time. I say this because notwithstanding the difficulties—and I know that there are many—if we are going to get a contented labour force of Bantu people, then somewhere or other provision must be made in the organization for their wives and families.

In Location No. 10.

It may well be so, provided provision is made for them as family units. If provision is made for them as family units, then we have gone a long way to meeting that particular difficulty. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that particular matter when he replies to the debate.

The Minister is telling him what to say.

Order! I want to appeal to the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to make any further interjections. By doing so, he only gives rise to further interjections and he does not afford his own leader an opportunity to make his speech.

In that connection, I want to come to another point dealing with the question of the housing of the Bantu and the influx to the black belts and the black spots around ourselves and our industrial areas. As I have said, if we are to have a contented Bantu labour force, we will have somehow or other to house the family units. That should be basic in our approach to the whole problem. Despite the difficulties and they are manifold, in so far as the administration is concerned, the Minister is taking upon himself the administration of this Bill. It shows that he will be able to rely upon a very, very large staff indeed for its administration. But with the positive side goes a negative side. In terms of this Bill, and particularly now clause 3, it is the right of the hon. the Minister to prevent Bantu from congregating unlawfully on privately-owned land. I want to deal with that point. The new subsection (4) (a) (ii) reads as follows—

The preceding clauses deal with the illegal squatting. That is the point that I made earlier on. I said that there were tens of thousands of squatters, for example around Durban, because there they are within reach of the jobs where they are working. They might possibly be squatting around other towns, too, but I am speaking of Durban. This is the place where they live, so that they can easily reach their work. But now power is taken here to deal with the owner of such land. It is made a criminal offence for him to have such squatters on his land. The clause that I read says that it shall be no defence for the owner of that land with those illegal squatters unless he proves not that he has tried to get rid of them, but that he has instituted and is actively pursuing an action for the ejection of such Bantu from the land. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister at once a straight question. I hope he will reply to that. Is the department going to help him to get rid of them? I hope the hon. the Minister will face this issue squarely. Is the department going to help these owners to get rid of these squatters? What do they expect an owner to do? In the hills and valleys, the broken country of the Umgeni Valley, and the Umlaas Valley, and the Umhlatuzaan and the Umbilo, there are thousands of these people. What is the Government proposing to do? What is the hon. the Deputy Minister proposing to do? A provision in the law like this, if it is unenforced, makes a mockery of the law. If it is enforceable, it must be enforced. If it is not enforceable, it should not be included in the law. But who is going to actually take action? What does the owner of the land do? I must come back to it; I must stress the point. What does the owner of the land do? Does he go to the department and does he get the active cooperation of the department in the removal of these Bantu? Will they all be moved? Or are they going to single out a few employers here and there? But if they take action against one owner of land who has illegal squatters on his land, and he has been convicted, will they then eject these illegal squatters from that land? What are they going to do? Do they punish him and then tell him to go back and institute an action to get rid of them? Have these hon. members ever tried to institute an action to get rid of illegal squatters from their land? Some of us have. It is about the most heartbreaking business I have ever come across. Where do we find the biggest snag? We find the biggest snag in dealing with the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration.

I have had it myself, where the Native Commissioner has said: “How can you be so heartless? Where do you think these people can go? Here is a man who is living in a bare shack, but he has a job, he is working and he is sending money to his family. Can you be so heartless as to come along and ask me for an order? Where do I send him, Mr. Mitchell? Give him time. Just let the thing rest for a while. I shall send down a Native constable to go and talk with him.” We can repeat that in thousands and thousands of cases. That is why I press this question and that is why I ask if the hon. the Deputy Minister will help the owners of these properties. There are scores and scores of them on these farms. Admittedly some of the owners are guilty of rack-renting. Not everybody who has land with illegal squatters on it is lily-white; not by any means. And I accept that. But the department has to deal with all of them. The department has to deal with the good and the bad. The department has to deal with the rack-renter as well as the honest man who just gave a little space to one or two people to squat upon because they were going to move on in any case. Then, however, they did not move on but they stayed on a bit longer. Now they are breaking the law in exactly the same way as the man who israck-renting. There are a whole lot of variations between those two extremes. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to get up and say that the owner of land on which there are illegal squatters can write to the Secretary of the Department and forthwith the necessary steps will be taken to get rid of those illegal squatters. This should be done so that you, the owner of the land, will not be held culpable for harbouring the illegal squatters. Then we have the thing lined up. But with that I also want the hon. the Deputy Minister to say to me that so far as our major towns with the big black spots and the black belts are concerned, the department armed with the powers of this Bill will clean up all of them.

So you are talking in favour of the Bill now?

Have you been listening to what I have been saying? Let us be quite clear. I do not anticipate for one moment that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to suggest that we take out this clause. I am no quite sure if it comes to that, that I should like to see that clause taken out. That is not what I am asking for. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will see to it that this clause is enforced if he is given the power.

It is an existing clause.

This is a very different thing.

It is not even an amendment.

It is a very different thing. Therefore let us put it in that form so that there can be no misunderstanding. If we give this power to the hon. the Deputy Minister, will he see to it that it is enforced? What does all this boil up to? It boils up to clause 11, where the hon. the Minister is taking the power to control the labour in any sphere, in any place, of any man.

Not in any place. In white areas only.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you instructed me not to interject. May I react to the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Klip River when they provoke me?

Order!

Sir, may I …

Order! The hon. member for South Coast may proceed.

The Minister, having taken these powers, has to realize that he cannot be heard to complain about the shortcomings and the failures of other people, of the local authorities in South Africa, of the farmers who are short of labour at the present time, of private owners, nor of the tribes themselves. The hon. the Minister has taken the powers of complete dictatorship in so far as the control of human beings is concerned. One of the powers, which deals with the question of the allocation of labour for a certain purpose at a certain time at a certain place, has come very pertinently to mind as the result of the speech made recently by the hon. member for Klip River. Why does he put on that shamefaced smile, Sir?

He is ashamed of himself.

Only last week the hon. member made a speech in which, if he was correctly reported, he gave an assurance that as far as farmers’ labour was concerned, the time had come now when the Bantu would have to stay with them full-time for whatever the period was; no part-time work would be permitted any longer.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister is not the hon. member for Klip River.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister will get an opportunity to reply to this speech.

Sir, I hope we will have an explanation from the hon. member for Klip River. He was possibly misreported. Possibly there was a misunderstanding of what he was saying, but as he was reported, he gave an assurance to a group of farmers that they need not worry any longer about their Bantu labour problems, that the Bantu were now going to work for them, not on a part-time basis, whatever that was, but possibly on a squatter basis or a labour tenant basis. Whatever the basis was he said that those days were past. That the Bantu would now be compelled to work for them full-time for the period of the contract or the agreement, or whatever it may have been. That was the assurance he gave them. Sir, the hon. member for Klip River may have had this Bill in mind when he gave that assurance. He may have visualized some clause here operated and administered in such a manner that that in fact was going to be the outcome, and I hope that we will have that explanation from him. Sir, let us see what is the magnitude of the problem which the hon. member for Klip River sees; let us see how he views this problem, which he is willingly handing over to the Department, to the officials who have been selected for the purpose of running this Department. Last year, in 1968, the hon. member for Klip River made a very serious speech here (Hansard, Col. 773) and he got very annoyed with one or two hon. members on this side of the House who laughed at him. But, Sir, he postulated what was happening about the Bantu and the future here in South Africa; he let his mind go ahead to see what was facing us. He foresaw very big developments and a growth in the population. He talked about a population explosion. For some reason or other he picked on the year 2020. Well, that is 50 years ahead and I suppose that was a good enough point. He picked on 50 years ahead and this is what he said—

Sir, within the next 50 years the hon. member sees 61 million non-Whites, admittedly not Bantu, but non-Whites, of which a proportion will be Bantu, a proportion will be Asiatics and a proportion will be Coloureds; the hon. member sees them, with a place found for them by this Government—because he was at pains to explain that it would be this Government that would still be in power. They would control it and there would be a place for everyone of them. Sir, the first thing is for the Department to show that it can find a proper place under proper conditions for all of the 2 or 3 or 4 million Bantu who are work-seekers at the present time, never mind the millions that the hon. member foresaw here. Sir, here is the point that I want to put to the Deputy Minister and it is my last question: Does he see finality in this legislation? When the Minister has taken these powers, does he see this as final? Is there an element of permanence in this Bill and its provisions? Will the Deputy Minister stand up and say that for the next five, ten or 15 years this Bill is going to remain on the Statute Book and that it will be administered, in terms of these provisions, by the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Department? Would he say that it is going to be permanent for five, fen or 15 years, never mind about 20 or 25 or even the 50 years that the hon. member for Klip River wanted? But if the hon. member for Klip River wants to go to 50 years, then let us accept that.

Will they say that this has such a degree of permanence that the Bantu are going to accept a measure controlling their work in all spheres of life, throughout the whole of the white economy in South Africa, under the conditions laid down in this Bill, to be determined for them by one man, the Minister of Bantu Administration? If so, will they please say so. Will they say: “This is permanent; it is fixed; if it is not like the law of the Medes and Persians, it is the law of the Medes and Persians less 10 per cent.” Sir, we will be glad to have the answer to those problems when the Deputy Minister gets up to reply. Sir, in the case of a Bill with these provisions, there can be only one answer from this side of the House. I therefore move as an amendment—

I really feel very sorry for the hon. member for South Coast this evening. He was placed in a very unenviable position by his Leader and the Opposition. The hon. member was quite unprepared to speak on this amendment Bill this evening. He stood for a whole hour struggling here to make a few remarks which had very little bearing on the Bill. Sir, I think the attacks he made on the hon. the Deputy Minister were very undignified and unfair. What has the custom always been in this House over the years? Is it not that a Second Reading speech is read out, whether it is made by the Prime Minister, by a Minister or by a Deputy Minister? Is it not the custom that those speeches be read out, for there must be no misunderstanding concerning a Second Reading speech. That is why these speeches are written out, typed out and read out slowly so that hon. members can follow them properly. Sir, I think it was a tremendous slap in the face for this able Deputy Minister who has the confidence of the Minister, the Cabinet and of all the National Members of Parliament and who has been entrusted with this Bill here to-day.

And the people of South Africa.

We concede that it is a very important Bill, but I think this criticism levelled at the hon. the Deputy Minister was very unfair and unjustified. I want to tell the hon. member that this Deputy Minister is a dedicated man. He puts his heart and soul into everything he undertakes. He will still show the hon. member of what mettle he is. The hon. member need feel no concern about his ability to deal with this Bill. We and the people outside have every confidence in him, and the people outside will, next year at the provincial election, show us whom they trust and whom not.

Mr. Speaker, in order to gain an understanding of this legislation, the following question must first be put: What is national policy today? The immediate reply is that national policy is separate development. I would like to emphasize here to-night that separate development is to-day the policy of the country.

It does not even exist.

That hon. member does not exist, as far as I am concerned. Sir, separate development does not mean suppression, as is so often stated. Hon. members on that side are always implying that separate development means suppression, but it does not mean suppression. Separate development or apartheid means precisely what it says, i.e. a chance for every person, but within his own sphere.

Just words.

The policy of separate development is a merciful one. It is a policy which wants to ensure that justice is done; it is a sensible policy which seeks to ensure that unfavourable conditions do not arise, which are usually prejudicial for Whites as well as non-Whites. The essence thereof is that while the Whites have all their rights and privileges in one part of the country, i.e. the white part, the natives have similar rights and privileges which they can similarly enjoy, only in their part of the country, i.e. in their homelands. The Bantu must regard the homelands as their home, and at least as the abode of their rights. In their area, the Bantu area, the Whites have no claim to proprietary rights and certain civilian rights. The Whites are there as temporary occupants who must help with the development of the Bantu area. [Interjections.] Yes, the Whites will help the Bantu to develop their area, as we are now doing in the Transkei. We are helping the Bantu there to develop their homelands, and in this way we are helping them in all the other homelands to help themselves.

On an agency basis.

It makes no difference on what basis this takes place, but the agency basis is the best basis for them. Sir, the rights of the native are in their homelands. The Whites have no permanent rights there; they are the temporary inhabitants of the area, for any purpose whatsoever. In the same way the Bantu to-day are temporary inhabitants in the white area. The entire principle of the Bill is separation, and what does separation mean, and what is the definition of apartheid? The Bantu have no permanent rights inside the white man’s area. They are here in the white man’s area solely on the conditions under which the white man allows them to remain here. In addition the Bantu cannot be granted the right to practise an occupation or a profession or start a business undertaking in the white parts of a city or a town in the white area. Sir, this concession was in fact granted to the Bantu in the past. They were able to practise a profession or an occupation in the white area, but from now on that right will no longer be granted to them; they must exercise it in their own homelands to the benefit of their own people.

Do you really believe that?

Yes, I believe that.

Order! A little while ago the Chair called upon the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to make interjections. That applies to other hon. members as well. I do not want any interruptions. The hon. member may proceed.

Protection is now being afforded here against the practice of professions and the acquisition of those facilities and conveniences within the Bantu residential areas in the white areas. Those conveniences and facilities are now being created for the Bantu in their own area. There the Bantu dealer, the professional and the administrative Bantu, are being afforded protection, and are being given a golden opportunity to acquiry the necessary knowledge among their own people, free from competition with the Whites, because the basis of the idea of separate development is that each individual must be able to rise to the higher professions and make use of knowledge in each field, but that this must always be done in the service of their own people. That is how we view this policy of separate development. We will not allow the white dealers to open up a business in Bantu towns; we will not allow white clerks and typists to occupy permanent posts in Bantu towns which are situated within the white area.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to read out his speech, without interjections?

Order! I shall maintain the rules here.

But is he entitled to read his speech?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I can put down my notes, but then the hon. member will be sorry! Separation between Whites and non-Whites is prescribed by legislation, legislation which has succeeded admirably in its purpose during the past 21 years. Whether hon. members want to believe this or not, it remains a fact. With the passing of years amendments have been made to the legislation in order to guard against points of friction developing between Whites and non-Whites. It is of vital importance that racial peace and racial harmony be preserved. Now again we have this legislation from the hon. the Minister. It amends the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, the Bantu Urban Areas (Consolidation) Act 1945, and, most important of all the Bantu Labour Act of 1964. Every clause in this legislation is important, and I am certain that we would be able to discuss these clauses to greater effect in the Committee Stage, for these clauses are actually independent of each other. We owe the Minister a vote of thanks for this amending legislation. I hope and trust that the Opposition will help to get this legislation through Parliament before Saturday. But they are too afraid of this legislation; that is why they do not want to let it through. It is going to bring the National Party a great many additional votes, because the people outside want this legislation. In the past we found that where there were Bantu residential areas which had to be cleared, there were recalcitrant Bantu who did not want to move.

Verkramptes!

We found that white agitators tried to keep the Bantu in the locations in spite of the fact that conditions in those locations were extremely unfavourable. Here I need only refer to Windhoek and Harrismith. How long did we not have to struggle to have the natives removed there to the new locations which had been built for them? The Bantu did not want to move because agitators had incited them. Here the Minister is now making provision for a simple yet efficient method of clearing Bantu townships without the protracted court cases we had in the past. The days of those fortune-hunters are numbered, they who exploited the natives by implying that they were interested in them, i.e. the Bantu while in reality they were interested only in their own pockets, and the hard-earned money of the Bantu which found its way into their pockets. Now the Minister is coming forward with a method of clearing such locations quickly and efficiently so that Bantu can be moved as rapidly as possible.

The hon. member for South Coast feels concerned about clause 8 which amends section 19. This gives town councils the right to apply one-third of the beer hall profits, and for the Minister to issue a certificate to the effect that that money may be spent anythere in their homeland, on condition that it is utilized to the benefit of the Bantu there. The other two-thirds of the profits are being used to provide better housing to the Bantu in their residential areas. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was also a city council member. To him I want to ask, from whom did the city councils make the biggest profit? From the migrant labourers living there. If it were not for the mine Natives who visited the beer halls in their thousands, such large profits would never have been made. I want to make an appeal to-night to all local authorities on the Witwatersrand. All of them are making large profits on their beer halls. I want to make an appeal to-day to them to come forward and to undertake some project or other, jointly, in a homeland, some project like homes for the aged, clinics or facilities along our coasts to which the Bantu can go for their holidays. For the Bantu have already made such progress under the regime of this Government that they can even think of going on holiday!

The clause we are probably going to spend a long time discussing is clause 11. Hon. members opposite are living in a world remote from reality; they no longer know what the ordinary man wants; they are no longer acquainted with the problems of the voters; they no longer know what the actual problem of the voter in South Africa is. They are living in a Utopia, think that everything is going well and that the voters are satisfied with everything. This legislation is aimed at prohibiting white employers from employing Bantu in certain avenues of employment within white sectors. The employment of Bantu in positions traditionally occupied by Whites, which are still being occupied by Whites, is assuming serious proportions. This state of affairs is developing under our very eyes and has already assumed such proportions that it is causing serious dissatisfaction and friction between the Whites and the Bantu. [Interjections.] That hon. member does not know what he is talking about; he is talking nonsense at the moment. If steps are not taken now to curb these unfavourable conditions, they could lead to serious friction and conflict. While the National Party has for the past 21 years been acquiring industrial peace and quiet for us, it is happening under our very eyes that the Bantu are taking over from the white woman. [Interjections.] Man, you come from an out of the way place and never get to Johannesburg. You do not know what is going on there. Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member would take the trouble to go to Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand area, and to visit Durban occasionally, instead of simply going to Hammarsdale, he would find these conditions which I am now describing to him. If he goes to any large business undertaking, or to the pharmaceutical industry or to our shops, he would see how the position is becoming worse by the day.

There are probably not enough Whites.

Yes, there are enough Whites. I shall tell the hon. member what the difficulty is. The argument which the hon. member has now raised, i.e. that there are not enough white workers available to fill those posts, does not sound convincing. If there is a shortage of white workers I want to say to-night that that shortage has been artificially created. This situation is created by the employers. You know why this is so, Sir? It is because they want to keep wages so low that the white women can no longer compete with the Bantu males for those posts. That is the reason. The shortage is being artificially created. We are expecting tremendous opposition from the industrialists and the shop-owners in this connection. We expect them to oppose this Bill, but we shall not give way. If they do not want to co-operate voluntarily with the Minister, in order to maintain that traditional labour pattern, we will compel them to do so by way of legislation. Sir, I want to tell you that the Bantu no longer want to do certain kinds of work today. There is a clause in this Bill which provides that certain undertakings, such as the building industry for example, can now go and recruit their own Bantu in the homelands. Do you know why this is so? If one goes to a labour bureau to-day you will see hundreds of Bantu sitting there. Just ask them: Who wants to work for a local authority or a city council? There will not be one. Ask them: “Who wants to work for Escom?” There will not be one. Ask them: “Who wants to go to work on the Railways?” There will not be one? But, Sir, ask them: “Who wants to go to work in an office?” Then the hundred of them will all stand up at the same time. All of them want to go and work in the offices, but the traditional work which they must do, they do not want to do. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may the hon. Whip keep up a running commentary, after you have ruled that there should be no more interjections?

Order! The hon. member must proceed. I shall maintain order here.

Sir, these white women have rendered a very good service in the development of commerce and industry in the Republic of South Africa. They have become part of that industrial development. They have contributed their share. Now it is the duty of this Government to ensure that those traditional posts which were formerly filled by those white women should be retained for them. We cannot expect the white women to compete with the Bantu, with their low wages to-day. Most of them have to go out to work in order to obtain an additional income. They were not all as fortunate as many of us were. Many of them were unable to study further. Conditions were not always favourable for them. They have always been able to find a livelihood in posts of this kind. Behind the counters, in the offices and in the factories they have always found a livelihood. Now they are being ousted. Surely this is disgraceful. We must put a stop to those conditions. The future of the Bantu lies in their homelands. There they can go to help their own people develop. There they can occupy the highest posts they want to. The world is open to them if they have initiative and drive, but they must not be spoonfed, as those hon. members want to do. They must not always be standing waiting for hand-outs. Sir, the Bantu must get down to work there.

You have a servant?

Yes, I have a servant. [Interjections.] However, I do not have a servant here. I do my own work here. I am not ashamed of that. That hon. member probably has five. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw his statement to the effect that the hon. member is dishonest.

Mr. Speaker, I did …

The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Very well, Sir, if you say so …

Yes, I say so.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member and I had better not come to grips to-night. But, Sir, I want to abide by your ruling. Clause 11 can quite rightly be called the separation clause. It will once again ensure industrial peace and industrial quiet which we are enjoying in this country to-day, will be confirmed, to the benefit of the Whites as well as the non-Whites. This Government has a sacred duty and responsibility towards all races in this country in order to ensure that each is afforded a fair and just chance. That is why this amendment Bill is so important. In this Bill we are making provision for work separation. This provision is being made in clause 11. We hope and trust that the dealer and the industrialist will cooperate with the Minister, so that he will not find it necessary to apply this legislation to them. They must realize that it is in their own interests that there should be industrial peace and industrial quiet in this country of ours. If that were not the case the result would be chaos. It would simply lead to the downfall of everyone in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member for Brakpan during the course of my speech. May I just say that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who introduced this Bill this afternoon, said that he was naïve enough to believe that the Bantu must be drawn to the homelands by the development of those homelands. Sir, I would have thought that he would not have been so naïve as to think that we would believe the intention he put forward this afternoon in regard to the purposes of this Bill. This reminded me of the remarks of his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who, in another debate this afternoon, mentioned the tasks which were required for future relations and good-neighbourliness with the Bantu peoples in the Bantu states. I believe that if those tasks spelt out anything, they spelt out the doom of South Africa, if he were to remain in control in future. Much the same goes for the hon. member for Brakpan who spoke here this evening. There was a statesman, poet and soldier, Sir Philip Sidney, who lived in the 19th century. He made the following statement:

Quite obviously Sir Philip was not aware of the possibility of a Nationalist Government in South Africa. Otherwise he would have been constrained to use these very words because is there anything more diametrically opposed to these words than the legislation which has been put before this House, especially during the past 24 hours? Indeed, if there is any living example of it, it is this very Bill with which we are dealing at the moment. The hon. member mentioned the number of Acts that are being amended by this Bill, namely the Bantu Land and Trust Act, the Urban Areas Act and the Labour Act, which in conjunction with other Acts control every single facet of the lives of the Bantu people. There is restriction upon restriction and prohibition upon prohibition. Indeed, where they are allowed to do anything as regards their movement or their residence, there is always some proviso attached to what they are allowed to do. Nowhere within the free world is there a society, and I venture to say even behind the Iron Curtain, or any other curtain for that matter, that has the restrictions on it that our Bantu people have. Their daily life is fettered with conditions, passes and permits. As the hon. member for South Coast said, here is a people whose projection at the moment stands at over 12 million. Who are the people who have freedom of movement amongst those 12 million? Who are the people who have limited free movement within their own scheduled and released areas at the moment and limited movement in urban areas? The only people who can move in an urban area without a permit or a pass are the ones I will mention now. According to the labour regulations they are the following people:

1. (a) an advocate, attorney, notary public, conveyancer, medical practitioner, dentist, professor, lecturer at a university or a university college,
2. (b) ministers of religion who are marriage officers,
3. (c) teachers whose salaries are paid or defrayed directly or indirectly by the Government, and
4. (d) any policeman.

Out of 12 million people a mere handful have limited free movement because the people I have just mentioned still have to qualify to be in the urban areas under section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. All this is borne out of this ideology of the Government based on fear. More than anything this is the fear of being swamped politically. I say, Sir, that if it is leading us anywhere, it is leading us to the wrecking of civilization here in South Africa. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said during another debate, you cannot force integration or separation because you will steer yourself into trouble all the way through.

Where the amendments proposed in this Bill are concerned with prohibitions or what these people may do I think it is as well that we examine the prohibitions under which these people live at the moment. What is the position to-day? Let us start with the (Bantu in the urban areas. First of all, he must qualify in terms of section 10. Section 10 states, firstly, that he must be born and reside there continuously. That is the first requirement. He must have been born in the area and have resided there continuously. He must not merely have been born there. He must also have worked continuously for one employer for 10 years or lawfully have resided in the area for not less than 15 years. He must also prove that during that time he was not employed outside the specific prescribed area. Secondly, during that time he must not have been subject to a fine exceeding R100 or imprisonment exceeding six months. His wife and dependants must be lawfully in that area or he must have permission through the labour bureaux and labour offices to be in the area, with due regard to accommodation.

When we come to this question of accommodation, let us look at what he must do to qualify for a site or a house. That is why I say we must think of the regulations made under these Acts. Under Proclamation R.1036 in order to qualify for a residence he must do the following:

1. (a) be over 21,
2. (b) a dwelling must be available in an area for his ethnic group,
3. (c) he must be a fit and proper person,
4. (d) he must be qualified under section 10 and his wife must be domiciled in the prescribed area,
5. (e) he must be employed or carrying on a lawful business,
6. (f) he must not be the holder of any other permit to reside,
7. (g) he must be free from an infectious disease,
8. (h) he is subject to monthly rental renewal.

Now he only qualifies for accommodation. Let us have a look at what causes the cancellation of his accommodation. Firstly, if he is unemployed for more than 30 days, his accommodation is cancelled. If he is employed for more than 30 days outside that prescribed area, it is cancelled. If he fails to complete any authorized building or improvements to it, if he fails to make any renewals or repairs within three months, if he leaves the area for more than 30 days without permission in writing, his accommodation is cancelled. If under section 10 he is no longer entitled to it, it is cancelled but this condition is fair enough. If he ceases to be in the opinion of the superintendent a fit and proper person, if he has obtained a permit through a false statement, if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for more than six months, his accommodation is cancelled. The list still goes on.

Then we come to the position where he has qualified and he can ask for employment. Then he is categorized in employment categories, classes of employment which are divided into private concerns or business. The classes of employment are: (a) agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, wholesale, etc., and (b) public corporations, (c) South African Railways, (d) public authorities, and so the list goes on. He cannot change his category. Having got so far he must then find his employment and to do so must register as a work seeker. He must do that within three days. Then the permit which is issued to him is only valid for a specific period. Then on top of all this he is refused employment if the following apply:

1. (a) if his conduct is not bona fide,
2. (b) if he is not permitted to be in the area under any law,
3. (c) if he is not released from an earlier contract,
4. (d) if he is not allowed under any other law to take up employment.

One wonders of course when we already have this in the Act what we are doing with this extra provision in clause 12 of the Bill. If he refuses to have a medical examination, he is refused employment. If he impairs the safety of the State, he is refused employment and if an order for removal has been served on him, he is refused employment. Of course, over and above all these factors is the fact that if he is without a reference book he cannot get employment. If he is a labour tenant he cannot get employment. Finally, if he does not occupy approved accommodation, he cannot get employment. When he has taken all these restrictions into consideration, then other Acts, such as section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, still apply above all else. With this mountain of restrictions which we have the hon. the Minister still comes along with this Bill and says: I, the great I, will prohibit you from working anywhere in any job for any employer at any time and if you are already working, I will cancel your contract, if I deem it should be done. Then this afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced an amendment which just means a little consultation for the hon. the Minister with his benchmate.

I wonder why the hon. the Minister bothers to bring in all these Bills. Why does he not bring in one Bill with one clause and say: I, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, will do with the Bantu people as and what I like. Is there anything at this stage which the hon. the Minister cannot legally do in respect of employment and residence to the Bantu people? It is no wonder that the hon. the Minister could say in another debate this morning that the Bantu will get scarcer and scarcer and that everybody must be prepared to sacrifice because he will take them all away. We will discuss where he is taking them to, at a later stage. Under this Bill the hon. the Minister now prohibits employment. And when the Bantu is unemployed, as I have indicated, for more than 30 days he loses his accommodation.

That is not so; you are talking nonsense.

I wonder whether the hon. member knows anything about Bantu regulations.

[Inaudible.]

Well then do not talk nonsense. Then you had better keep quiet until you have studied them. He loses his accommodation and when he has no accommodation he cannot get employment. He cannot be categorized in some other employment. And what happens then? There will be adequate accommodation for them in the homelands. Failing that, section 29 and the definition of “idle”, namely, “normally unemployed” can apply and the Minister can take them and send them to the homelands. It may not be the intention but that is what the hon. the Minister can do. As I have said, we know what good intentions are for. It is a complete circumvention of the last rights of the Bantu people, namely the rights under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. It is a class of people which up to date they have not been able to move. At the same time there is the question of the provision of accommodation which is becoming more and more difficult. And even here it is being made more and more difficult for local authorities to do something for the Bantu people within their areas. An hon. member said that the Minister cannot. But the hon. the Minister has to sign a certificate before the local authority can use any money. The hon. the Minister can say that he wants that money for the homeland and that he will not issue a certificate unless it is used in the homeland.

[Inaudible.]

May I ask the hon. member whether he can do that or not. Somebody does not know what stands in the Bill. In any case, the hon. Minister already has the right to move a Bantu residential area. On the application of an outside local authority he can approve of a Bantu residential area being moved. He can move it for health or safety reasons. He can move it for town planning or to further objects under any law. Now he comes along and says that we shall no longer have an inquiry. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that that would not apply because there is still this, that and the other. What is left? The hon. the Minister only has to refer to the Administrator and consult with the local authority. We had it from the hon. the Minister of Community Development what consultation with local authorities means.

Then, when these people want to use the only form of expression of dissatisfaction, a sit-in as it were, in their own homes, they may not do that. Then, by means of a warrant, they can be ejected. What is more, they can be moved to the homelands, pronto!

Sir, the hon. the Minister is reputed to know the Bantu people. He says that he knows them. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned it just now. Let me just say first, the hon. the Minister is continually putting it to us that all this development must take place slowly, because the powers of absorption of the Bantu people are so low. We have to make haste slowly. But he says: “If you are dissatisfied, I force you out, finish and ‘klaar’! ” He does not persuade them. He does not make them see the benefit. He does not consult with them. He does not work with them. Indeed, they complain about the Hereros and about Ladysmith. Was it so bad that they “sat in” at Windhoek? Has the result, where they were able eventually to persuade them to do the right thing, not been much better than to have forced them in the first instance? Since when does one have to force people? On top of all that, when once he has forced them out, he still does not have to pay any compensation. He says that goes by the board. No, Sir, where we are dependent on the maintenance of our economic expansion, which will demand more and more the opening up of wider avenues of employment, all we set out to do here is to cripple our own economy, to destroy our free enterprise and to subject the Bantu summarily to the removal from their employment. It breaks the security of employment completely and utterly; and not only for the Bantu people, but for the white people as well, for the employer, as well as for the employee.

I should like to conclude with two quotations. I am indebted to the Observer for the first one, in which appeared an article, “The ten pillars of economic wisdom”, reprinted from the American Economic Foundation. It deals with the productivity of tools, and of course, with the productivity of tools, the efficiency of human energy. This is what they say—

I want to commend my second quotation to the hon. the Minister and to the Government as a whole. For this one I am indebted to Gerald Shaw’s political survey, in which he quoted from Olive Schreiner’s book written in 1908. It reads as follows:

That is a long lecture.

Listen! —

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town made quite a long speech, but he spoke very little about the amendments in the clauses before us. He actually made a plea in respect of clause 10 and what qualifications they needed before they could obtain accommodation. He made a terribly long story of it and quoted as if wanting to imply that we in South Africa have only one choice, i.e. integration. He implied that this must happen to us and that there was no alternative. I just want to mention to the hon. member that it does not matter in what areas the Bantu are situated within the white areas; each of them still has a homeland. Each one of them still belongs to a homeland which is their actual home. They qualify under that homeland.

As a result of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast I firstly want to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on his Second Reading speech and, in the second place, on the contents of this legislation. I think he acquitted himself most excellently on his task in his Second Reading speech and I consider it very petty of a United Party provincial leader to have tried to belittle the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think he made a very poor effort at delivering a speech with any content.

I think this amendment Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have dealt with during this Session. It is extremely comprehensive because it actually affects us in all spheres. It affects the country districts, the farmer, the cities, the homelands and our white and Bantu communities in many spheres. As I have said, I consider it one of the most important pieces of legislation tabled during this Session and a piece of legislation which is beneficial to both race groups. Hon. members will agree that the farming community is heavily burdened with Bantu loafers on our farms. The farmers are dependent upon this labour and they also very badly want it. I know that an investigation was conducted and that it came to light that there were cases where there were more than 50 people on a farm while only one person had a labour contract with the farmer. That farmer is not always in a position to investigate whether there are undesirable people there. Even if he were in a position to do so, he does not always have the heart to take action against those people because he badly needs that labour.

With all humility and respect, we know the Bantu. Frequently the son works in the city. His family live there and he is also there on week-ends. We have this problem particularly on small holdings and farms which are situated near the large cities. Among the Bantu, if a person is a member of the family, he is regarded as his brother or his brother’s child. All flock together there. Then, on occasion, we find the United Party flinging it in our teeth that we are blackening the country districts. That is why it has become necessary for us to act in this respect for the benefit of the Whites and the Bantu. Under this legislation the Minister can determine a date for the removal of a location, Bantu village, hostel or institution situated inside or outside the area of a local authority, to a place inside or outside the local area where other accommodation has already been supplied. The Minister also has the right to have that removal take place without allowing a public hearing to take place. We know what problems we have had in the past.

There is also an additional provision according to which the Minister does not need to pay compensation. The hon. member for King William’s Town wanted to make something of the fact that the people need not be paid compensation. However, this only applies to special cases in which people make improvements, without the approval of, for example, the local authority, after they have been instructed that the place must be removed. It is then surely quite right that compensation should not be paid in that case. That provision is only there to protect the Minister and to protect us, the white public. When is such a location removed? The hon. member mentioned an example in South-West Africa of where it was a good thing that the Government, after all the work of convincing the people, eventually moved them, but who pays for those services? Who pays for the empty houses standing there? The white community paid taxes and they must compensate for that. When people do not want to listen, the Government is, therefore, surely right in acting in their own interests. They must be forced, if necessary, to carry out that removal.

All these amendments actually amount to the fact that we are guiding the Government’s policy of separate development in that direction, and we want to lay it down and develop it in that way. That is why all these amendments are necessary. The hon. member made a terrible fuss of clause 11. Under that clause the Minister will now obtain the right to present what the hon. the Deputy Minister calls labour integration. The hon. members on that side of the House say that some of the Bantu are being deprived of their work. I can tell the hon. members that this clause is not directed against the Bantu at all. This clause is directed against those irresponsible employers who do not respect the Government’s policy and who do not take the principles of the Whites in South Africa into consideration.

It has been proved over and over again that those people are not prepared to respect that conviction which is held by the majority of the Whites in South Africa. It is directed against those people; the irresponsible people who make use of Bantu labour to facilitate integration so that they can fill their own pockets. If they can obtain cheaper labour they do not restrict themselves to the rules laid down in principle by this Government. It has become necessary for action to be taken against those people. The hon. member for South Coast, for example, spoke here of a writer in one of the newspapers who had asked for work according to his qualifications. Any of the hon. Ministers would be glad to make use of those people, however good their qualifications may be, and to offer them work of the highest order in their own homelands and in accordance with their qualifications. It is specifically for that reason that this Government exerted itself and took the trouble, for example, to establish those universities for Bantu. But the Opposition opposed it every time. The Government did this specifically to afford the people the opportunity of developing, educating and qualifying themselves so that they could help to develop themselves, their nation and their group in their own area, in their own field and in their own national life. There is, after all, no such thing as a well-qualified person not being able to obtain that work. But it is not necessary for those people to think or feel that they want the white man’s work. There is surely enough room for them to give assistance in their own homelands and among their own people without simply leaving everything to the Government. They can assist there in developing their people.

The hon. member for South Coast also wanted to know whether the hon. the Minister would take the destinies of those 13 million Bantu in its own hands; whether he alone would determine those destinies. The hon. member is right to a degree. The hon. the Minister does so through the Government. The Government and we, as Whites, are still, after all, the guardians of those Bantu to-day. After all, they cannot look after themselves yet. They cannot develop on their own yet. We have one argument after the other with hon. members on that side when they reply that we are developing the homelands too slowly. It is surely right for the hon. the Minister, through the Government, the Cabinet and the National Party to determine, to a large extent, the destinies of those 13 million people and to guide them according to their discretion and their conviction. We do not hesitate to tell the world what our policy is and how we carry it out. In this legislation we have a clause which provides that an employer can be refused registration in respect of Bantu if he cannot provide them with accommodation or if those Bantu do not have accommodation. This is very important. I just want to mention that this matter actually extends much further than mere employers who must supply accommodation. In the large cities we have the problem of Bantu living in backyards. We have this round about the cities and smallholdings. This is a particularly good provision which then prevents the possible registration of Bantu if it cannot he shown that that Bantu lives either in a hostel or in one of the large Bantu residential areas, or if that Bantu is employed by a firm which does not supply accommodation. This prevents them from crawling in everywhere.

Then there is also another very important clause, i.e. the clause which deals with the registration fees of the Bantu women. I want to state that in Johannesburg, for example, there are more illegal Bantu women employed in homes than there are legal Bantu women. It has always been so easy for the people to do this because they register those servants, and if they are illegal Bantu they simply do not register them at all. Now they will be compelled to investigate the matter and to determine whether those Bantu can be registered. It will therefore most probably assist in preventing the employment of illegal Bantu women in the large cities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider helping this matter along with an additional amendment. When a round-up is carried out and the Bantu women, whose presence is illegal, are prosecuted, that house owner can pay a R10 admission of guilt. Servants are very scarce and the people are usually prepared to pay that R10 admission of guilt. I think it would save a lot of trouble and money, and would entail much fewer illegal Bantu women in the cities, if the hon. the Minister would consider simply increasing that admission of guilt to R100. Then we would have much fewer problems with that.

I can assure hon. members that I am aware of instances of these Bantu women working for seven or eight years in Johannesburg without having a permit to be there. They work for one person and the people are prepared to employ them without their permits. At a later stage they go to another employer. By thus changing their employment they stay and live, as it were, in Johannesburg. Some of them remain there for years without being prosecuted at all. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brakpan, who said that he hoped that the United Party would be sensible enough to help us pilot this legislation, with all its amendments, through all the stages before we return home. Then they would be doing South Africa a favour.

Mr. Speaker, if ever I have been pleased to support an amendment to a Bill, it is the amendment to this Bill and that is, that it be read this day six months. I do believe we could not move a more appropriate amendment to a Bill of this nature. There are many restrictions on the employment of Bantu in South Africa already. My hon. colleague, who resumed his seat just now, mentioned most of the important restrictions. In spite of all these restrictions on Bantu labour in the so-called white areas, …

Why so-called?

The hon. member wants to know why I say “so-called”. Can he mention one white area? I say “so-called” white areas because this part of the country is no more White than the Transkei is White. There are more non-Whites living in the so-called white areas than Whites, and this includes that hon. member’s constituency as well. I am surprised that the hon. member should ask me such a stupid question. What also surprises me is that the hon. member for Mayfair has been talking in two voices. He started off by telling us that this Bill is merely to remove all Bantu who are illegally working in the so-called white areas. He tells us that this is the only purpose of the Bill. He spent a great deal of his time trying to explain to us that it is not a measure against the Bantu who are employed legitimately, and are working, but against those who are here illegally. In other words, with this Bill it is proposed to remove only those who are scrounging around for work and who are not employed. Then he turned round and spoke about the Bantu women who are working in the homes of Johannesburg. He mentioned that some of them have been working there for nine years. He was even worried that they do not have baths in which to bathe themselves.

Baths?

Yes, the hon. member mentioned it just now. Not only does the hon. member for Mayfair speak in two voices, but he is obviously disagreeing with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in what he said here this morning.

The hon. the Minister told us this morning that he was going to reduce the number of Bantu in our cities, the urban industrial areas, as well as from the rural areas. He did not stipulate that only those who were employed illegally would be removed. We are sick and tired of this cat and mouse story coming from the other side. One hon. member says one thing and another says something else. Hon. members only make statements and pass these remarks to suit themselves. The other day again a statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning was reported in a newspaper article. Here is an example of why we on this side of the House are confused with what hon. members on the other side propose doing. This is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said: I quote Die Beeld of 2 March, 1969—

Here we have the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning telling us that when it comes to Bantu workers employed economically, then numbers do not count. As long as they are employed their numbers are not relevant even in the so-called white areas about which the hon. member for Maitland was asking just now. Obviously only the unemployed matter and are taken into consideration. I will shortly deal with the unemployed Bantu but heaven alone knows how we are going to count them. I will deal with unemployed Bantu in the areas we have heard so much about recently, namely the border areas. I will also deal with the unemployed Bantu in the East London-King William’s Town - Queenstown - Aliwal North complex, an area close to the borders of the Native reserves.

This morning the hon. the Minister in his trial run for this Bill, when he gave us a dramatic foretaste of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, told us that he was going to move all the Bantu regardless. He said that in time they will all disappear, but he did not tell us where he is going to move them to. It is all very well to say that he is going to remove them, but what I myself and those living in constituencies adjoining the Bantustans, want to know is where does the hon. the Minister and his Deputies propose moving them to? This is disturbing. In this Bill the hon. the Minister is asking us for more powers. I cannot fathom what further powers we can possibly give the hon. the Minister, powers more than he already has. For 21 years this Government has been legislating in this regard and what has been happening? The Bantu have not been moved out, but are in fact increasing. There are more Bantu to-day in the so-called white areas than there have ever been in the history of South Africa. In spite of all the powers the hon. the Minister has today he is still not happy. I can guarantee that if this Bill is passed, we will see that in a year’s time, the statistics will again show that the numbers of Bantu in the so-called white areas will have increased even more. We will fight this Bill to the last clause, even if we have to do so until Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

I believe the reason why this Bill is brought before Parliament to-day at this late hour is because the Government is being driven into it. We have recently seen in the Nationalist Press that newspapers supporting that side of the House, are suggesting that if something is not done, and done very soon, to reduce the numbers of Bantu, then the policy of apartheid has failed and the Government can forget about it.

Apartheid will then have failed as it is failing. These suggestions are coming from people outside this House who support the Nationalist Party, who are already suggesting that apartheid has failed. So now we are confronted with legislation, which provides the Government with even more powers. This is because they too realize that they are unsuccessful in the implementation of their policy in sending the Bantu back to their so-called homelands.

While apartheid has failed over the years, South Africa has been enjoying a flourishing economy, so much so that people are happy to-day in the financial sense. Most people have money to spend. They even have money to invest on the stock market and in growth shares. Many people have money and we are economically sound. This is only because apartheid has failed, and there is increasing economic integration taking place. We are economically sound, because we have reasonably well developed industries in South Africa.

No, we have a good Government.

We have such a rotten Government that they cannot implement their own policy of economic separation, this is why the economy in South Africa is flourishing. The day they can carry their policy out to its logical conclusion, our economy must suffer. With this Bill the Government is endeavouring to make the Western Cape a showpiece for their policy of separate development in this country. However, even with the laws they have, job reservation under the Department of Labour is failing, hence as I have already said, apartheid is failing in many respects. This is why, in clause 11, which is in fact the crux of the whole Bill, we see the cutting off, of the sources of employment for the Bantu people of South Africa. Clause 11 is the crux of the whole Bill, it is an amendment, in a way, to the policy of job reservation, which is carried out by the Department of Labour, and now we are legislating against the natural economic development of South Africa.

Let us deal with the unemployed in South Africa. Where do you find them? The hon. member for Mayfair is no longer in his seat. He seems to have had enough of this Bill; I do not blame him.

He is looking for a job.

He was talking about the unemployed. I have not heard such nonsense for a long time as the speech which the hon. member made just now. Unemployment in the Ciskei-East London area is causing me a great deal of concern. I have repeatedly, during this Session, asked Ministers to explain to us what the end of the road under their policy would be. We have repeatedly asked them to tell us more or less where the boundaries of the Ciskei are, and where the boundaries of the so-called “white corridor” between East London and King William’s Town are.

What clause are you discussing now?

I am talking about clause 11. We have repeatedly put these questions to hon. Ministers, but without avail. They would make very good soccer players, because I have never known a bunch of people to sidestep their opponents as well as they do.

We simply cannot get the replies from them. The hon. the Prime Minister has already told us with satisfaction that South Africa is at peace, and I agree we are. Why are we at peace, relatively speaking? We are at peace because most of the people in South Africa, including our large population of Bantu people, have employment, and when they have work their stomachs are full and when their stomachs are full you and I can sleep. This is why we are at peace. But if this policy is going to be implemented through legislation in this Bill and these people are going to be sent back willy-nilly as the hon. the Minister told us this morning in no uncertain terms, we must consider what will happen. The hon. the Minister pushed out his chest and told us that he is going to remove them all, regardless of the cost.

These people are already being removed to the areas which the hon. member for King William’s Town, the hon. member for East London (City) and I represent. Already we cannot cope with the natural increase in population in the Border and Ciskei. According to this Bill these people are going to be repatriated to an area where they first have to qualify for a house. On the other hand we are providing good houses for them but as hon. members already heard earlier on to-day, the Bantu have to qualify for these houses. They are supposed to have employment, but many are jobless and in spite of this some of them are finding homes there, in which to live. We are providing homes, but too many have no employment, no work to do whatsoever. I cannot understand why for the sake of political expediency this Government is telling South Africa that they want to reduce the quantity of black labour in the so-called white areas. You see, Sir, where you have work, not only in South Africa but anywhere in the world, you will find the people. In other words, work automatically and naturally attracts people, regardless of their colour. People are being attracted to the metropolitan areas, such as the Western Cape, the Reef and all the other mineral mines as well as agriculture throughout the platteland, because these industries provide work for them. If there was no work to do in these areas I have mentioned, and the work was only being provided in the areas which I represent and the co-called homelands, namely the Transkei and all the other Native territories, the masses of labour would automatically go back. They would not have to be driven there by legislation. But because this Government is again failing to provide employment for these unfortunate people, they are now being forced back to the reserves and at what cost? Eventually it will be at the cost of our whole economy. You will find us in serious trouble and then we will no longer be at peace. Who will those hon. members opposite blame then? I suppose then they will turn round and blame the hon. member for Houghton. Then they will blame everybody else but themselves. We are repeatedly warning those hon. members that if the Bantu people are repatriated under clause 11, and at the same time are not provided with employment, we are heading for very very serious trouble.

Why do you not send them to your farms?

The hon. member wants to know why I do not find work for them on my farms.

Order! The hon. member need not reply to that interjection. He should continue discussing the Bill.

I would very much like to tell him but I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker. Another point in connection with employment is that I do believe it is time we stopped to think. Yes, think about the thousands of unemployed we have in South Africa; and that we consider finding employment for them first, before we import Bantu or other non-European labour from other states.

Order! That is a different matter altogether. That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

I will then proceed to the next part of my speech. Coming back to clause 3 of the Bill … [Interjections.] I have been dealing with the Bill all along. I have been dealing mainly with clause 11, but I have been speaking the language hon. members prefer not to understand. I have not been speaking the way they would like me to speak. I was dealing with clause 11 which deals with unemployment. I now come to clause 3 which deals with squatters.

There are 126 squatters on that side.

We see that squatters can be the cause of three different offences, and that the owner of a property can be held responsible, and that the occupier of a property …

Is that hon. member allowed to say that we are 126 squatters on this side of the House?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, in clause 3 we have the three different offences where the owner of a property can be held responsible as well as the occupier and the squatter. I defy anybody to come to the Eastern Cape and Border to find these squatters. These people are not all living in houses or shacks. Many squatters, are living in the bushes. It is absolutely impossible to keep check on these people. Many of them are unemployed and half starved and they run around by day and by night thieving and stealing and taking whatever they can find. Many of these squatters are living on other people’s properties.

That is what we want to solve.

You do not know what you are talking about. I want to know how you are going to hold the owner of a property responsible under this clause if you should be lucky enough to find the squatters. Some are not even living in houses. Really hon. members do not know what they are talking about.

Clause 7 deals with the provision of adequate housing which must be offered to Bantu but not necessarily in locations. They need only be approved by the Minister. In many instances houses are being provided for these people without employment being offered to them. We know that Bantu are being repatriated to-day from the platteland as well, with the powers that the Minister already has, to areas in the Ciskei. People are for instance repatriated from the Middelburg area in the Cape to Keiskammahoek. According to letters we receive from organizations and institutions we find that Africans transferred from Middelburg to the Ciskei are in dire need of old clothes. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member who is not a member of the Cabinet entitled to speak from the Treasury benches? The hon. member for Brakpan spoke from the bench of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I raise the matter on a point of order.

Order! A Deputy Minister is not a member of the Cabinet. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Bantu are being repatriated far too fast for our liking. We cannot cope with the natural increase in the Eastern Cape. As mentioned by the hon. the Minister this morning they are going to start another industry in the Transkei. I wonder how much employment that industry is going to provide. This is worrying me. I believe that if the Government is naïve enough to pass a Bill of this nature, despite all the powers they have at their disposal already, they are not only going to upset our economy but they are going to upset the Bantu people. I know and I understand the Bantu people better than most hon. members in this House. I know them well and I know their language. I speak the Xhosa language. I read it and I write it. I can tell you that they are brewing up with all this legislation. One of these days they will stomach no more, and will break out from their timid dispositions, and we will find ourselves no longer at peace. We will hold this Government responsible, for this irresponsible legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (North) is probably a person with Irish blood in him. I tried to make notes of everything the hon. member said. However, there were many contradictions. I just want to mention a few of these. For example, the hon. member said: “They have got such a rotten government that they can’t implement their policy and that is why our economy is flourishing.” That is one statement the hon. member made. On another point he said the following: “We have got peace.” And then he asked: “Why have we got peace?” To this he replied: “Because most of the people have got work, and if they have got work their stomachs are full and they are satisfied.” I think he was more friendly towards the Government than angry with them. He continued and said that he had read somewhere that the Minister had supposedly said that numbers did not count. This is, of course, not so. Then the hon. member went further and said that he wanted to complain about the superfluous Bantu being repatriated more rapidly than was expected, and that he did not like that. That was his complaint. Further on in his speech the hon. member asked the question: “What is the end of the road of the Nationalist Party’s policy?” In other words, what is the end of the road of apartheid? The hon. member has, after all, been in this Parliament for quite a few years. By this time he ought surely to understand what is going on in respect of the Bantustans. I shall simply take a short cut and then perhaps the hon. member will have a better understanding of the matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me for what I want to say. As far as I can see there are a lot of black states here in Africa and there is a white Republic of South Africa. At present there are 48 black Bantu states in Africa. Here amongst us there are seven Bantu ethnic groups which can eventually also become independent. If we live long enough, these seven can be added to the 48 and there will then be 55 of them, with one white State, i.e. South Africa. That is the end of the road. We are on the way there. That is where we are going.

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