Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill emerges with minor amendments from the previous stages, and before I deal with the effects of the Bill as it now is before us I want to deal with two of the arguments which were put forward by the hon. the Minister to justify two aspects of this particular Bill.

The first argument which the hon. the Minister offered was in an attempt to justify the retrospectivity of this particular Bill. In other words, that it should be retrospective of application. The hon. the Minister has submitted an argument which was of great interest, but one which I think is entirely without foundation. He suggested that this Bill must be of retrospective effect to give effect to the will of Parliament. He then indicated that what he meant by that was that we should give effect to what was intended by Parliament when it enacted the 1967 legislation. I think I am correct in saying that that was the argument which was put forward by the hon. the Minister. Surely the will of Parliament is what appears in the Acts as promulgated? Surely that is the will of Parliament. The will of Parliament is not what is reported in Hansard, and any other approach would make us quite ridiculous. The hon. the Minister’s argument presupposes that this Parliament sits, that it considers and adopts legislation which then becomes Acts of this Parliament, and that those Acts do not convey the will of Parliament. It would be a reflection on Parliament and on the efficiency of this institution as a legislative institution if there was any substance in what the hon. the Minister has said. It would be a serious reflection on Parliament. I am sure that the hon. the Minister would be the first one to agree that it is his argument which is the one which is without foundation.

The second argument that was offered by the hon. the Minister was also an interesting one. The hon. the Minister suggested that this rigid demarcation in the Bill, and between White and Coloured particularly, was necessary to protect those who were not wealthy because the wealthy could buy apartheid. The hon. the Minister nods his head. It is news to me that apartheid is merely the separation of residential areas. Is that all that apartheid is, because it is not all that the wealthy can buy? The only part of apartheid where wealth comes in is in respect of a person who can afford to buy property away from areas in which non-white persons are living. For the hon. the Minister to give a wider meaning and to suggest that a reason for this legislation is that otherwise it would mean that the wealthy could have apartheid and that the rest of the population would not be able to enjoy apartheid of the type which is offered by this Government, seems strange reasoning. I now want to deal with the Bill itself as it is before us. The provisions of this Bill are unacceptable for a variety of reasons which I will shortly deal with. First of all, the whole tenor and effect of this Bill when it comes into operation will be diametrically in conflict with the assurances which have been given in this House by previous Ministers of the Interior, and particularly by Senator De Klerk when he held the portfolio of Interior. Let me categorize some of those assurances. Senator De Klerk said that the legislation was intended not to hurt unnecessarily. Anybody reading the provisions of this Bill will see that it will cause hurt, and unnecessary hurt, in numbers of cases. The second point I want to refer to is Senator De Klerk’s assurances that the Government would take into account the humanitarian factor. The rigidity of the Bill before us is certainly not an indication of taking into consideration the humanitarian factor. Thirdly, a very important assurance was given by the then Minister of the Interior. He said that the benefit of the doubt would always be given to the objector. Any question of the benefit of the doubt is not only ruled out by this legislation, but the onus is now far more harshly applied to the objector to prove his objection. [Interjections.] I will come back to that point in a moment. Forthly, the then Minister of the Interior, Senator De Klerk, said that it was not necessary to investigate descent or ancestry, and that it was not necessary to ascertain whether there were a few drops of non-white blood in the antecedents of a person for classification. In spite of these assurances by a previous Minister, the hon. the Minister has told us that the overriding and final test is the test of heredity and ancestry. That test is now provided for in clause 1 (e) of the Bill.

What is wrong with that?

I think you are just a throw-back.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that I thought that he was just a throw-back. I withdraw the remark.

The hon. member for Green Point may continue.

The hon. member for Maitland asks what is wrong with the test of ancestry. I want to ask the hon. member to consider two aspects. The first one is that the legislation we are now asked to pass will apply to generation after generation in future if one person in the family at this stage is classified as Coloured. It will be perpetual. All the descendants of that person, no matter where they live or if they should leave the country and return, will be classified as Coloured in South Africa. No matter with what race he has married and no matter how many generations have passed and no matter his having been married to white persons in South Africa, his children will always be Coloured.

Another point I want to mention to the hon. member for Maitland is that he should consider what would happen if the test which we are now going to apply to future generations was put in reverse and if South African families were investigated backwards to the third or the fourth generation and the whole test of appearance and acceptance was eliminated. What would the result of this be among families who are accepted and who are now classified as White, if the same test was to be applied now to the present generation which we are going to inflict upon future generations?

Apart from the fact that this Bill does not conform to and carry out the assurances given by previous Ministers of the Interior, the second objection we have is that an objector is placed in an absolutely intolerable position in which there is no consideration as to giving him a reasonable opportunity of dealing with the question of his own classification. If I may, I want to take this opportunity to elaborate the position in which a South African finds himself to-day. Every South African who is not a Bantu is assumed under clause 1 to be a Coloured person. Every South African who is not a Bantu starts off with an assumption that he is a Coloured person.

Where do you get that from?

Clause 1 of the Bill. A person is assumed to be a Coloured person unless he can prove that he is White. The assumption is that everybody is Coloured until evidence is produced by such a person that he is accepted as a white person. That is where we start in the classification as to race of any person. If in a census form, or in a form filled in by somebody else applying for a registration certificate, the word “mixed” is used, it is deemed to mean “Coloured”. Not only does such a man start off on the basis that it is presumed that he is Coloured until he proves the contrary, but we now have the first additional burden which he must get over, namely the use of the word “mixed”, not even by himself but by somebody else in an application for an identity card.

To escape these assumptions the objector must prove beyond reasonable doubt and conclusively that he is not a Coloured person. That is the burden which is now being introduced, a burden which the Crown is expected to discharge before a criminal is convicted.

The Crown?

The State. That is the burden that the State has to discharge before a criminal is convicted. That is the burden which is now being placed upon an objector.

Then, Sir, we go to the fourth point and that is that hearsay evidence in any form and in any circumstances will not be admissible. Sir, that is denying to the objector a privilege, a right, which is enshrined in the laws of evidence in South Africa. He is denied the normal processes of the law in attempting to prove his case. The fifth point is that the entry of his name into the register is not made as the result of some action and after consideration by the Secretary or a senior official of the department, but his original classification can be binding on the person concerned as the result of a mere entry in the register by a most junior clerk in the Department of the Interior. That is where he starts, with a classification which is an entry in the register by a junior clerk, without the Secretary or a senior official having applied his mind in any form whatsoever to the initial classification. Then, Sir, when he has tried to overcome these burdens of proof, this intolerable position in which he finds himself and he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary, he would normally proceed with an appeal, but appeals are now being restricted. No longer does he have the normal and ready access to the courts of law that any criminal is allowed to have, but his rights of appeal are now vastly restricted under this legislation. That then is the position in which the objector finds himself.

Then I want to go to a third reason why we oppose this Bill and that is that the Government will enjoy advantages in the courts of law which are denied to the ordinary individual. The Government is taking unto itself advantages in litigation which are denied to the ordinary citizen. Sir, let me mention these advantages. I do not think the hon. the Minister will deny that the proceedings in classification cases must be likened to civil proceedings. First of all, the whole basis of our laws in regard to civil proceedings in this context is now being changed; the onus is now placed on the objector to prove his claim, not on the balance of probabilities which is the normal procedure, but he must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Sir, that is after we were assured in this House by a senior Minister of the Cabinet, speaking on behalf of the Cabinet, that the benefit of the doubt would always be given to an objector. Under this particular law that goes.

The second instance in which the Government takes advantages unto itself which are denied to the private individual is in respect of hearsay evidence. This Bill precludes the courts from considering hearsay evidence to support an objection but, Sir, what is the position of the State in this litigation? Does the State not use hearsay evidence? The Bill before us is full of assumptions and presumptions which arise from hearsay evidence. It arises from the fact that somebody has filled in a census form and from that census form a clerk has made a transcription into a register and the presumption of correct classification immediately arises. Sir, here the State is taking unto itself every advantage of hearsay evidence and denying it to an objector. The hon. the Minister, in the course of dealing with this matter, talked about the difficulty of finding evidence to contradict hearsay evidence that might be produced by objectors. He also used that argument to try to justify the change in the onus of proof.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he looks at the records of the Race Classification Board I think he will find that the board has not been receiving only a one-sided picture. The department has been able to produce and has produced in the majority of cases before the Classification Board that I know of, evidence which it has sought out through its own inspectors and it has produced that evidence. If this is a tedious job of which the hon. the Minister wants to relieve the department, let him say so. He must not tell us that it is impossible, because this law is of the Government’s making and the Government must accept the responsibility for administering the law in the normal and accepted manner.

The third instance in which the State is taking unto itself powers and rights and privileges which are denied to the ordinary individual is in respect of the discretion of the courts to condone a late appeal, except for the limited period of two months. That discretion is now being removed. Sir, I want to say again, in contra-distinction to what the hon. member for Prinshof said in the Committee Stage, that although a criminal convicted of any crime is required, according to the rules, to note an appeal within a certain time, failure to note the appeal can be condoned and is condoned by the Supreme Court over and over again on good cause shown. Sir, if that is to be allowed to the convicted criminal, why should that discretion be removed from the courts in the case of a person who is concerned with his classification, with all its consequences and who is able to show good cause why he should be given a longer period to lodge his appeal? That is all we ask. The State puts itself in a privileged position in comparison with the ordinary individual in regard to appeals.

The fourth point which I want to mention is this unheard of provision in the legislation before us that where a citizen of South Africa noted an appeal in terms of the laws applicable at the time of the noting of the appeal, that notice of appeal is now to be wiped out without giving the person concerned a hearing. Sir, that is an unheard of thing. It is unheard of to interrupt the normal process of a case and to say that that case shall not now continue. By all means, if the law must be amended and it is the will of Parliament that it should be amended from a certain date, then let it be amended. But, Sir, to take away the rights of persons who have lodged objections and who have lodged appeals prior to the amendment of the legislation, would be to perpetrate an injustice which I do not think Parliament should lightly do. Sir, these departures from the assurances of previous Ministers, these intolerable burdens of proof which are being placed upon the individual objector and this limitation of appeals must be viewed against the compulsory application of one parent’s pedigree in classifications. I have said already that this will apply to succeeding generations. If both parents are White the descendants shall be White. Let us pause for one moment to consider the effect of this upon a child in a future generation, born of parents who are now classified as White and who is genetically a throw-back, a child who is neither White in appearance nor accepted as a White. Because of a clause in this particular Bill, that child must now for all time be White, and that child’s progeny for all time must be White.

Sir, take the reverse position. If one parent is classified as Coloured, then the succeeding generations of that parent must be Coloured, no matter to what extent that family, through the years, has become completely white in appearance and has been accepted as white. That family shall then be Coloured for all time. Imagine what the position is going to be, Sir. Persons whom society is willing to accept as White in appearance are Coloured, and persons whom society does not regard as white people and who in fact conduct themselves as Coloured persons are White under this Act. I wonder what the lot will be of a commissionaire at the entrance to a theatre which is reserved for white people and he admits those who in appearance are Coloured because they have white cards and he refuses admittance to those who in appearance are White because they have Coloured cards? If he does not ask for their cards he might be convicted of contravening the law without even knowing it, and this is going to happen if one tries to introduce rigidity of this sort.

Sir, we regard this Bill and its provisions as illogical and as harsh. Imagine what the effect of it will be on good, accepted white South African families if this law were to be applied retrospectively to antecedents of the present generation with the harshness and viciousness and rigidity with which it can and will be applied to succeeding generations. Sir, there is one test in which we on this side of the House believe in the demarcation between the race groups in South Africa and that is the opinion of society, the judgment of society, the test of appearance and acceptance.

And the quality of mercy.

That is the test in which we believe on this side of the House, and for the judgment of society one does not require laws such as this Bill which is before us to-day.

Prolong the agony!

The Minister says, “prolong the agony”. I wonder if he realizes what agony he is going to heap upon the lives of future generations by this particular legislation. Sir, all that we can do to express our views of this measure at this stage is to move the amendment which I now move—

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the last few hours of this Session. With your leave I just want to bid the hon. members on that side of the house good-bye. They are leaving with one member less than when they came; we are leaving stronger than when we came. They have lost a little blood and they are a little more bedraggled. They have a few months left to pick up steam for next year. The hon. member for Orange Grove can go and dream about his television. Perhaps he can use matchboxes to build himself television sets. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) can go and look for his typhoid germs. Perhaps this time he will find them in little puddles of water in Natal. He must just take care that he does not contract the disease himself. The hon. member for Genadendal, I mean the hon. member for Wynberg, can go and dredge up her stories. She is still angry with me about the telegrams I mentioned, but she will probably send more telegrams. My learned friends from Natal, the hon. members for Musgrave and Durban (North), can look for loopholes in the legislation.

Sir, I have great appreciation for the hon. member for Green Point, but I want to ask him to-day: Do you not feel ashamed when you make a speech such as the one you made this morning in the House? Against his conviction he envisaged the consequences this Bill could have. He knows in his heart of hearts that the position is not as he put it here. He spoke about rigidity and complained about the fact that descent is now eventually becoming the criterion when we undertake population registration, as if this was something new which the hon. the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister wants to force upon South Africa. Surely that is not so. In 1950 when Dr. Dönges made the Second Reading speech on this Act, he referred specifically to this. On 8th March, 1950, he said (Hansard, column 2521, volume 71)—

I want to emphasize the words “sympathetic administration”. We know that this is in fact the case. After all, the hon. member for Green Point knows that the extreme cases and the throw-back cases, which he used as examples, can be dealt with administratively. Why does he proclaim across the floor of this House that no such possibility exist? But I want to proceed with Dr. Dönges’ speech—

This is as the Opposition still wants it now. Dr. Dönges went on as follows—

This Dr. Dönges said as long ago as 1950—-

Mr. Speaker, one of the monuments of Nationalist Party rule during its 21 year period of government is the way in which it has succeeded in creating order out of the confusion and chaos left behind by a United Party régime. Order has been created in respect of the identities of the members of the various race groups. This was an implementation of an election promise, which was inter alia aimed at ensuring white survival in South Africa. That was why the Population Registration Act was needed. This Act provides inter alia that every person in South Africa shall be assigned, in a logical way, to the particular South African racial group to which he in fact belongs.

That is precisely what it is not doing.

Sir, I do not know for what reason the hon. member for Wynberg is saying that the Population Registration Act does not assign a person to the race group to which he belongs. I do not know whether she thinks that she has been assigned to the wrong race group. These amending measures are necessary in order to polish up the legislation which was introduced in 1950, and to make it watertight. That is in fact why we are here, i.e. to make laws and to give shape to what is an integral part of our outlook on life, and to give shape to our policy for South Africa. In 1950, when we commenced with this Act, all the problems and all the loopholes were not yet foreseeable. Gradually, however, they appeared. They have been ferreted out and dug up, inter alia, as a result of incitement by members on that side of the House. But I believe that we have reached the end of major and comprehensive amendments to the principal Act. The Nationalist Party has in this connection just about fulfilled an election promise. With the completion of this Act another of the United Party’s opportunities for dragging colour matters into South African politics, and of exploiting colour matters and using them as a means of denigration against South Africa’s National White Government in the outside world, is disappearing. That is one of the reasons why they, and particularly the hon. member for Wynberg, is kicking up such a fuss. It is because they no longer have so many opportunities as in the past to drag colour into politics, for the United Party and their spiritual forebears has, since Noah’s Ark, made use of colour in South Africa to try to plough National Afrikanerdom, in particular, under.

How verkramp can you get.

Just as verkramp as my party is … If the hon. member by verkramp means preserving-conservative, then I am as verkramp as my party is preserving-conservative, to preserve these things for South Africa which are our heritage.

From the time of Reed and Van der Kemp till to-day they have been exploiting colour matters and colour consciousness in South Africa for political gain. It is a fact the Whites in South Africa do not want to integrate. If we were all homogeneous in this respect, then it might perhaps have been that an Act was not necessary, but there are elements in this country which are definitely attempting to break down the White’s refusal to integrate. Strangers enter this country, in what guise does not really matter. Some of them come in academic togas and others in priestly vestments. They preach integration. They even set examples in practice. We find this particularly at the Nusas universities. There, this is being pumped into the young students for no other reason than to demolish white standards and the outlook on the world and life of the South African youth. We refuse to allow this, and that is why we make laws if it becomes necessary to confirm our views in legislation as well. We on this side of the House believe that the various racial groups in South Africa, each one clearly identified, can live together in peace and harmony, and can enjoy what this wonderful country of ours offers: You in your small corner and me in mine. We do not believe in a conglomeration, with first, second and third class citizens. We believe in first-class Whites, first-class Coloureds and first-class Malays, Indians and Bantu. That is what we believe in. This Act is one of the means with which we are implementing that idea. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here at the moment, but he can go and practice tearing Acts out of the Statute Book. It will not go further than practice as far as he is concerned, because the people will continue to reject them when they bring forward such plans in future. These tattered remains of a once powerful party will also disappear. The white people, the black people the brown people and the people of oriental descent, who are not already doing so, will one day thank the Government for the opportunity it made available to each individual to develop in its own group into a first-class man or woman.

Mr. Speaker, I have seldom had the privilege of listening to a more pompous and arrogant contribution to a debate of this kind, than that which has been made by the hon. member for Waterkloof. He accused us on this side of the House of exacerbating this whole situation. I would like to ask that hon. member, who was responsible for bringing colour into every single aspect of our legislation and our affairs by legislation, if it is not this Nationalist Government? The hon. member had the temerity to say that we shall lose many members after our performance in this debate. Let me just tell him that we are not always and only concerned with gaining something for ourselves. We are perfectly entitled and we shall continue to do it. votes or no votes, to put up a case in this House for less privileged people. The hon. member said that we would lose many members after our performance in this debate. His party has gained one member during this Session and I would like to remind the hon. House that that member himself in 1967, in regard to the Population Registration Amendment Bill of 1967, moved, on behalf of this side of the House, that that Bill should be read this day six months. When it comes to losing members perhaps the hon. member for Waterkloof is a little uncertain about retaining the nomination in his own constituency with the “verkramptes” baying at his heels.

Mr. Speaker, I only want a few moments to make a few final comments in regard to this Bill. I think that the debate has to a large extent been marred by a good deal of mud-slinging and personal invective. It is a debate in which I personally have consistently been described either as a troublemaker or as a slob. Everybody will know what the American word “slob” means. This type of accusation reflects no credit whatsoever either on the Government or on any member of this House. I can only say that when invective is used to deal with other members in this House, it usually means that the person who uses that invective has no other means of defence. This Bill is an example of where a rigid adherence to ideologies in fact takes us. It takes us away from dealing with essentially human problems in a flexible and a compassionate human fashion. It is, of course, an attempt to fit everything and everyone into the ideological straitjacket of so-called racial purity, whereas any scientist of any repute will tell you that no such thing in fact exists. From this determination to fit everybody into this ideological straitjacket, the cruelties which we have been talking about in regard to this Bill in effect arise. I must say that the hon. the Minister’s answer to these charges, and certainly during the Second Reading debate, was anything but edifying. He had a difficult job and struggled to justify the Bill and I do not think that he succeeded.

In reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said angrily to me: Who are you to say that the wording of this legislation is a clumsy affair? He is entirely wrong. It is not I, as a backbencher in this Parliament, who has said that the legislation is a clumsy affair. It is our Judges, the highest judicial officers in this country, whose business it has been to interpret this involved and punitive legislation which affects every aspect of the lives of all South Africans. They have tried to interpret it with precision, care and justice. I would say that their reputation is a very good one and that that of the Government certainly is not. My initial observation that the whole matter was a clumsy affair proves not to be so very far wrong in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech spent a great deal of time emphasizing the fact that the whole object of this Bill was to clarify the alterations made to the Act in 1967. That was what the hon. the Minister said. So far each new clarification, each new seeking after certainty and the closing of loop-holes in this legislation has led to yet another attempt to do precisely the same thing every two or three years. So that we have a reclarification process, so-called, with unfailing regularity every two or three years. I prophesy that that is what will happen here once more. There can never be certainty in human matters of this kind. The only course open to the Government in this vain pursuit of foolproof criteria, of something which is rigid and certain, is the introduction and application of ever harsher provisions, more and more arbitrary action and an unnerving process of official and police interference with the private and personal lives of South African citizens. I think it is important that at the end of this debate the country should be aware of the increasing intrusion of the arm of the law into people’s private lives, even in regard to matters like these. That is an ugly and sinister portent and we dislike it very much indeed. In the course of this Session it has become perfectly clear, in so far as classification is concerned, that the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Police has been issued with instructions somewhere along the line to act in regard to many aspects of this process of race classification— to sift out people. Whether it is linked with group areas or not, the fact remains that it has been done. [Interjection.] Clause 5 makes that clear. The hon. member was not even in the House when we discussed it yesterday. We have had evidence this Session that 1,388 people were cross-examined by the Special Branch in Cape Town about their classifications. Furthermore, I know a large number of people whose cards have been seized by the Security Branch. All this is evidence of the fact that at some stage along the line the Police are being used to assist to find out about people’s backgrounds and activities in so far as the Population Register is concerned. The five other main aspects of race classification, highlighted in this Bill have all become, as the hon. member for Green Point said, more complicated and rigid, inhuman and unjust.

The process of administrative classification may appear on the surface to have been simplified by this measure. But that is to happen at the expense of the individual and of his basic rights. In fact, any clerk may now classify; he does not even have to apply his mind to the matter, because the contents of a census form or an application form, whether completed by the person himself or not, are now valid for all time. Access to the Appeal Board and to the courts is being heavily restricted, so much so that people’s ordinary basic democratic rights are being seriously curtailed in a matter concerning their entire lives. The onus of proof now lies, not with the State, where it should, but with the individual. Thereby a fundamental principle in our law is reversed and places the victim of personal circumstances, over which he has no control, within the category of potential criminals. I know these matters are not to be dealt with in terms of criminal law, but the phrase “beyond all reasonable doubt” is a legal phrase which involves criminal procedure. The definition of a “white person” has now become such a farce that no matter how white a person looks, no matter with whom he associates, no matter where he works and lives, no matter how many of his relatives belong to the white race, no matter whether the Coloured community is totally strange to him, any suggestion of a hint of Coloured or mixed blood—it may be Portuguese, Mediterranean or anything else— will make of him, his children and his children’s children, Coloured people for all time. Hon. members should not display hypocrisy by coming here …

Order!

Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Yes, very much so.

Then I apologize, Sir. Hon. members should not display the audacity of coming to this House and denying that their own actions and their own legislation have not deliberately seen to it that the status, the opportunities and privileges of the Coloured people in this country are decidedly lower than those of the Whites. That that is the intention of this Government cannot be denied. Just how untrue were the hon. the Minister’s unpleasant charges against me on Wednesday when he said that I had advertisements placed in the newspapers asking for hardluck cases to come to me? He said I was thereby obtaining the publicity which I sought. He proceeded to accuse me of raising false hopes with these people and causing a lot of trouble as a result. The Minister’s statement about advertising for purposes of self-publicity and aggrandizement, is thoroughly contemptible. [Interjection.] I have it here; I am going to read it to the hon. the Minister. Let us be truthful in this House. I have it here; there can be no question of it being an advertisement. I see the hon. the Minister has it too, but I am going to read it to him in anticipation of his reading it to me. This is the heading: “Race Bill moves by Mrs. Taylor,” in the Cape Argus of 7‘th May: “There were still 140 third party objections to race classification waiting to be heard at the end of March, the Minister said in the Assembly yesterday.” Please note, Sir, that there is no question here of hard-luck cases. The news item continued: “Mrs. Taylor, United Party member of Parliament for Wynberg, is anxious to have details from attorneys handling these objections as she wishes to make a strong plea in Parliament to preserve the rights of the objectors to be heard. Mrs. Taylor will press for an amendment to the Bill to leave the door open for the hearing of those objections which have already been lodged and would like to have as strong a case as possible.” Therefore, Sir, there was no appeal for hard-luck cases; there was no fishing about for people to come along and be given false hopes. The Minister therefore had no right to make that statement about me in this debate the other day. I sent 38 cases to the chairman of the board as a result of this newspaper appeal, as the Minister himself advised me to do. Upon sending these 38 cases to the chairman of the board I received a very courteous letter in reply in which he gave me the dates on which these cases were set down for hearing. All I have done in this debate, as well as in previous debates, is to plead in fairness to these people that those whose claims were valid, and accepted as such by the department, poor people who find themselves financially involved, should have the right to be heard. That is all this newspaper appeal was designed to do. What justice or fairness is there in refusing them that right of appeal? I do not care two hoots how much I am abused inside and outside this House. Why should we sit here and be a party to what is nothing more nor less than rank injustice?

The Minister in his reply yesterday kept on stressing the fact that his intention with this Bill was to obtain clarity and to find a foolproof criterion in judging these cases that would remove all doubt of any kind. This we have heard over and over again in this debate. But in reply to an interjection he said that if members of the public lodged objections to anyone’s classification the latter would have to be investigated. So, what certainty is there to be, Mr. Speaker? What clarity is there to be? The fact is there will be little of either as long as these mean little racial prejudices of white South Africans are given not only the backing, but also the active encouragement and assistance of this Government. There is no need to have raised this thing to the status to which it has been raised in South Africa to-day.

[Inaudible.]

I do not live in Stilfontein. I do not have to talk like that hon. member. The impression the Minister has given in this debate on the whole subject of race classification, is that this Government, for all the protests, is devoid of ordinary human compassion and has proved its arrogance beyond words, as the hon. member for Green Point has said, in the assumptions that have been made in this Bill and in its determination to force everybody into this extraordinary straitjacket, which it is in the long run going to be practically impossible to do.

Now, in conclusion let me say this. Perhaps the most cynical aspect of this whole matter is the fact that, when it suits this Government, in the matter of race classification, it disregards its own laws. It is very interesting to note that in spite of abolishing the right of all third party objections to be heard, there remains no restriction upon the type of third party smear campaign that can be initiated by members of the general public by means of anonymous letters, to which he referred in this House this session, or by lodging complaints with the Secretary against the classification of others. A perfect case in point was that of the Dickson family of Knysna which we dealt with in 1967. In this connection I asked the hon. the Minister in 1967 whether representations had been received by the department from members of the public in regard to the Dickson family, what the nature of those representations was, whether an investigation by the Classification Board was ordered and if so, what the reasons were, and so forth. I also asked the hon. the Minister under what statutory authority the investigations by the board, and ordered by the department, were undertaken. He then quoted section 5 (4) (b) of this Act, which remains. I further asked him whether this action taken by the Secretary, on behalf of those members of the public who went to the department to make these complaints, was in accordance with Government policy and whether he would make a statement about this type of thing. This is what the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said in reply to me—

This means that the openings for witch hunts and poison pen letters continue precisely as before. It will be noted that the members of the public in the Knysna case were not even required to pay a R20 deposit in proof of their bona fides in lodging a third party objection. According to the hon. the Minister’s announcement of policy in 1967 in reply to this question, anyone, in effect, can start up a witch hunt against anyone else in terms of section 5 (4) (b) of the Act and those against whom such statements are made will now have the very minimum rights of appeal and not even the right to produce hearsay evidence in their own defence if the case should be referred to a board. In the Dickson case at Knysna in 1967 both parents had white identity cards. This was all laid down in the Act. This Parliament had just passed legislation providing that the children of such parents must be classified as White. I am not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this House. But can you call that by any other name?

Order!

I am sorry, Sir. I withdraw the word “hypocrisy”. In spite of this, Sir, these two children were subjected to the very greatest cruelty and the Secretary of the Interior acting for the Department permitted the local population to treat them with the greatest hostility and malice. They were finally removed from that school. The local population forced their removal, the Government’s own legislation governing appearance and the possession of white identity cards notwithstanding.

Here, in the Cape, in 1969, we had the De Bruin case. The hon. the Minister must know about this. For 10 years this humble family fought to have their eldest daughter accepted as White. Both parents had white cards. There were official documents in the family’s possession to prove that they were all White. Yet when the child was 11 years old she had never been to school, which again goes counter to the provisions of a provincial ordinance. To my knowledge to this day the Government has not enforced its 1967 legislation in this case either. Why? Because public opinion condemned this little family to a life of isolation and anxiety. How much has the law managed to solve? It has made things infinitely worse. I predict that this will continue.

In February 1969 the Transvaal Education Department offered to send a 13 year old school boy, Flippie Haasbroek, to a white private boarding school at the department’s expense rather than enforce that section of the 1967 Act which declares the children of parents with white identity cards white as well and entitled to attend a white school. Here again nothing short of public prejudice, and not the law as it stands, was the governing factor.

You are distorting the matter beyond recognition.

Public prejudice was the governing factor and not this famous law.

On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. member for Waterkloof entitled to say that the hon. member is distorting the matter beyond all recognition?

Did the hon. member say that?

I used the word “distort”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

The last item I want to cite in this connection is the Sandra Laing case. The parents, brothers and sisters of the Laing family were White. The child was declared Coloured and 17 months later she was reclassified as White. In the meantime the life of her parents and brothers and sisters was made impossible. They were faced with every sort of hostility. The point here is that no matter what kind of legislation we may pass, the Government continues to be swayed initially by public prejudice, which is vented upon families of this kind, with a total disregard of the Government’s own legislation. By introducing legislation of this kind, in the first place, public prejudice has been encouraged and fostered with tragic consequences, not for lots of people, but for enough people to make the thing a crying disgrace.

My final word in regard to this Bill is this. I would like the hon. the Minister to listen to my last three points. If we are obliged to legislate at all, then the Minister should have amended this legislation in such a way that only senior experienced officials be entrusted with race classification, and not any member of the public service, and they should be made to apply their minds to the matter. That is the first point. The second is that, in fairness to the general public, all classifications based purely upon census returns or birth and marriage certificates, should be subject to appeal. My third point is that the right of appeal from decisions of race classification appeal boards to the courts should be preserved without any restrictions whatsoever, failing that type of assurance, which we in fact in this debate have failed to obtain, we reject the whole of this Bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at this moment going to reply to the hon. member for Wynberg. I shall do so during the course of my speech. I just want to point out that the hon. member stated that the hon. the Minister had allegedly said that she made an “appeal”. It was no “appeal”. I then thought that in all fairness we should say to the hon. member that we thought it was merely an “invitation”. Shortly afterwards the hon. member herself referred to her “appeal” again. I really do not know how we will succeed in making this matter less harsh for her. This debate has lasted for days now. This debate has to a very large extent concerned a specific group of people in our human pattern in South Africa. It dealt to a very large extent with the position of the non-Whites, and the question of colour. It struck me that although we have three Coloured representatives in this House, who have at all times represented the interests of the Coloureds very well, they did not participate in this debate. I cannot help concluding that the interests of the Coloureds are not being affected. What did we have in this House? The progressive part of the United Party kicked up a lot of dust which made one cry out to heaven. These people would have been much better off sitting in the benches behind the hon. member for Houghton. That is where they belong. They make no secret of the fact that they think progressive. But these people who wander around in the rural areas and sometimes announce that they are hopelessly to the right of the National Party when it suits them, came here and gave a performance of liberalism and progressiveness such as I have never before experienced in this House. I challenge them now to deny it. But I want to proceed. I think we have come across a strange phenomenon in this House, i.e. that a simple amendment to an Act which was passed in 1950, an amendment simply intended to make that Act more effective, should have elicited such a discussion in this House. That is why I think it is necessary at this stage that we should determine, firstly, why this Act was necessary; secondly what the effect of this Act will be, and thirdly, why unanimity has not yet been reached in this House on this legislation. I think it is essential that we spend a little time on the further analysis of these matters. In the first place I want to say that this legislation was absolutely necessary, notwithstanding the fact that those hon. members repeatedly told us that it was not necessary. This Bill became necessary so that we could implement the original Act more effectively. We are continually making laws in this Parliament. If we find that that law is not effective, we improve it and we make it more effective by means of an amendment Bill. The basis of this amendment Bill is to make an Act which already exists more effective; in the second place its purpose is not only to make an Act more effective, but also to carry out directive from the people. After all, we still remember the conditions which prevailed in 1948. We still remember what things looked like then. Then the people of this country gave a new Government a mandate at the polls. They asked the Government to give them separation of the various race groups in this country. At every election since they have repeated the mandate in growing numbers. That is why one must use a magnifying glass to-day if you want to see whether an Opposition is still sitting on that side of the House. They will disappear. This will actually be a very unfortunate state of affairs for South Africa as a democratic country. But it can only be attributed to the fact that they do not want to listen to the instructions of the people.

Why are you so concerned?

I am not concerned about this specific Opposition. I think any person ought to feel concerned if it appears that there will subsequently be no Opposition left in the country. But we are not concerned about that Opposition. We just feel that that Opposition has behaved itself in such a way that it is not worthy of the name of a dignified Opposition. It does not fulfil the functions of an Opposition. They cannot carry out, to best effect, the instructions repeatedly given by this people. I now want to ask that Opposition a question. Unfortunately I can ask it of no one else except the hon. member for Newton Park, or perhaps the hon. member sitting in front here, for it was after all obvious who was conducting this debate and who was continuously present in this House.

I also participated in the debate.

Yes, I know that hon. member spoke, but he spoke in a very cautious manner. I want to ask him whether the hon. members on that side of the House still adhere to their standpoint of 1948?

But does the National Party still adhere to its standpoint?

We still adhere to our standpoint. The entire National Party still adheres to its standpoint; the National Party caucus adheres to its standpoint. This legislation gives fresh implementation to the standpoint of the National Party. The hon. member knows that that is true. He knows he is echoing the nonsensical stories of the Sunday Times.

What do Brown and Veg say about you?

I am talking about the National Party. I am not talking about Brown and Veg. Those people are the spokesmen of the suspicion-mongers, just as that hon. member is now trying to cast suspicion on the policy of this party. After all, they know what the conditions in 1948 were like when they stated that they found apartheid on the Railways reprehensible; when they stated that they found separate residential areas reprehensible. They stated that they found everything which pointed to apartheid reprehensible. The hon. member for Newton Park must kindly inform me whether they still adhere to that standpoint or whether, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so frequently states say that it was long ago and that we must not rake open old wounds. But when we are dealing with a situation such as this, it is necessary for us to repeat that question.

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

Yes, the hon. member can ask me as many questions as he likes. He must please reply to my questions as well.

May I ask the hon. member whether it is true that in his constituency there were people who, having never been accepted as Whites, have been declared to be Whites by this Government?

I shall come to that question in a moment. [Interjections.] No, wait. I shall come to that in the course of my speech. Do not try to hurry me on. I shall furnish the hon. member with a complete reply to that question.

Now.

I shall furnish him with a complete reply to it. Please do not hurry me on. After all, I have promised him that I will furnish him with a reply, and I have never broken my word. I shall come in a moment to that question, and I promise I shall reply to it. I first want to know whether his party still adheres to its standpoint that they want no apartheid; no separate residential areas, no apartheid on trains. I promise him on my honour that I shall reply to his questions. He must just tell me yes or no.

Our policy is one of social and residential separation.

No, when it suits them they say in the rural areas, “We are the champions of apartheid”. That is after all their policy. But when they reach the urban areas, even that hon. member whom I know feels as I do about this matter, thinks as I do and sees this matter as I do, has to make excuses. I want to continue with this subject.

What about that question?

I am still coming to that question. Please give me a chance. I do not make a promise and then break it. I am dealing with a certain subject and when I have dealt with it, I shall come to that question. If we want to implement this mandate of the people, if we want to carry out this clear instruction which has been repeated at every election by growing numbers of people, it is after all absolutely essential that we be able to identify people. How can we retain the various races if we do not know who belongs to those races? Of course this is necessary. That is why we have introduced this legislation; that is why we have from time to time improved it. Those hon. members know that they reject it. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is also present in the House now. I should like to put the question I put to the hon. member for Newton Park to him as well. That hon. Opposition knows that the people have, in increasing numbers, from year to year, repeatedly accepted everything which has a bearing on that directive, i.e. that the white nation should survive as a pure white nation, and that the various race groups in South Africa should develop on the basis of separate development. This legislation simply carries into effect that very positive and clear directive. What other purpose could it have? I challenge hon. members on that side to tell me what else could be envisaged through it. No, that is our purpose with this legislation.

I now come to the effect of that legislation. Since I am dealing with the effect of this legislation, I will furnish the hon. member for Newton Park with a very clear reply. In the first instance, the purpose of this legislation is to conserve the purity of the racial groups. This applies to the Whites, this applies to the Coloureds, this applies to the Asiatics, this applies to everybody. The purpose of this legislation is to conserve the purity of the racial groups. But we have during this debate heard a very great deal concerning hardships. The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about a “clumsy affair”. She also spoke about “human problems”.

The hon. the Minister talked about it.

Yes, very well. She spoke about problems of this kind. Very well, I should like to dwell for a few moments on these “hardships”. I will at the same time reply to the question put by the hon. member for Newton Park. This party is not responsible for families being broken up. This party is not responsible for people who were known as non-Whites now being classified as Whites. I am well aware of this.

But you did this.

Wait a moment, let me now inform the hon. member as to what happened. I want to tell him a little anecdote, and then at the same time I want to refresh the hon. member for Wynberg’s memory. I want to ask the hon. member whether she recalls a certain appointment she made with me. She wanted to discuss the cases of people who had been classified as white with me, and she called in my assistance. I am now going to tell hon. members that little anecdote, but I do not want to mention the names because I do not want to hurt anybody. That person applied to be classified as white, together with his wife. Those people are very decent people. The wife’s brother is principal of a high school. But it so happens that I know that wife’s brother very well. He is principal of a Coloured high school, and is a well-known Coloured leader. It is that person who said to the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs in my presence and in the presence of the Deputy Secretary …

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question.

Does the hon. member want to reply to a question?

I have very little time at my disposal, but I should like to hear what the hon. member wants to ask me. The hon. member can put her question.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he will confirm that I came to ask him for his advice, because I did not know the family, and he did, because they were people from his area. That is precisely why I consulted him in the first place.

The hon. member told me that she had a problem and that she felt sorry for these people and she also said she did not know why these people could not be classified as Whites. I then adopted the attitude that I was sorry, but I could not help her. I told the hon. member that I could not do a thing like that. This man to whom she referred, and who was a decent soul, is the principal of a Coloured school and he is a Coloured leader. This is what he said to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs: “Sir, I am a Coloured and I am very proud of that fact. I want to be nothing else but a Coloured.” This he stated one day in a very good speech. He went further to say: “Sir, all we are now asking of you is not to declare Coloureds to be white, because that is not what we want at all. We are asking you to prevent the Bantu from inundating us.” We took these matters into account in this legislation and we are trying to the best of our ability to protect the Coloureds as well. That hon. member knows this. Then I heard of the case for the first time and I began to take steps immediately. Those persons were not re-classified. Other people were in fact re-classified, but I challenge the hon. member to say with whose help this was accomplished. It was accomplished with the assistance of the persons who did not make an “appeal” that they should come to her, but did in fact issue an “invitation” that they should come to her.

That is distortion of the facts.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member say that this hon. member is effecting a “distortion”?

The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. It is not a distortion, but a misrepresentation of the facts.

My time is passing rapidly, and I promised the hon. Whip to finish up in 20 minutes.

What about the hon. member for Newton Park’s question?

The hon. member did those things and she knows it. I also want to say that this legislation breaks down the stigma which, according to certain people attached to certain population groups. [Interjections.] To my mind no stigma attaches to being an Afrikaner. I was, for example, never ashamed of being an Afrikaner. I never changed my surname from “Maree” to “Murray”. I was not like the people who changed “Webers” to “Webbers”. One is proud of what one is and one wants to remain what one is. That leader told the hon. the Minister that he was a Coloured and that he was proud of it. When it was still the fashion to be English, those hon. members thought it was a disgrace to be an Afrikaner. To-day they think it is a disgrace to be a non-White.

They have many advantages!

No, it is not a disgrace. The Coloureds are proud of it. That Coloured, whom the hon. member for Wynberg used as an example, told me that they were proud of being Coloureds and that they wanted to be nothing else but Coloureds. No stigma ought to attach to this, and I am now saying to those hon. members that that stigma is being removed now once and for all.

What about all the others I mentioned?

They are part of that group which the hon. member for Wynberg is dealing with. The persons I have learned about opposed this. That hon. member is fishing in troubled waters, and will find nothing. It is not true that people have, with the help of Nationalists, been classified as Whites. That is not true. Now there is just one statement I still want to make. Why is there as yet no unanimity in this House? It is because we have various concepts. It is because we on this side of the House hold the view that we have a common but multi-national fatherland. We adopt the standpoint that we have different groups in one fatherland, and that is why we are living harmoniously together in the same fatherland as the other nations. But those hon. members on the opposite side of the House believe that we are one multi-racial people. I challenge them to say that I am wrong! These two concepts differ as widely from each other as north and south. We believe that we have different nations in our common country, South Africa. Those nations must develop alongside one another, and not on an intermingled basis. We do not develop on an intermingled basis, because friction will then arise. Then we will return to the situation in 1948, when our white girls were working in Indian shops in large numbers. That is when this process of integration reached a high-water mark. We maintain that we have a multinational fatherland, but those hon. members maintain that we are a multi-racial people. They speak, as the Americans do, of “all Americans”. In America it makes no difference whether a person is a Negro or a White, or whatever his race may be, for he is an American. Those hon. members say it makes no difference to what racial group a person belongs, because he forms part of our people; ours is a multi-racial people. With this I conclude, upon the request of the hon. Whip. I should like to have proceeded, but we on this side of the House would like to afford those hon. members an opportunity of replying, and if there is any time left, one of our own hon. members as well.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member who has just sat down does not want me to reply to him. He was busy with the Official Opposition and there I shall bypass his speech. He knows that I do think that South Africa is a multi-racial country. He is well aware of my views. I just want to say one thing to the hon. member: His objective which he sees in this Bill, namely to keep the white people pure and to preserve the national identity, cannot be achieved by laws. A national identity is preserved by the people themselves. The hon. member has just said that he is a proud Afrikaner. Now, did he need a law to keep him a proud Afrikaner?

No.

Of course not. Equally, those people who are proud Coloureds do not need a law to make them proud Coloureds, or proud Africans, as the case may be.

Most certainly not, but you do not have to run them down.

No, it is not a case of running them down. It is a case of the disability you suffer in this country if you do not happen to be a white person. It is a case of the legal disabilities which are entrenched by law. The hon. the Minister at one stage said that if in America you have a few drops of Coloured blood in your veins, you are a Coloured. That is true. If you have a few drops of Negro blood, you are a Coloured man in America. There are certain disabilities which follow from that. That is also true. The disabilities are that these people are largely the poorer section, that they do not have decent jobs and that they have bad housing. None of this, however, is entrenched by law. They are going to go through many years of transitional difficulties in America. No single American will deny that but progress is certainly being made. The American Negro today knows that there is hope for his children. However bad his own position may be, he knows that there is hope that his children will be properly integrated and will enjoy equal opportunities with other American citizens.

There are no legal entrenchments of the disabilities suffered by Negroes or Coloured people in America because people whether they are very black or Coloured, as we know them here, are know as Coloured people in America. But in South Africa this is not the case, and the laws are not to preserve national identity; the laws are not to preserve the purity of the white race as such, because by and large the purity of the white race is preserved. After all, this law does not affect the vast majority of people in this country. The purity of the white race is preserved because white people wish to preserve it. The vast majority of white people do not integrate sexually or by marriage with non-white people. The first objective in the Bill mentioned by the hon. member therefore is just not necessary. [Interjections.] Sir, there is a small percentage of people in this country who are border-line cases, who do not distinctly belong, without escape, to one group or the other group.

Will you deny that that number was growing in 1948?

I would not know because I do not think we have the figures. I only know that before the Mixed Marriages Act was passed in this country there were 70 mixed marriages in the whole of South Africa. That is all I can tell the hon. member, and I can tell him that since the Immorality Act has been tightened the numbers of people charged have been increasing, strangely enough. The numbers of immorality cases are increasing. This I happen to know. Whether this is due to the fact that the hon. the Minister in his other guise as Minister of Police has become more efficient, I do not know. It may well be that the Police are more efficient in tracking down these cases, in trapping people, in climbing ladders and peeping through windows. All these things may now be more efficiently administered, but the point is that we have tightened our Immorality Act, and the number of immorality cases is increasing and not decreasing in South Africa. Sir, these things are matters of individual choice and there is little that the law can do about it. These are the things that should be left to the strictures of society; that is the best inhibition to racial mixing in a country like this. What is more, Sir, society has the best yardstick to decide where people should fit in a multi-racial society. The hon. member ought to know that because this is human nature and nothing that he decrees in Parliament is going to make the slightest difference to that.

Because it is human nature to murder, must we not have a law against it?

It is not human nature to murder. Sir, I do not know what sort of people the hon. member consorts with. The people I consort with are not people who are straining at the leash to murder people and who would do so if there were not a law against murder. Sir, this is ludicrous. It is not human nature to commit criminal acts. The vast majority of people are law-abiding. Does the hon. member not know that? Otherwise no country could be run with any semblance of order. The vast majority of people do not want to go round breaking natural laws of society, and murder happens to be one of the things that society does not in fact indulge in, law or no law.

You must have laws.

Sir, I wish that hon. member would be quiet. I listened to him in peace and quiet. May I have a little “rus en vrede” for five minutes? I want to say this to the hon. the Minister who professed to be shocked at the statement made by, I think, the hon. member for South Coast, that the Coloured people would not be here if it were not for the Whites. I am not sure whether it was the hon. the Minister or some other hon. member on that side.

It was the Minister.

The hon. member confirms that it was the Minister. The two giants clashed over this issue. The hon. member for South Coast said that the Coloureds would not be here but for the Whites and the hon. the Minister was shocked at that statement.

I said that that was a half-truth.

I thought I detected a note of shock in the hon. the Minister’s voice. What he did say was that the white people had committed many sins but, after all, they were not the main people responsible. He then mentioned the Hottentots, the slaves, the Malays and all this intermingling. Of course, that went on, but he is surely not denying that the Coloured person has a mixture of white blood and other blood. It is a mixture of White and Malay blood, of White and slave blood, of White and Hottentot blood, and of white blood and the blood of the offsprings of those intermixtures as well.

Not necessarily.

Of course, otherwise these people would be much darker than they are, for one thing, and you would not have border-line cases at all, because all these people are dark skinned.

You could perhaps say that of the border-line cases.

It is in fact the borderline case that we are dealing with in this Bill —nobody else. We are not dealing with the really distinct racial groups, we are dealing with border-line cases, and therefore we must not try to shelve this responsibility. After all, this is part of the South African tradition. Has everybody forgotten about Eva, the Hottentot woman, who married a high-placed official of the Dutch East Indian Company and in fact also contributed to the beginnings of the Coloured race? I think we have become quite obsessed with these things. The fact that we have to introduce legislation year after year in an attempt to plug the loopholes in the Act, shows that this has become an obsession with us. I think the fact that the hon. the Minister would not allow all the pending appeals under the existing law to be heard and disposed of, really shows an obsession with this thing. How many cases in all were left to be dealt with? Was it 160 or 170 cases?

One hundred and forty.

What would have happened to white civilization if he had allowed those cases to go to court or to go to the board to complete their reclassification in terms of the existing law of 1967, which had already tightened up things considerably? What was to prevent that? Supposing half that number of people had been reclassified, would this have been the end of pure white South African civilization; would it have been the end of our national identity in this country?

I think it is nonsense, Sir, and I think this whole Bill is a completely unnecessary exercise. The hon. the Minister has acted unfairly in not allowing the cases which are already pending to be heard. Those people have already spent a fortune on legal fees. They have gone through years of anxiety as far as schools are concerned, as far as matrimonial affairs are concerned, as far as employment is concerned, as far as property ownership is concerned. All these facts of their life are affected and the hon. the Minister, in a flurry of anxiety over these cases, insists on bringing this Bill before the House in the dying days of the Session. I think it is a great shame and I strongly support the amendment which has been moved by the Official Opposition.

I have one other point that I want to make finally because most of the points have already been made, and that is just to support the objections which have been made already to the Minister’s refusal to allow hearsay evidence to be brought before the board. This is a most extraordinary thing because it so happens that in pedigree, to use the word which is used in the Bill, hearsay plays a specially important part. It is because one knows from one’s mother about one’s grandmother or one’s great-grandmother, because one knows of a picture that has been hanging in the living room for years, which is a picture of one’s grandmother or great-grandmother, that one has some idea about one’s pedigree. This sort of evidence is absolutely essential in cases where one is trying to determine race classification on the basis of descent. After all, an individual’s appearance and acceptance no longer carry weight except in the case of the offspring of Coloured/Bantu unions; there appearance and acceptance and the various other criteria come into the picture. But in the case of White/White and White/Coloured unions, in the border-line cases, appearance and acceptance have now been largely pushed to one side and descent is the important factor. In this regard, hearsay evidence is absolutely vital.

We have now reached the incredible situation in South Africa where, although hearsay evidence is admissible in the magistrate’s court and in the Supreme Court, it is not admissible before a Race Classification Board. Surely the hon. the Minister, with the respect that he must have for the law as such, must see that this is completely untenable. We allow hearsay evidence in our lower courts and in the Supreme Court, but we do not allow it before the Race Classification Board. What possible explanation can there be of that? I do not think that in his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister covered this aspect and I hope that he will give us some information in this regard when he replies to this debate. Sir, for the reasons which I have mentioned now and which I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, despite one or two improvements which the hon. the Minister himself introduced at the Committee Stage, I cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill because the principle is objectionable to me and there are still several clauses which I find completely unacceptable.

Sir, I rise to support this legislation. I trust that the hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I do not follow her thinking. I would like to address myself very briefly to hon. members of the United Party. Sir, this has been a very long and interesting debate in which the fundamental difference between the National Party and the United Party has become absolutely clear once more. That difference is as great as the difference between the North and the South Pole. We are the party of white South African nationalism; the United Party rejects the idea of a white South African nation. They have pleaded for days for integration. If English and Afrikaans mean anything at all, then hon. members opposite have pleaded in their speeches for a breakdown of the system of racial separation and to make it possible to have integration in South Africa. The reason for that is that they are being true to themselves. While we on this side have always found our inspiration in white South Africa, the United Party has traditionally found its inspiration outside. The outside world wants white South Africa integrated with non-white South Africa, and that is what the United Party urges in the interests of the outside world. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, a very intelligent member, who is normally very consistent, suggested some time ago that the Coloured people should be represented in this House on the basis of group representation. This strange inconsistency in his thinking—he said this before he suggested scrapping the Population Registration Act—indicates his keenness and that of his party to have non-white Members of Parliament in this House because they accepted this despite its inherent inconsistency. I want the electorate to realize that. Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal, in answer to an interjection by myself, said that he was not proud to be a white South African if being a white South African meant standing in a white bus queue. That is the level of his thinking.

Hon. members opposite do not realize that these administrative measures are necessary so that we can live together here without friction. But we on this side are very proud and I am very proud of our white race and our white South African nationality because of the role that the white nation is playing in South Africa. Not only non-Whites in South Africa but also non-Whites in the whole of Southern Africa depend upon the knowledge and upon the economic drive of the white South African nation.

And need not depend upon separate bus queues.

Order!

We have a population explosion on the non-white side because we are such good guardians and because we provide the medical knowledge and services. It is the scientific knowledge of white South Africa that has to provide sufficient food to feed all the mouths. The safety of everybody, White and non-White, the safety of the States adjoining us, the safety of Southern Africa, depends upon the survival of the white South African nation. Military safety depends on us but this white nation can be destroyed by other means except military; it can be destroyed by integration for instance. And we have to take measures such as these to ensure that that will not happen. The hon. member for Sea Point said he would like to see the Coloureds bred white; he would like to see the South African nation of 3 million white people bred into 1¾ million Coloureds. What he really means is that he is prepared to see white South Africa bred Coloured. That is what he said and that is the only way in which it can be interpreted.

The hon. member for Salt River made a speech during the Second Reading debate, a speech which could only be of interest to a newspaper like the British Daily Mirror. He could not have been speaking for his voters because he does not know the wishes of his voters. His own voters want white survival and separation between White and non-White. But why are many United Party members here? The reason is that they hide behind the hon. member for Houghton. At election times they go to the voters who supported them traditionally and say that it is the wicked Progressives who want integration; it is the member for Houghton who wants integration. They say they too are for apartheid but when they come to this House they spend days fighting tooth and nail against this cornerstone of apartheid, of racial separation.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the benefit of the doubt. I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the white man, the small white minority, the civilizing minority in South Africa. Hon. members opposite are obsessed with integration; it is in their political blood and in their political marrow. For days they fought to make it possible for a Coloured man to break into the white camp. After that, to my astonishment, they fought to make it possible for a Bantu to break into the Coloured camp. It is because they believe in integration; they cannot see further. Then the hon. member for Sea Point said we should breed the Coloureds white. They do not realize that the Coloured could be a bridge, if it was not for our legislation, between white South Africa and the great black majority. The Coloured man as I know him does not want integration with the black man; he wants to develop to be a nation in his own right, and we are going to make that possible for him.

Where will his homeland be? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

The Government has the bulk of the Whites of this country behind them in this matter. We are going to tell the people that if they want integration they need not go to the Progressive Party; they need only vote for the United Party. If, however, they want the white nation to survive they must vote for the National Party because we have proved that we stand for the idea of white survival even against pressure from the whole world. The hon. member for Wynberg said they did not lose any members. But let me tell her that they are losing English-and Afrikaans-speaking supporters every day because white South Africa knows that the road of the United Party is a road leading to death while they are safe in the hands of the National Party. Therefore, white South Africa rejects the United Party and wholeheartedly supports the National Party.

The hon. member for Maitland indulged in the usual sanctimonious platitudes that we have grown to expect from him, platitudes which he is quite safe to deliver from the top of his white ivory tower. He knows he is quite safe on account of the white skin he bears. Here I want to leave him in so far as this Bill is concerned and deal with something else he said. He said the United Party continued to plead for integration. During the debate last night he made a similar interjection. I then said that he knew that was not correct. But to-day he comes with the same statement once more. By doing that he only highlights the confusion existing on the other side of the House because the hon. member for Newcastle by way of interjection had said on a previous occasion: “Julie is die party van wit baasskap”. Now how do you reconcile these two statements? Something similar was said by the hon. the Minister of Transport, i.e. that we are an integration party and also that we stand for white baasskap. That cannot be; we must either be the one or the other.

Do you know which one?

I say this type of allegation is made with one object only, i.e. to get political propaganda into Hansard for the election that is coming off next year and for which they are so afraid.

You have one policy for Orange Grove and another one for Newcastle.

We had a similar sort of statement from the hon. member for Namaqualand. He too said we did not stand for separation. He knows our policy is written down …

Where?

It is written down in pamphlets, and that hon. member has one because I gave him one. And we are not ashamed of our policy; we are not ashamed to say that we stand for social, residential and political separation. That is written down. But can the hon. member for Namaqualand give me a copy of Nationalist Party policy written down? [Interjections.] Let me remind the House of what happened when I first came here. When some of the new boys on the other side asked me for a copy of our policy I gladly gave them a copy. I asked them to gladly reciprocate by giving me a copy of their policy written down. All of them were embarrassed because they said it was not written down. That is why they can come with an amendment such as the one we have in this Bill we are discussing now, a complete reversal of any ideas that they had of any policy. This is now being done in order to deal with the difficulties they have run into in an attempt to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1950.

The hon. member for Waterkloof said his party was going home now being one member stronger. He boasted about the hon. member for Umlazi, who I am glad to see is in the House at the moment. I think this is only the second occasion that he has been here during this whole debate. At any rate, the hon. member for Waterkloof seemed to be extremely pleased to have the hon. member for Umlazi. But let us look at the debate we had in 1967. In Hansard column 4764 of that year—

These words were uttered by Mr. H. Lewis, the hon. member for Umlazi. But where has this hon. member been over the past week while we were debating this matter? He did not even vote on the Second Reading. He did not vote for the Government side at the Second Reading.

The chairman of your group did not vote against it.

On a clause in Committee.

I am not talking about the clause in Committee. The hon. member for Umlazi only voted for one clause in Committee and that was the first clause. This is just another example of what is going on on the other side and that we now see three factions: The hon. member for Waterkloof, the hon. member for Ermelo and their faction; the hon. the Prime Minister, whom I notice is in his seat, and his so-called “verligtes”, although I do not believe there is such a thing as a “verligte” Nat; and you also have the liberal element headed by the hon. member for Umlazi. And let me say that this liberal element has had its effect in the short while the hon. member has been on that side of the House because we have actually had an amendment for which the United Party has been pleading for years. It could only have been promoted on that side by somebody with the liberalistic instincts of the hon. member for Umlazi.

Are you not liberalistic too?

No, I am not liberalistic; I am realistic and prefer to face up to the realities of life in South Africa.

But let me come back to the hon. member for Namaqualand. He attacked the hon. member for Wynberg; he made a scandalous attack on the hon. member for Wynberg …

I gave the facts.

He gave the facts but it was the manner in which he presented those facts to the House that I am concerned with. And, let me say, he was breaking a confidence. Let me say that if there can be no such thing as a confidence between hon. members of this House we may as well disband; we can never expect two parties to work together if this is the sort of thing that takes place, where one hon. member goes to an hon. member on the other side in all confidence to ask for advice in a case of which that hon. member has intimate knowledge, and then does what that hon. member did. The hon. member for Namaqualand knows the hon. member for Wynberg came for advice because he knew the family and the circumstances. But he comes now and breaks that confidence and presents the facts in an unfavourable light. I want to say that after the interview the hon. member for Wynberg no longer proceeded with the matter but handed it over to an attorney. The hon. member for Namaqualand knows that. There was, therefore, no need for him to present the matter in the light in which he did it this morning.

You are letting me down, because I had a bet that you would not speak to-day.

Sir, we have come to the end of another chapter in the infamous history of this legislation. This Bill represents the culmination of the manifestation of the xenophobia of this Government, and its passion for neatness, its passion for dividing the South African nation into weird compartments and putting every person into his right compartment. When this Bill becomes law we are going to find that the passport to each compartment is going to be a person’s pedigree. This Bill provides that that pedigree shall be the only passport to such a compartment. What will the effect of this Bill be? If people of different colours, creeds and cultures live together in one country, as they have to do in this country, certain instincts have to be suppressed, or at least kept under control. I think particularly of the instincts of race prejudice and of nationalism. This is especially so when one group has an advantage over another group, merely because of the colour of its skin or because of a different racial classification. Nationalism and race prejudice have been transformed into political ideals by this legislation in the past. I want to say that this latest amendment, which is now passing into its final stages, is going to further inflame these instincts because of the advantages and the disadvantages which pertain to the different groups.

The most tragic effect this Bill will have is that its provisions will be perpetuated on the children of borderline cases. In the past the tests of appearance and general acceptance have been the only tests which were applied to borderline cases. We will now have the position where parents who have been given cards with the letter “W” on them, are going to have their children classified as White, willy-nilly, irrespective of what the children look like. I think I heard someone refer to a throwback earlier. I do not want to refer to such cases as throwbacks. I do not want to mention names, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister will recollect a case which occurred in the Transvaal a little while ago, about which there was a tremendous amount of publicity. A certain child had parents whose cards had W’s on them, and had to be classified White. She had to attend white schools.

How do you want to classify her?

I think the hon. member for Green Point gave the answer. We do not want to classify her. We would leave the case to the test of acceptance by society. Is this not what has happened in all the history of South Africa, right up to 1951, when this Act came into operation? We have had our divisions in this country. In reply to the hon. member for Maitland, I can point out that we have had people in this House who have represented different race groups. This took place without any classification system. That system worked here under a Nationalist Government for 10 years, when we had representatives from the Coloured people here without the necessity for a classification book or stud book to determine who should elect those representatives. This was something which happened naturally. It is something which can continue to happen naturally.

It did not happen naturally.

What did not happen naturally?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Brakpan wants to be so rash as to make a bet that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) will not speak, he deserves to lose his bet. If he had perhaps made a bet that the hon. member would have had nothing of value to say, or that he would not have made a contribution to the debate, he would have had a good chance of winning. I do not have much more to say in this debate, for in this Third Reading debate one speaker followed another and to a large extent the points made by Opposition speakers have been replied to by hon. members on this side. There are, however, a few points in respect of which I must take a stand. I want to begin with the hon. member for Green Point.

Right at the outset the hon. member for Green Point stated that the will of Parliament was not stated in Hansard, but that it was stated in the Act. The test is: What was the will of Parliament? The hon. member’s own leader explained in reply to my Second Reading speech what the will of Parliament was. In other words, that was the will of Parliament.

Hansard does not come before the courts.

Yes, but all the hon. member can state is that the will of Parliament is not interpreted clearly in the Act and that the courts can as a result decide differently. However, the hon. member definitely cannot say to me that if it is the will of Parliament that a certain thing be done, as we believe it was …

You are being very critical of the legal drafting.

Be that as it may. The hon. member knows these circumstances as well and even better than I know them. The hon. member is well aware of what the will of Parliament was in 1967. It was on that basis that I stated that I did not want to argue any further about the question of retrospectiveness and the merits thereof. This position was thrashed out and clarified by Parliament in 1967. I still regard it as our task and our duty to see to it that the will of Parliament is enforced.

The hon. member also referred to my statement that the wealthy could buy apartheid. The hon. member stated that he was not aware that apartheid was being restricted to residential areas only. The hon. member himself knows to what extent the people with whom he comes into close contact can for example exercise a choice in regard to the schools for their children. Look, for example, at the extent to which people in America are buying apartheid. There people send their children to private schools because there are non-Whites in the public schools. Surely the hon. member knows this. We can think of restaurants, hotels and a large variety of occasions where apartheid is bought because the wealthy are in a position to buy it, while the less well-to-do, the poor people, are not in a position to do so. We shall see to it that apartheid is not only available for the wealthy, who can buy it, but also for the poor, who cannot.

The hon. member referred to what Minister De Klerk said in 1964. The remark Minister De Klerk made in 1964 was in connection with the administration of the legislation he was then dealing with. He stated that we would not pry into the history of people in order to determine whether there were a few drops of non-White blood here and there. That is in fact the case. The hon. member will agree with me. We need not make a secret of it. It is so. We cannot achieve the ideal position, as it was described by the hon. member for Houghton, where we are able to classify every person with a drop of non-White blood in his veins as non-White. We know that we cannot do so. We are trying to do this. In the past we classified on the basis of appearance and acceptance. I think, however, that all of us envisaged that we would not be able to use those criteria for ever. That is precisely the point I made during the Second Reading. If we were to use those criteria for all time, we would really have heartbreak cases. Not only would we have these heartbreak cases, but they would remain for ever, for we would then find the situation where we would have to classify people in the same family, some on this side and some on that, on the basis of appearance and acceptance.

But society will do so nevertheless.

That may be so, but then we will always have the problems we have today. Since 1950 it has been my opinion that we should classify on the basis of appearance and acceptance until everyone has been classified in this way, for after that we would surely know to which group the parents belong. At some stage or other, we knew we would have to change to classification on the basis of descent. I do not think there was any doubt in our minds in that connection. What could admittedly be argued is whether 1967 was the right stage to effect the change-over. That matter can be argued, but the eventual solution to this matter lies in the classification on the basis of descent. When Minister De Klerk discussed this matter in 1964 he gave no assurance that we would not classify according to descent. He discussed the administration of the Act which he was dealing with at the time.

The hon. member stated that a presumption was being created that the person who was not a Bantu, was a Coloured. Sir, it cannot be otherwise. Surely the hon. member knows that we are placing the onus of proof on the person who wants to be classified. He must adduce proof to the effect that he belongs to that group. Because the onus rests on a person to prove he is a White, it follows that there must be a presumption that he is a Coloured until he has been acquitted of that onus. These two principles go together. It cannot be otherwise. I think the hon. member knows that as well as I do.

As a result of this onus and probably other matters as well, the hon. member made a great issue of the fact that the Government, or the Department itself, was now being placed in a privileged position over against the person concerned. The hon. member can raise that argument. I do not take it amiss of him for doing so, but we are dealing with circumstances here where the particular knowledge required is in the hands of the person making the allegation. As a result of that it is only right and fair that onus of proof should be placed on the person who has that knowledge and who is making the allegation. As far as the Government and the Department are concerned, I may just say that we are making it our task to classify the various groups as accurately as possible and to display as much humanity and fairness as possible. If hon. members say that this is not always the case I could just give them the assurance that this is the task I have set myself. I do not want to place a person in a certain group simply because I want to have him there. I want to place people where they belong in terms of the Act. That is all we are seeking to achieve. That is why there is only one desire for the Department and that is that the right thing should be done. The standpoint of the Department is not that persons should be placed where they do not belong. The hon. member also spoke about late appeals. I think that we have, during the Second Reading and also during the Committee Stage, elaborated sufficiently on that. We cannot allow the position to continue indefinitely that any period of time for the late submission of appeals can be allowed. It is also essential to put an end, at some time or other, to this question of classification. The hon. member referred to cases of criminal offences, where the courts retain the inherent power to condone the late submission of an appeal. That may be so, but even there will be many cases in regard to which we will be able to stipulate a time limit. Because criminal offences cover such a wide variety of matters, it is not possible to lay down fixed rules there. In any case, this matter does not resemble a criminal offence and, as a result of that, these two things cannot really be compared with each other. Lastly, I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point, in pursuance of his remarks at the end of his speech, that we do not intend reclassifying people who have already been classified. I want to give him the assurance that in the case of people who have already been classified, we will not re-institute an investigation regarding them in order to try to re-classify them. I give him that personal undertaking. That is my personal feeling in regard to the matter. While I occupy this position, I shall see to it that this is not done.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does that also apply to the offspring of Indian and Coloured parents in a certain sub-group? Does that apply to them too although they are already classified?

We have introduced a regulation here which is not new. It is a regulation which has existed since the promulgation of the proclamation I mentioned yesterday. The regulation is that within the Coloured group the children follow the classification of the father, and for various good reasons. I think the economic and social considerations are the most important. One must after all suppose that the mother will live where the father has his business, where he works or where he is living. As a result of this the tendency is for the child to be absorbed into the community to which the father belongs. As a result of this we have this regulation, and in this way it will not only be applied in future, but has already been applied in this way in the past.

In the light of the arguments used by the hon. member for Green Point here, I am afraid that I must agree with the hon. member for Houghton in this respect that to a large extent the hon. member for Green Point spoke against his own conviction.

I never do that.

I would prefer to leave the matter at that. I come now to the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member for Wynberg stated again to-day that the police are being used in regard to the classification of people. I want to make it very clear that this is not true. This is not so. The police take steps, and from time to time deal with the issuing of identity cards and so on, but the steps taken by the police relate only to offences. This has no bearing whatsoever on the classification of persons. The police are not being used to help the Department classify people.

Why did you not give that reply under your Vote?

I did in fact do so. Apparently the hon. member was not listening then. The hon. member also spoke again about the onus of proof and stated that these people have to produce proof on matters over which they have no control. It is correct to say that they have no control over what they are and into what class they fall, but the hon. member probably does not know all the circumstances of the law of evidence. However, we have said enough about this and therefore I do not want to elaborate any further on it. I do want to furnish a reply in regard to the “invitations” which she addressed to the public. I do not want to begin an argument with the hon. member about the interpretation of words. If I had perhaps said that it was an “advertisement” then perhaps I used a word which was a little too strong. I want to concede that point to the hon. member, but the least she did was to issue an invitation to all these people to come to her with their objections. I have numerous examples of this. She addressed her invitation and the newspapers snatched it up and made use of it. For example, the Rand Daily Mail said—

I have already elaborated sufficiently on this allegation she made to the effect that the Department was responsible for the delay which occurred. That is not so. I just want to emphasize again that for more than a year there were no hearings of third-party objections. As a result of that there was an accumulation. Let us reach a compromise in regard to this matter. She issued an invitation to the effect that the people should stream to her, and as a result I think she left a false impression amongst those people to the effect that she could help them, while she was in fact unable to do so. As a result of this false hope she created confusion among these people in respect of this matter. I told her that she received a large measure of publicity in regard to that matter. I wish her luck if it has been of any value to her. I have nothing against that but in fact it did not help these people. In fact it caused more confusion for them than it benefited them.

The hon. member also discussed the matter of the De Bruin child. This is another of those examples of the conduct of the Opposition, which is not always the same. From the very outset they opposed third-party objections. But when third-party objections were subsequently used in a different way, they were in favour of third-party objections. The argument of the hon. member in respect of the De Bruin child is a further rejection of the system of third-party objections. It is the basis of third-party objections that a person is classified on the basis of appearance and acceptance into a certain group, unless the community is dissatisfied with that. This is the basis of third-party objections, but the hon. member argued against it again this morning. Her whole argument in respect of the De Bruin child was rejection of third-party objections, and after yesterday they were still in favour of them. They wanted us to continue with them. The hon. member expected the senior officials of the Department, and particularly the Secretary, to give their personal attention to classification. I said yesterday that this was not practicable under all circumstances. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that where there is any kind of doubt, this matter would not be handled by clerks in the lower echelons. Then the cases are dealt with by higher officials. Where there is any doubt, the matters are handled by the more senior officials. So, her request has in fact been acceded to.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to America. She stated, and quite rightly so, as I have already said before, that even in America, if it is proved that a person has one drop of Negro blood in his veins, he is regarded there as a Negro. I agree with the hon. member.

There are no legal disabilities as a result of that.

I know. I agree with the hon. member that there are no laws which, as a result of that, entail disadvantages for them. I only mentioned this because throughout the world this was the matter of classification. This is the tendency throughout the world as far as classification is concerned. It is the same in America, and this is the way our people would like to have it as well.

There is no population register in America.

I know. It is true that they do not have such a register. They have no population registration there, but the hon. member ought to admit that our conditions in South Africa, not only in respect of the Whites, but also in respect of the other races, are totally different from those in America. In South Africa we not only have a minority of Whites, while nine-tenths of the population of America consists of Whites, we not only have a minority of Whites, but also a minority of Coloureds. We have a Malay group which is proud of the fact that they are Malays and would like to continue to be Malays. The hon. member knows this as well as I do. It is not only that we owe the Whites something; we also owe something to the other minority groups in South Africa, and that is why we have laws in South Africa which make it essential that our population registration should be of this nature. It should not always simply be argued that these things are being done for the protection of white skins. It is not only the white race that is involved here; it is also the other minority groups in South Africa that are involved.

The hon. member said that there were so few borderline cases. Now I wonder what she wants. Apparently, since there are so few border line cases, she wants us to absorb all the dubious borderline cases into the white community and to absorb all the dubious border-line cases among the Bantu into the Coloured community.

Society does it.

That is the basic difference between us. If that is our basic difference, then it is of no avail continuing the argument here. The hon. member also referred to the responsibility of the Whites for the existence of the Coloureds. The hon. member also referred to what the hon. member for South Coast had said, i.e. that if it had not been for the Whites, the Coloureds would not have been there. I said that what the hon. member for South Coast had said was a half-truth, because it was not entirely correct. Now the hon. member for Houghton is saying that she referred specifically to the borderline cases. According to her the Whites are responsible for the borderline cases. We are not dealing only with the borderline cases, but I want to remind her here that she must not only blame the Whites in South Africa for that.

Of course not.

The hon. member must just remember that under the old United Party régime, when there was still no control and our harbours were open to all the sailors of the world, integration flowed into South Africa through the harbour cities.

Where do the Coloureds in Zeerust in the Transvaal come from? There are no harbours there.

There are very few of them. For many years now the Coloureds have been free to move where they wish in South Africa. The hon. members must also remember that we went through two world wars. Then our harbours were thrown open in an exceptional way and a larger degree of freedom was granted than had previously been the case. It is therefore totally incorrect to say now that it is only the Whites in South Africa who are responsible for the colour problem we have in South Africa, whether it is in respect of the Coloureds, or whether it is in respect of the borderline cases to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. The hon. member stated that there were few of these cases, and asked why we were so concerned about them. Now hon. members are saying that there are few of these cases. On other occasions when they rise to speak, they say that the entire matter is a complete mess, and that chaos is prevailing. Now they are coming forward with the argument that there are so few cases that we might as well have allowed these cases to be heard. It depends entirely upon what they want to achieve with the arguments they put forward.

In conclusion the hon. member spoke about“pedigree”. I made it clear yesterday that I thought that the consideration of descent here was not quite the same as the consideration of “pedigree”, where we do in fact allow hearsay evidence. The Department has numerous cases where only those people who have to prove the case have any knowledge of the circumstances, and not the Department. The stories with which they come to court, are so far-fetched that we cannot simply allow even the slightest measure of hearsay evidence to prove the decisive factor when it comes to the court taking a decision. As a result of that I think it is the right thing, and a good thing, that we are doing away with this hearsay evidence.

This Bill has in the first instance and to the greatest extent confirmed and rectified these matters which were not stated clearly in the amendment of 1967, but which were nevertheless the intention of Parliament in 1967. In addition this Bill has polished up the population registration and the way in which population registration must take place. I think that opportunities have been created to eliminate difficulties and difficult problems in future. I think that with the sound and careful handling of the legislation, and particularly the co-operation which can be given by the Opposition, we can in future make a success of it.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night when this debate was adjourned I was outlining that this legislation formed part of a pattern we have had for the past 20 years. This is a pattern by means of which the Government wants to imply that in spite of economic integration more and more apartheid will, according to their views, be created, and continue to be created. The less success that is achieved in reducing the number of Bantu in our white areas, the more legislation to that effect should be placed on the Statute Book in order to prevent it. The more it is possible for economic integration to take place outside, the more intensely must the light of apartheid be held up to the-electorate of South Africa, The darker it becomes outside as a result of economic integration, the more brightly must this light of apartheid shine. Consequently the most important clause in this legislation is clause 11, granting to the hon. the Minister those powers to implement this further. With this legislation the hon. the Minister wants to make it more and more difficult for people to employ Bantu. The reasons the hon. the Minister is putting forward are as follows. He stated that the Whites were objecting to the increase in the number of Bantu clerks, typists, telephonists, and so on. We pointed out to the hon. the Minister that it was strange that the Whites in no way objected when more and more use was being made of Bantu in private and when other people were coming into contact with them then. They only objected, as hon. members on the opposite side wanted to imply, when Bantu were used by professional people or by the trade. If one, for example, should walk into an hotel in Bloemfontein or Johannesburg, one would be served there by Bantu stewards. As far as my memory serves me, I have never heard of any person objecting to that. The hon. the Minister should at least have told us in this House that what he wanted to counteract was happening on such a tremendous scale that this legislation was needed. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister chopped and changed and said that people in general were objecting. Particulars and facts to support his case, the Deputy Minister did not give us however. We are entitled to put a reasonable question to the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. whether he is really so naïve as to believe that a person who has white clients and employs Bantu will continue with such a course of action if his clients should prove dissatisfied with that? I do not think for one moment that he would do so. Most of the people whom the hon. the Minister wants to include under clause 11 are in fact thoroughly aware of the situation in South Africa. With the amendment which already stands in the name of the hon. the Deputy Minister on the Order Paper, he realizes that he cannot have a blanket clause here to implicate all forms of trade and all forms of work under this clause. The hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that he must in fact make exceptions. Hence also the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister, as already printed. The moment the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to do this, the exemptions he will have to grant are not the exception but the rule. The people of South Africa are sick and tired of this situation, namely that when someone is dealing with a quite natural process, he must always go down on his knees to an hon. Minister or an official to obtain an exemption from them. It is for the same reason the hon. the Deputy Minister has, under the Physical Planning Act, had to grant those exemptions over the past few years. The moment the hon. the Deputy Minister admits this, as he has already done by means of his amendment, he realizes that he will have to make exceptions. We on this side of the House realize only too well that under these circumstances this is wrong.

That there should be Bantu in certain avenues in employment and in certain areas is presented as a danger for South Africa. We have already pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is already allowing this in the white areas adjoining the Bantu areas. We also pointed out to him that that situation would not undergo a change in any way, and that this would be allowed there is being quite natural. Clause 11 of this legislation could cause an antipathy to arise among the Bantu. We are always creating the impression in them that we regard them as a danger and that we as Whites do not want them. In this connection I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to a speech he made last year at Zastron in the Free State. He then spoke about the foreign Bantu who were working in white avenues of employment in South Africa, i.e. in our industries, our agriculture, etc. The hon. the Deputy Minister was reported as follows in a newspaper (translation)—

Read what the speech was all about.

I can do this, but why should I waste the time of the hon. House? What I am interested in is the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. that we should not be too conservative and too strict when it comes to foreign Bantu. But in this legislation when we come to clause 11, which deals with our own South African Bantu, then the hon. gentleman is not too strict and too conservative. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not think that, for the sake of sound race relations, he should in fact treat the South African Bantu in the same way, in terms of that statement? Are they not then the best form of ambassadors for the South African situation? Why should the hon. the Deputy Minister, by means of this legislation, try to mar relations between the Whites and the Blacks? After all, when Bantu come to our white areas they do so for one reason only. This is a very important reason as far as those people are concerned, and it is also a very important reason for us. The hon. the Deputy Minister must bear in mind that if he should, under clause 11, want to prevent their economic development in our white areas, how can he expect them to be good ambassadors when it comes to sound race relations here in South Africa itself? I would just like to quote further from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in regard to clause 11. On another occasion at George he stated the following (translation)—

The first incentive is to improve themselves economically and financially. But with this legislation the hon. the Minister is in fact preventing those people from improving themselves financially in our white areas. This was instituted after an investigation to which the hon. the Minister himself referred. These are the two most important motives among the Bantu. The one is to improve themselves financially, and the second is the improvement of the education of their children. Now these people are being restricted by means of clause 11.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can say we are talking nonsense if he likes. He cannot mention one important reason, except to say that we want to reduce the number of these people in the white areas. That is after all his objective, not so?

Read the Bill, and the long title.

Very well. If the hon. the Deputy Minister states that it is not his purpose to reduce them, what is the purpose of this legislation then?

To prevent labour integration.

To prevent labour integration! But does he not have the Minister of Labour with clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Then the hon. the Minister still has the temerity to come forward with this clause and to say that he will at least consult the Minister of Labour. The two of us will discuss this, he said. But that hon. Deputy Minister knows the Afrikaans language very well. He knows the old expression: Ask my brother Jack, he is a liar, too! The hon. the Deputy Minister will discuss this with the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has, however, already got his power in terms of clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Why should he be given additional powers now? What other reason can there be than to prevent the Bantu from working in the white area. The hon. gentleman allows this to glimmer through quite clearly in a speech in Bloemfontein. In Die Burger of 7th September, 1968, he stated as follows—

On that occasion already he was envisaging the legislation we are discussing to-day. But he went further and stated as follows—

The hon. the Deputy Minister has envisaged all these things before. The only purpose was to reduce the number of these people in our white areas. Mr. Speaker, I know I would be out of order if I say this, but the hon. the Deputy Minister also knows that there is only one way of protecting the Bantu coming to the white areas, and that is to ensure that there are more efficient avenues of employment for them in their own areas. This we regard as one of the unfair elements in this legislation. Here, where these people have an opportunity of developing and progressing financially, here they want to prevent it. But where this should really happen, they are not affording these people the opportunity.

Did the hon. member say that he knew that he would be ruled out of order if he said this? But the hon. member said this nevertheless.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into this point any further. It has been suggested, particularly by the hon. member for Brakpan, that this measure forms part of the policy of separate development. However, there is a clause in this Bill, namely clause 14, which is a very interesting clause.

What clause is that?

Clause 14. This is a very interesting clause. Now a local authority is also going to be granted the right to impose a maximum levy of 20 cents on Bantu women in that area. We have always heard that these people are not permanently present here. We have always heard that we must not afford them too many facilities. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is coming forward with this legislation, the purpose of which, as is in fact mentioned in the White Paper, is to afford local authorities an opportunity of creating better facilities for the Bantu in the white areas. We are not objecting to this clause when they are reasonable and fair, they themselves realize that these people are permanently within the white areas, in spite of the fact that they live separately in their own areas. That is why this clause was inserted. It is because local authorities are not able to give the Blacks all these facilities. That is why this levy is now being imposed on Bantu women, to a maximum of 20 cents per month.

I want to conclude. Since we are used to a course of economic integration, does the Government now want to try to present this façade to the electorate of South Africa? But in the meantime they will make it more and more difficult, particularly for the housewife. They will also make it more and more difficult for the industrialist, businessman and professional man to employ a Bantu. At the same time it will not only be made more difficult for them, but they will also be creating a sense of frustration among the Bantu. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park will forgive me if I do not respond to his speech at once. I hope to find the time in the course of my speech to refer to his representations. We are glad that this legislation has been introduced. I want to support everything that was said by the hon. member for Brakpan and submitted to as by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to tell the hon. Opposition that the Bantu do not have rights in the white areas. They only have privileges. We should not confuse privileges with rights. In the same way as I do not have the right to live in the Bantu homelands on a permanent basis although I have the privilege of going there, the reverse is equally applicable to the Bantu. An evening or two ago we listened to the hon. member for King William’s Town. That hon. member presented to this House a picture of section 10 of Act No. 25 of 1945, an Act which he had apparently studied carefully. In spite of that he made certain misrepresentations in respect of that legislation. Since King William’s Town is the hon. member’s constituency, I should just like to tell the hon. member at the outset that he would be well advised to pay a visit to the Director of the Government’s Bantu townships in that area.

I doubt whether you have done so.

Judging by what the hon. member said here, I do not think that he has ever visited that person. When I listened to the hon. member, it was also very apparent to me that he had not really made a thorough investigation into the way the Bantu in the Bantu townships and the large cities were being treated. I want to tell the hon. member that there is not one Bantu township in this country which does not have an account which is considerably in arrears. This is mainly attributable to rentals which are in arrears. I hope the hon. member will permit me to say here that this overdue account is mainly attributable to those Bantu who are being assisted by the local authority or the local Director of Bantu Affairs, or by the State itself. These are not Bantu who, as the hon. member put it, are being told to vacate their houses within 30 days. The hon. member should mention those cases to me and prove them to me. Mention to me those cases and bring me those cases where Bantu are ipso facto given notice to vacate their houses within 30 days if they do not pay their rent!

What does the Act provide?

That is why I say that the hon. member did not really investigate the position.

What does the Act provide?

Do not cry. You know, Mr. Speaker, as soon as a Bantu has been certified to be suffering from T.B., his rentals are immediately suspended until such time as it is stated on his certificate that he has recovered completely. He need not repay those rentals ever. During that period such rentals are written off completely. Mention to me similar privileges which are being enjoyed by Whites! I should like to tell the hon. member that I was chairman of an advisory board for 15 years. In addition I was an influx officer of this Government in the Bantu areas in Johannesburg for five years. That is why I know what I am talking about. As regards Johannesburg, I want to say that those Directors in the various areas in Johannesburg are looking after their people in as good a manner. They are doing everything in their power to help the Bantu to obtain employment should they have been involved in accidents. If they have been dismissed from their employment, these people do everything in their power to obtain other employment for them. Now I want to say something which is intended for the Johannesburg City Council, namely that all the people who are in charge in those areas are doing everything in their power to return those people to their employment. I believe that there are very few cases of people who are summarily ejected from their homes.

I am grateful for the fact that Bantu females are also being forced now to register every month. This is being done so that control may be exercised. In this way we shall know what persons are legally entitled to be in an area and what persons are not legally entitled to be there. Now I want to know by whom this privilege, which is being granted by the Government, is being abused. This legislation, about which the hon. member for King William’s Town was so angry and rebellious, seeks to protect the Bantu themselves. It is intended for their own protection. How would a Bantu who qualifies under section 10 (1) (a) of Act No. 25 of 1945, feel if he were to be ousted by a Bantu who qualifies under section 10 (1) (b)? How is the Bantu who has the right to be there, to feel if he were to be ousted by a Bantu who does not have the right to be there?

He has never heard of that.

If that hon. member were to attend those meetings, he would be told that in the white areas the Bantu have to fight for their own safety and their own survival against those Bantu from the homelands who are illegally pouring into these white areas. For that reason I am grateful to-day for the fact that there is influx control.

They are probably looking for work.

I do not begrudge better employment to those Bantu who have qualified themselves, but the person who employs the Bantu is, however, not so much concerned about helping the Bantu to their feet. They are mainly concerned about what they can save. They always want to know whether it is possible for them to obtain cheap labourers who would render the same services as those for which they have to pay a great deal more if they are rendered by Whites. That is why many Bantu are employed by employers, i.e. because to employ them is to the financial advantage of such employers. They are not concerned about whether or not such labourers are black skinned; they are concerned about how they may make greater profits.

We shall go hungry if we do not have the Bantu.

The hon. the Minister of Transport proved to us that Bantu could be employed but that this should not be done at the expense of the Whites. Now I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition that the Bantu lost their confidence in the Opposition a long time ago. They lost their confidence in the United Party many years ago, just as the electorate in general have also lost theirs many years ago. They have lost their confidence in them, because when they as a Government had to do something about them, when justice had to be done to them, nothing was done. Over the past 20 years this Government has done everything it could possibly have done up to this stage. In saying that I do not imply that everything has been accomplished, because a great deal of work has still to be done.

Then there is another matter I wish to touch upon. I am grateful for the amendment to the legislation which provides that beer hall profits may now be utilized on a wider basis. I do not think that any Government or any Minister would use Durban’s accumulated beer profits for the purpose of developing the Botswana area. I do believe that if there are such accumulated surpluses, they would be transferred by the local authority to the nearest homeland area; in the case of Durban this would be Zululand. I feel that the local authorities will transfer the money to the homeland areas in order that the homeland Bantu may also be provided with these facilities. I do not know how much experience my hon. friend has of municipalities, but I am now going to mention one, i.e. the Municipality of Potchefstroom. This municipality supplies a large area in the Western Transvaal with Bantu beer, and this is one of the municipalities which probably has the greatest accumulated surplus. Where is that municipality to spend those funds? Surely, once Potchefstroom has reached its saturation point, it would be a good thing if those funds could be applied in respect of the surrounding areas, for a large part of those profits is derived from the migratory labourers who also avail themselves of those beer halls, These people are also entitled to these funds. It is their money. The proceeds from those beer hall accounts have enabled this Government to assist in establishing those Bantu townships in the Witwatersrand complex.

To my mind those townships compare very favourably, if not better, with any town in any other African state. Just pay a visit to the Benoni Bantu township; visit those people. Then hon. members would be able to see what is being done there. The Bantu appreciate and the whole world appreciates that we are doing our level best to grant also to the Bantu of South Africa their rightful share in this fine country. But speeches such as the one that was made by the hon. member for King William’s Town, do not redound to the credit to this country or to the Bantu population. No, I want to suggest to those hon. members that they pay a visit to those Bantu townships during the recess. They may visit the registration offices so that they may see what procedure is being followed there. Then they would be astonished to see that the officials, be they in the Public Service or in the service of the local authority, are doing everything in their power to place those Bantu in employment for which they are qualified.

Who has ever said that they are not doing everything in their power?

No, those hon. members have only held up the red light to them; they have only been moaning about what we do. They suggest that we are kicking the Bantu out; that we are not giving them employment, that we are merely dismissing them. But peace and calm prevail amongst our Bantu population. Just as that population repudiated them after they had said that the Transkei was a farce, so they were repudiated by the Bantu population. To-day I want to repeat over and again that the Bantu population does not have any confidence in this Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? May I ask the hon. member to give me one example of a misrepresentation which I made in my speech of the Act as it reads at present?

I repeat that if that hon. member had had any experience of the state of affairs and if he had made an investigation into what is being done in all Bantu areas at this stage, he would never have made that speech. But he tried to chase up a number of hares here. I am afraid that not one single hare materialized. I want to conclude by saying that the Bantu have a privilege. The Whites are using that privilege to the advantage of both sides, Whites as well as non-Whites. But this people will have to learn to work. This will also happen in the future. These words are aimed at the Whites in South Africa. This people, together with the hon. members of the Opposition, will have to learn to work. Pleas are made for cheap labour; people fight for the privilege of those Bantu to be able to answer a telephone call and to write out that receipt, but I am convinced that they will not be paid the same salary the Whites receive for that very same work. We say that the Bantu may work where they are granted the privilege to work, but not at the expense of the Whites, nor at the expense of the Coloureds or that of the Indians.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to cover all the points mentioned by the hon. member for Stilfontein. However, I should like to deal with one or two of them very quickly. Firstly, he made a point about it not being a right, but a privilege for the Africans to be in the white areas for work purposes. Then he contradicted himself a little later by saying that this Bill which has been introduced this afternoon, was for the purpose of protecting the section 10 Africans who have the right to be in the urban areas. [Interjections.] Yes, he conceded that the section 10 Africans are here by right and not by privilege. It was a right, of course, which was introduced in 1952 by Dr. Verwoerd himself. It has not in any way been withdrawn as such, although it has constantly been whittled away. The hon. member also talked about cheap labour, the fact that Africans coming in tends to undermine the wage levels. There is of course one way to stop this. I suggested it myself. Years ago I introduced a private member’s motion asking for minimum wages in this country so that there is a level below which nobody should be employed in any job, no matter how unskilled. There should be a rating for jobs; a determination of the value of the work done. If it is considered that a job such as a telephonist or counter hand, or whatever it may be, requires a certain wage level, that should be the wage level.

Should he be paid the same as the white man?

Yes, exactly the same. The job itself must be rated. Some jobs may be too highly rated for their productivity, but nevertheless wage levels can be determined. The other point the hon. member raised as a point also made by the hon. member for Brakpan. I am glad he is here this afternoon. I hope he will listen to me for one moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister also made that point, as far as clause 8 is concerned, about the Bantu Beer Account. All three of these hon. gentlemen waxed enthusiastic about the new system whereby the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to appropriate more than the two-thirds of the credit balance which he could before, by “persuasion” of course.

One-third.

No, he may take much more than that. The hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. He can now use the whole of the credit balance. While it is of course to be initiated by the local authorities, there are ways of persuading local authorities to hand over their beer profits. The argument used by these three gentlemen is an extraordinary argument. They say that because the migratory workers are great beer drinkers therefore it is only right that the money which is realized thereby should be spent for their benefit in the homelands. I should like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that migratory workers spend 11 / 12ths of their working lives in the urban areas and not in the “tuislande” at all. So, let them enjoy the benefit of their beer drinking where they live. [Interjections.]

The other argument is that the two-thirds of the credit balance is not only spent on recreational facilities, but also on Bantu hostels which are where large numbers of the migratory workers live in the urban areas. The hon. member for Stilfontein will grant me that. Of course, they also live as lodgers in the houses that are also built with the beer profits of the urban areas. The hon. member for Brakpan made the point that the Bantu are tremendous consumers of beer. I should like to ask him whether it has occurred to him that more than 50 per cent of the mine workers who come to South Africa come from foreign countries? On the basis of his argument it means that 50 per cent of the money should be sent to Portuguese East Africa, Zambia, to Lesotho and the other countries from which they come. [Interjections.] Well, he said the mine workers spend their money on beer and therefore they should get the benefit of the profit on that beer in their homelands. More than 50 per cent come from outside South Africa. He should bear that in mind next time he uses that silly argument.

I want to come to the Bill itself. This Bill is, of course, going to inhibit the economic development of South Africa. It is yet another one being added to the long list of measures we already have on the Statute Book for the control of labour, only this time not by the hon. the Minister of Labour who is, after all, meant to be the person controlling the requirements of the labour field in South Africa, but also by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration.

To some extent his powers go even further than the powers of the hon. Minister of Planning. The Minister of Planning can, since attractions have not worked to get white entrepreneurs to go to the border industries, compel them by negative means to go there, by not allowing them to employ more African labour. This applies to existing businesses or new businesses which are to be established. This Minister can go further than that. He can cancel existing contracts which the Minister of Planning may not do, in terms of his Act. This Minister may cancel existing contracts. He has power greater than those granted by section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, in that he does not have to present to the employers any reasons for his actions. He does not have to grant them an opportunity to represent their case to him. He therefore has very wide powers indeed. He has stated that it is not his intention to use these powers widely. He became very angry with the Press because he said that they had misrepresented his intentions and that they had made the Bill out to be much more sinister than it really is. But the hon. the Deputy Minister should look at the wording of his own clause 11. It is not the fault of the Press or the Opposition that the wording of clause 11 goes as widely as the analysis in the Press has revealed.

[Inaudible.]

That is not the point, Sir. The Minister can cancel existing contracts. He can stop work in any specified area by any specified employer, and so on. He has placed two amendments on the Order Paper, which we shall not see again this year, of course, but which he says narrow his powers. That is nonsense. They do no such thing. They delay these powers a little. They delay his actions by one month because he has to gazette what he is going to do and he has to consult the hon. the Minister of Labour. But if the Minister of Labour does not agree, I see no restrictions on the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to prevent his going ahead and doing whatever he likes. This is a very wide clause indeed. Whatever the Deputy Minister says, he is now going to control an empire consisting of 80 per cent of the labour force of South Africa. He says that he is only going to apply his powers in the limited field of commerce. He kept talking about white women being pushed out of their jobs behind counters, in shops, offices and so on. The hon. member for Brakpan said much the same thing. He was very worried about white women being pushed out of their jobs. Sir, if you have minimum wages for jobs, that may not happen. Secondly it is just possible that some of those ladies have gone off to have the babies recommended by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. They might well be busy with their families.

27,000 of them?

It is possible. Thirdly, the Deputy Minister said that this Bill was not a job reservation Bill, and that it was not to stop job competition. He said that it was to stop labour integration. I think he called it a precautionary measure against White-Bantu labour integration.

Yes.

I do not know what that means at all, because every time there has been a take-over of jobs, as there has willy-nilly been in every field of labour in South Africa, because of the demand for labour and the shortage of white skilled and semi-skilled labour, there has been White-Black integration, or White-Black competition if you like. Sooner or later the economic pressures have become too great, and this has resulted. Is white South Africa any the worse for it? Surely we all admit that there is no such thing as a poor white problem in South Africa. Surely we all admit, as the hon. the Minister of Labour boasted during this Session, that there is full employment for Whites in this country. You have to be very bad indeed not to be employed if you are a white person in South Africa to-day. There is full employment for Whites, but this is by no means the case where Africans are concerned.

The same applies to the Bantu.

Nonsense. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Let him go to the reserves, or the area the hon. member for King William’s Town described the night before last. Let him go to the resettlement areas and see the hopeless unemployment problem there. There is no registration of Bantu unemployment; that is why the hon. member does not know what the figures are. Let us register this unemployment, and we shall soon see what the facts are. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether clause 11 is being introduced to validate what has in fact been happening in the Western Province for the past three years. By departmental chit the former Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration laid down that Africans, including section 10 Africans, because they were being denied registration as well quite invalidly, were not allowed to do certain jobs in the Western Cape. These jobs were reserved for Coloureds. Jobs for so-called “boys”, since this is South African parlance—they are called “boys” even though these “boys” may be 60 years of age—jobs for stable boys, delivery boys, garden boys and garage attendants and a whole host of other jobs have, for the last three years, been reserved for Coloureds in the Western Cape. I want to know under what authority that has been done up till now. I say, as I said two or three years ago to the then Deputy Minister, that that is being done invalidly. Of course, his reply then was characteristic. “So sue me,” he said. As though one does not know that the Government will then simply introduce amending legislation to make those powers retrospective, as they do in every regard! I say that that is what clause 11 is doing here. Clause 11 is validating what has been done invalidly in the Western Cape for the last two or three years as far as section 10 Africans are concerned.

I have already said in my Second-Reading speech that that is not our intention.

I do not care what the Deputy Minister’s intention is. I am only interested in what the law lays down. I have said before that I do not trust Ministers. That goes for Deputy Ministers as well, past, present and future. I only want to know what is in the law. The widest possible powers are being given to these hon. gentlemen. They are now to be allowed to cancel existing contracts in any field whatsoever. That is what clause 11 does, or that is what I must assume it does. Therefore I say there are more ways than one of skinning a cat. The protective cover of section 10 is being whittled away all the time by one law after another, just as the other rights of non-Whites have been whittled away one after the other. Here one thinks of the African women, who actually qualify under section 10, and who are being “persuaded” by the officials to leave the urban areas and return to their homelands. One thinks of the widows who are “persuaded” because their houses are taken away from them. I know all about this. I know what is happening in practice. So, too, will the men be “persuaded” to go. Because what will happen? Their jobs are going to disappear. The hon. the Deputy Minister is going to cancel jobs, so that they will have no jobs. They will then not be able to pay rent. They will be unemployed. They will lose their houses, and that will be that. One must not forget that, under another clause in this Bill, even section 10 Africans may be deprived of their jobs if there is no accommodation for them. There is going to be a whittling away of rights and these people are going to be ‘‘persuaded” to go back to their homelands.

At present those who stay unlawfully in the urban areas can be sent off home. This will now include those people who will lose their right to stay because their jobs have disappeared. These people can now be sent back to the reserves, and in terms of clause 6, they can be forced to do any work in the homelands to which they have been sent. This does not apply to white farms, but only to the homelands. I should like to make this clear immediately.

The Deputy Minister said that this was a technical change only. Apparently he thinks nothing of classifying as “idle” or “undesirable” people who are genuine work seekers. People who have been deprived of their jobs become genuine work seekers. People who come in from the rural areas where there are no employment opportunities at all, if they are unemployed in an urban area for more than 72 hours, are then there unlawfully. One only has to go to the Bantu Commissioners’ courts to see the thousands of Africans dealt with every year for the simple crime of being in fact work seekers, but technically “unlawfully” in an urban area for more than 72 hours. The vast majority of the cases in the Bantu Commissioners’ courts stem from exactly those reasons. The hon. the Deputy Minister sees it only as a technicality that those persons are now put in exactly the same category as persons who have been declared “idle” or “undesirable”. Now, “idle and undesirable” was meant to carry a stigma. It was meant to apply to Africans who are unemployable, the loafers, the criminals. That is what it was meant to mean. Now everybody will fall under the same penalty and can be made to go to a stated area and do any work which is provided. That is a forced-labour system, whatever the hon. the Minister says. He does not allow the genuine work seekers to seek work here. He deprives the existing job holders of their jobs. Under clause 6 they are all to be classified in exactly the same way as the “idle”, “undesirable” Africans and may be sent to a work centre set up in a homeland. I think that is a shocking clause. It is much more than a technicality.

Then there is a human angle to this Bill. I say that this Bill dehumanizes labour. It puts people in the category of labour units—a pair of black hands not attached to a human body with the aspirations of a human being at all. Recruitment of labour is always a bad thing, really, because it means that labour does not come voluntarily. One has to go out and look for it.

What do you want?

It should be voluntary. The hon. the Minister says this is going to increase mobility of labour. It is, within the areas concerned, of course. It is going to increase mobility in that pool labour can now be used. For instance, when a building contractor has finished a job, and he dismisses his men, they can be taken on by somebody else in the labour pool. To that extent it increases mobility. But it also decreases competition. It keeps wages low. We have seen this on the mines, where they have a minimum average wage which applies under the group system on the mines, and which keeps wages low. The pool system of recruited labour for manufacturing, construction and other fields of employment is also going to keep wages low. The employee will not have the opportunity of choosing his employer and building up a personal relationship with his employer. As it is, the African enjoys no recognized trade union rights, no rights of collective bargaining, and now this difficulty is added.

Now we also have this nasty little subsection—it is the only way I can describe it— which removes the existing right of the African to return to his former employer and to reenter the urban area, if he does so within a year. The explanatory memorandum, which I read very carefully, as I did the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech, takes no cognizance at all of the fact that the call-in system is not yet functioning. [Interjection.] It is not functioning. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot be serious when he tells me it is functioning. Is he honestly trying to tell me that the headmen in all the homelands in the Transkei, the Ciskei, Tswanaland and elsewhere are coping with the call-in system, whereby people can register to go back to the same employer, that they have mastered the intricacies of the register. The regulations have not even been framed. What is the hon. the Minister talking about? He said himself that the regulations had not been framed.

It has been introduced already.

Well, then he should not introduce it before he has framed the regulations. What is more, I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me how many Africans have, under the call-in system, been allowed to return to the same employer. When I ask questions about this, I am told that the information is not readily available. I am told that statistics of that nature are not kept. They should be kept. Let us know about it. I do not believe that the call-in system can be working properly. There are no people trained to do it. The system is operated by the headmen; it is done by the tribal heads and they have not yet been instructed how to do this properly. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can be serious when he tells me that the call-in system is functioning perfectly well. Sir, it is going to be exactly like the system whereby Bantu teachers have been waiting since the beginning of the year for their pay, because the Tswana authorities have not worked out who is to pay them and how much they should be paid. We are going to have the same thing, long queues of hungry workers, waiting for the call-in system to function, and in desperation coming into the towns and being picked up as persons who have stayed in the urban areas, without the necessary permission, for longer than 72 hours. This whole system is unbelievable. The Minister does not even bother to frame the regulations that are necessary. I wonder whether, under the regulations which are to be framed, the worker is going to see a copy of his contract. Will the hon. the Minister answer that question?

Yes, of course.

The Act makes no provision for it. This is a matter I raised last year. Everybody gets a copy of the contract, except the man who is most intimately concerned, the worker himself. The headman keeps a copy, the local labour bureau keeps a copy, the local authority has a copy, the employer has a copy, but does the work seeker get a copy? No. Can hon. members imagine this—that the Act does not make provision for the work seeker to obtain a copy of his contract?

This measure, just like other measures we have had before, attempts to set the clock of South Africa back to the days of the Stallard Commission. Do hon. members know when the Stallard Commission reported? Do any of them have any idea when that was? They would not know. Forty-five years ago the Stallard Commission reported. The Stallard Commission said that the Native, as the term then was, shall be allowed in the white areas only as long as his labour is required by the white man.

That is right.

That is right! It was 45 years ago. Hon. members take no notice of the industrial revolution we have had in this country since then. They are taking no notice of the demands of industry and of the stabilized, urbanized and town-born generation that has developed since then. They ignore everything that has happened. They are ignoring the new technology. In those days there was only unskilled work and highly skilled work. To-day technology has introduced scores of semi-skilled machine operative jobs. Into those jobs, willy-nilly, whatever the Government wanted, Africans have stepped. For those jobs one needs trained labour, one does not need migratory labour. One cannot use migratory labour, because one cannot train migratory labour properly, the workers cannot acquire proper skills.

I am not even talking about the social evils of trying to go back to the migratory labour system. It is a vast turnover of labour which involves tremendous expenditure. The Tomlinson Commission worked out that with migratory labour, something like 600,000 man hours per year are not used, are wasted in going backwards and forwards. Professor Hobart Houghton, who is on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Committee, has worked out that something like 317 million, man miles per annum will be travelled by migratory workers if they live only 30 miles from their place of work. The “men of two worlds”, as he described them, never acquiring skills, never acquiring any security and never acquiring even the hope that they might better their circumstances. To deprive a person of this hope is the worst thing of all. Already, the labour turnover is ridiculously high in South Africa. The industrial costs are enormous. Does the hon. the Minister of Planning not know it? Does he not know the tremendous economic waste of the migratory; labour system?

It was much higher 10 years ago.

Well, of course, it might have been higher years ago, but now the Government is trying to turn the clock back. Let us see what it is going to be like in 10 years’ time. These powers may be like job reservation—on the Statute Book but not implemented. I only pray that that may be so. That is why the economy has not suffered under the job reservation system, in answer to an hon. gentleman from the back benches who spoke the other day and said that all the predictions about job reservation had failed. I will not go into the social effects—they have been discussed over and over again: the insecurity, the broken families, the “cancer” in our society, referred to by the Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, the illegitimacy, the crimes, the delinquencies, all these evils that sociologists know about and about which the hon. the Deputy Minister wrote so meritoriously in his thesis years ago. What has happened to his alter ego? Has he forgotten what he said in those days? He was right in those days. It is a pity that he came back and became a politician and did not stay a sociologist. He knew more then than he knows now.

He said that a person is not a suitcase. What a profound discovery! Well done! I congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister. A person is not a suitcase; that is right. But the way he is treating these people is just like bags, using them, sending them back, dumping them when they are not needed and calling them into use again when they are needed.

That is nonsense.

It is like the old system, where the people were bound to the soil and used till they were not needed any more.

I must say that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he will administer this Bill humanely. When hon. Ministers are accused of introducing heartless Bills, they say that they will administer them humanely. That was said when the Group Areas Act was introduced. The then Minister of the Interior said that equal sacrifice would be demanded of all. How equal has the sacrifice been under the Group Areas Act? 59,000 Coloured families, 39,000 Indian families, less than 700 white families, and more Chinese than white families moved, although the Chinese are a tiny group in South Africa. Is this the equality of sacrifice? The mass removals, are they humanely administered? I have no faith in the humanity which the hon. the Minister says will be practised in administering this Bill. I think it will go down in history as another ruthless and oppressive measure.

I am frightened of this Bill. The hon. member for Brakpan, I think, said that the Opposition was frightened of this Bill, but I am frightened for reasons quite other than the ones the hon. member for Brakpan was thinking of. I am frightened because of its effects on the whole social system of South Africa. The Government has talked with great concern about preserving the traditions of the African people, preserving their culture, making them proud of their culture. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows—I have raised this with him before—that the basic form of tribal society among Africans is the extended family system. If one breaks that down, one breaks down everything. If one puts nothing in its place, one is leaving these people out in the cold. One is not allowing them to absorb what is best in Western civilization; one is only allowing them to absorb what is the worst in Western civilization. I say if we do not pay for this Bill, our children most surely will.

Mr. Speaker, in the approach to this Bill there are two diametrically opposed points of view. Obviously, it is impossible for those to meet, because the one approach is from the point of view of those who believe in separate development, those who believe that South Africa consists of various peoples who should develop as members of their own entity, but the other group believes that the development must be towards integration. Obviously, for those who believe in separate development, this Bill is logical; but for those who believe in integration, gradually or at a heightened speed, this Bill is not logical. In fact, the whole bunch of integrationists are opposed to this Bill. It includes the Progressive Party, like the hon. member who has just sat down, the Black Sash from whom I have received a memorandum against this Bill, the United Party, the Institute of Race Relations, the South African Council of Churches, the Christian Institute and Nusas. In fact, if the Communist Party of South Africa was still allowed to exist, they would also have been opposed to this Bill. In other words, all the integrationists are opposed to this Bill because they can see no sense in it. But this Bill is another step in the direction of the implementation of the policy of separate development. Come what may, this Government is intent on moving step by step towards implementing the policy of separate development.

Mr. Speaker, some industrialists and commerce, who are flourishing as a result of the present-day prospering economy, seem to believe that it is the duty of the State to supply a bottomless pit of black labour to man the expansion of their businesses. There is no such thing. It is not the duty of the State to provide a bottomless pit of labour from the ranks of the Bantu people. It is the duty of the State to safeguard the proper, planned development of the peoples of Southern Africa. We intend going about that on a basis of separate development, and the Whites must learn to become less dependent on non-white labour. It is high time, as the hon. member for Stilfontein said, that our white economy moved in the direction of becoming less dependent on non-white labour. Sir, it has been said that this Bill is designed to discriminate against the Bantu people and the question has been asked whether there is no place in the sun for the Bantu people. The fact of the matter is that the sun does not only shine in white South Africa; the sun also shines in black South Africa. It is imperative, as the hon. member for Houghton has just said, that growth points should be established there. The fundamental difference between our policy and that of the Opposition is that the attitude of the Progressive Party and the United Party is that everything that has to be provided for the other races must be provided by the white people.

Absolute nonsense.

Of course that is their attitude. The only way in which people can develop is when they are forced into a situation where they have to take the initiative themselves. We can provide means to help them to take the initiative but we cannot give them initiative. It is wrong to expect the white people to provide every single service, every employment opportunity and every means of development for the Bantu people. It is not only the Whites who are capable of development; it is also within the power of the non-Whites to develop.

Sir, before the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) leaves the Chamber I should like to deal with some of the points which he raised here. The hon. member said that the interests of South Africa demand that we should use all available labour in the best interests of South Africa. That can only mean one thing and that is that he believes that there should not be any differentiation whatsoever in the employment of labour because he says that the interests of South Africa demand that we should use all available labour in the best interests of South Africa. That can only mean that all avenues of employment must be open to all the peoples of Southern Africa.

As in the Railways.

He also added that according to United Party policy, subject only to influx control, the Bantu must be able to sell his labour on the best market.

Quite right.

That again underlines the fact that the United Party’s approach differs in no way from that of the Progressive Party.

It is simply humanity.

In other words, they do not regard the fact that we are separate peoples in Southern Africa as a basis for future development. They regard complete integration as the only basis for future development.

Do you feel that they must sell their labour in the worst market?

I feel that they should provide their labour in the first instance to the benefit of their own people, and that is the direction in which we are moving under our policy. The hon. member for Newton Park also added that it would be necessary for the Government to provide employment opportunities for the Bantu in their own areas, again indicating that their attitude is that they are prepared to accept separate development as far as employment is concerned but it must be on a voluntary basis; there must be no State planning as far as employment opportunities are concerned; it must be on a voluntary basis and employment opportunities must be provided by the State in the Bantu areas. Their attitude in this regard is the same as their attitude towards other apartheid measures. They are in favour of separate development if it is on a voluntary basis. But on a voluntary basis, as has been proved in other parts of the world, it does not satisfy the people who are involved. Separate development on a voluntary basis has never worked in this country. It is essential that the planning and the development of this policy be controlled by a central authority.

Why, if apartheid is so moral and attractive to all the races, do you not believe that it is possible to have it voluntarily accepted?

That is quite simple, because the whole historical development of South Africa up to this stage has been on the basis that non-Whites have been available in almost unlimited numbers to provide labour at so-called cheap rates. Obviously the natural thing for those who have the means to enjoy the luxuries of life is to engage cheap labour to do their work, but that is not the basis on which to develop any people. In fact, that was the very cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire. If we are to develop as a nation, if we are to develop a stamina of our own, it is absolutely essential that we should be able to provide for our own labour requirements. Here again there is one fundamental difference between our attitude and that of hon. members opposite: We believe in a fundamental principle which will ensure the survival of the white people and which will result in the development of the non-Whites to their own benefit, but the only yardstick which hon. members opposite apply is the yardstick of economic development—the so-called holy cow of economic development. Sir, economic development is essential but it is not the most important factor in the growth and development of a people.

Is it not important that people should eat?

It is most important that people should eat, but it is also important that people should eat knowing that their future is safeguarded. We believe that this measure which is before us to-day is essential as a further stepping-stone in implementing the policy of separate development. Hon. members opposite, who apparently enjoy the support of some industrialists and commercial people, believe that we must supply a bottomless pit of non-white labour but they have absolutely no regard to the necessity of providing accommodation for these people. This Bill now lays down that the supply of labour can be made dependent on the availability of housing. In other words, commerce and industry must not adopt the attitude that they can demand unlimited labour and that the Government must provide all the housing for that labour. In terms of this measure, if housing is not available then labour will not be forthcoming. White industry and commerce will have to learn to improve their productivity, to improve their means of production, rather than to rely upon an unlimited supply of non-white labour.

Would you allow an industrialist to build houses for his workers?

On a limited scale, yes, and depending on whether it is within the framework of the policy of this Government. In other words, industrialists will not be permitted to erect housing in, say, Westville, or Pinetown, or Kloof.

What about the framework of the Railways?

Can the industrialist build a block of flats in Soweto for his workers?

Sir, the hon. members for Houghton and Walmer again came here with this cliché of equal pay for equal work. That fits in with their approach of complete integration, integration at the economic level at this stage but integration at other levels at the next stage, leading eventually to complete integration. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members of the Opposition also objected to the concept of migratory labour. This is one point on which I would like clarity from the United Party. No purpose will be served by asking the hon. member for Houghton what her attitude is, because it is quite obvious what her intentions are. The attitude of the United Party towards migratory labour is that it is bad for the Bantu within the present boundaries of South Africa, in other words, for the Xhosas, the Tswanas or the Zulus. As far as they are concerned, migratory labour is an evil concept. But as far as the United Party is concerned migratory labour is quite in order if it comes from Malawi, from Mozambique, from Botswana or from Lesotho.

Stop talking so much nonsense.

I want to know from the official Opposition whether they are in favour of migratory labour if it comes from independent states outside South Africa, and if they are in favour of that sort of migratory labour, how can they justify it morally? How can they say on the one hand that they are in favour of that sort of migratory labour when they oppose migratory labour from within the present Bantu areas in South Africa? And if the Transkei at some time in the future attains complete independence, would they then suddenly turn round and say that migratory labour from the Transkei is in order? Sir, it is quite obvious that on this question there are only two approaches, the approach of those who believe in separate development and who will subscribe to this Bill, and the approach of those who believe in integration, at whatever rate it may take place, who will not subscribe to this Bill. There are these two approaches and never the twain shall meet. Sir, the judge will be the electorate of South Africa and we shall see at the next election whether the voters of South Africa support integration or separate development.

Sir, it is a pity that we should have to deal with such contentious legislation, as this Bill is, in the late hours of the 1969 Session. It is a pity the Government deemed it fit to bring such contentious legislation as this, legislation which could give rise to all kinds of problems, before the House. It is measures such as this that cause us on this side of the House to feel increasingly concerned that this Government is moving in a direction which will invite the disapproval of the outside world. Legislation of this kind must create the impression in the outside world that we are no longer concerned about the damage we do to human feelings. Legislation such as this can only prove harmful to the image of this country abroad; it can only mar the relations between this country and overseas countries; it can only cause this country’s name to stink in white democratic countries. One asks oneself why it is necessary for the Government to do this and why it is doing so at this late stage of the Session. When one has speeches such as those made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and those of the two speakers before him, the hon. member for Stilfontein and the hon. member for Pietersburg, in which they stated that all the United Party was interested in as far as the Bantu were concerned was their labour. That is a shocking statement.

But it is true.

Then the hon. member for Sunnyside still says it is true. Through the labour and the seat of the non-Whites and the Bantu, who is also a citizen of this country and has lived and worked with us for generations, we are the employers and they the employees. Through the mercy of the Father, and the fall of the dice, our skins are white and we have climbed the ladder and become more powerful and more mighty, but with their help and their labour. We want to act as the guardians of the Bantu and the Coloureds. How have we achieved such a relationship if it had not been the will of the Father that we should be the guardians of these people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying these things with reference to the Bill and I shall now deal with it. It is a Bill which determines where a man shall work and where he shall not work. It determines where he shall be accommodated and where he shall not be accommodated. It determines what shall happen to him if he does not want to leave his home. It is with reference to this that I am talking about the trusteeship we must maintain over these people, because we are the legislature. Here is Parliament. They do not have the say. These things are not done in consultation with them. Eventually one begins to wonder how blunted one’s feelings can become. How can a white population become so conditioned to this kind of legislation that they allow it? If we were to look at the legislation determining the way of life of the Bantu we would find that it is determined where the Bantu shall live and where they shall not live. It is legislation which determines where they may work and where they may not work and what work they will be given. It is legislation which determines that if a Bantu does not want to leave his home, he can be sent away to institutions or other towns or anywhere for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of slow or rapid integration.

The accusation is being levelled at us that we stand for integration. It is in pursuance of this story that we are in favour of integration that I have said that we have a trusteeship to carry out. If the hon. member for Turffontein thinks that as a result of the power this Parliament has by means of its laws it does not owe these people trusteeship, quite apart from integration, then our consciences are so blunted that the whole matter is a disturbing one.

We have 300 years of living together, and 300 years of economic integration behind us. For 300 years I and my ancestors before me hired the services of the Bantu. They looked after the sheep and did the work and are still doing so to-day. For 300 years the Bantu have been living on our farms. For 300 years we have been interested not only in their labour but have provided them with housing and have looked after them. For years and years there were millions of them in the country areas and while the farming population decreased, the number of Bantu increased. Do the hon. members on the opposite side now want to tell me that we are interested only in their labour?

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein has put the hon. member off his stride. The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask, with all due respect, whether I am not dealing with the Bill when I mention where the Bantu may work and how they may work and how they may be ejected from urban areas? A Bantu may be ejected from an urban area or a town.

If he does not work.

If the Secretary, as a result of the representations of the township authorities, should decide that a Bantu town should be removed, this is done. The Secretary can also, without the representations of the township authority, decide that a Bantu shall be removed. Another township authority can also apply to have them removed, and then the Bantu can be ejected. They must then go to another area. If they do not want to go to that area, and cling to their homes, then they can be endorsed out from thence, without having to appear before a court. This is after all the normal procedure. If a man does not want to obey the regulations of a township authority, bring him before a court and punish him, but the Bantu are being endorsed out and from thence they are being sent to other township areas, or to an institution or a place which may be determined by the Secretary. They must then remain there for as long as the Minister says they must remain there. They must also do the work the Minister says they must do. What are we doing? How far do we want to go in this connection? Is it necessary to take all these steps? During the last few days we have had similar legislation. I am referring to the legislation which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I remember so clearly what he said about it.

Order! That legislation has been disposed of.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying these things with reference to the same principle, i.e. that the Government is introducing legislation to make separation and apartheid more final. Mr. Speaker, you allowed the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to discuss separate development and integration for a long time. You must therefore please give me the opportunity of discussing it as well. I want an opportunity to refute the statement that we are in favour of integration as such. Mr. Speaker, I want to refute this statement, since you allowed the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to use this statement as his argument. The hon. member stated that the Black Sash, the hon. member for Houghton and the United Party were in favour of integration. It is not necessary to argue about that for the people who have always advocated that the Bantu reserves should be developed and that a great deal of money should be spent there are sitting on this side. It is now being said that we are only interested in their labour. This puts me in mind of something which happened quite a number of years ago when Mr. Steven le Roux was still the Minister of Agriculture. He visited my farm and remarked on the beautiful houses I had had built for the Bantu on my farm. The apartheid policy of the Government was then much younger than it is to-day. This had then not progressed so far along this road as this legislation has. I then said to him: “Yes, but give me eight Italian families who know agriculture and you can take all these people away and place them in reserves, subject to their being able to eat there.” I am of the same opinion to-day. I listened to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development discussing another matter for 20 minutes. I still remember his words very clearly. He said that the Whites would still have to learn to get along with fewer Bantu, for the objective was to try to restore the status quo, so that there would be equilibrium between Bantu and Whites. By implication he also stated how he saw the position in the year 2000. He then appealed to the Whites to employ fewer non-Whites. He said that we owed it to South Africa to employ fewer Bantu, so that they could return to their own areas, and so that the status quo could be preserved and so that there would be as many Whites as possible in what we call white South Africa, for otherwise we would not be able to make a success of things. This is a wonderful ideology. It is a wonderful opiate with which to keep on injecting the white population, and to keep on telling them that sooner or later, by legislation of this nature, it would be possible to reduce the number of Bantu to such an extent in this country that there will be more Whites than Bantu. If this were physically possible, we would all support such a policy. But why is it physically impossible? The Bantu own at the present moment 13 per cent of the surface area of this country. At the most conservative estimate there will, by the year 2000, if we accept that there will still be between 5 and 6 million Bantu in the white areas, be 25 million Bantu who will have to live in that 13 per cent. In all fairness, I want to ask how densely populated that 13 per cent of the country will then be. How highly will that area have to be industrialized to carry 25 million people? It does not even help talking about this, because it cannot be done. That area will then be as densely populated as the Witwatersrand. How long did it take the Whites, with their skill, to develop the Witwatersrand into what it is today? Approximately 70 to 80 years. The Whites had the raw materials and the gold mines, as well as a great deal of Bantu labour to help them develop the Witwatersrand. How long will it take before the Bantu areas, with only 13 per cent of the surface area of the country at their disposal, to have the development, industrialization, commercialization and infrastructure there, to maintain 25 million people there.

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

Mr. Speaker, you have repeatedly been asking me to return to the Bill. I am now discussing arguments raised by other hon. members. I am discussing the arguments raised by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Those arguments have already been replied to and quoted repeatedly by hon. members.

It has not yet been stated that there is no livelihood for these people in the Bantu areas. However, I do not want to argue with the Chair, for I do not know whether I may not perhaps be the last speaker in this debate. However, there is still time at my disposal. I should still like to make a point or two, if I am given an opportunity to do so. We will all support legislation which will help to return the Bantu to their own area if there is a livelihood for them there, but we will not support legislation of this kind. It is of no avail arguing as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did. The hon. member stated that one must eat, but that one must also have security, and be ensured of survival. What has a bearing on the Whites, probably has as much bearing on the non-Whites and the Bantu. A man must eat, but he must also have a safeguard for his survival. I still want to see the physical implementation of what the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. Minister said in regard to the decrease in the number of Bantu in the white areas. If we decrease the number of Bantu where do we get our labour from? It is not our fault that there is not sufficient white labour available to do the work the Bantu are now doing. Earlier on I used the argument that if our immigration policy had been of such a kind that we could get agriculturists from overseas, it would have been possible to remove the Bantu from the farms. However, this is not possible now. Surely this is impossible. [Interjections.] It will not help our making such a racket. I get the impression that the more we make a noise, the more we are trying to lull our own consciences. We want to lull the world with the idea that the white nation in South Africa is at present able to reduce the number of Bantu here, with legislation of this nature, that at some point in the future, perhaps in 30 years’ time, the possibility will exist that there will be more Whites than Bantu in South Africa. Physically this is not possible. This measure is a cruel kind of legislation. During his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister stated that clause 11 was not a work reservation clause. He said that clause 11 simply stipulated what could happen to a person if he did not abide by certain regulations. There has never been a more successful work reservation clause than this one. This clause stipulates what a person may not do, where he may not stay and where he may not go. The clause also states by implication what remains for such people and what they can do. This clause goes further and states where a person must go when he has been endorsed out, and what he must do, and for what period of time he must do it, and precisely what kind of work he must do. This is not work reservation but forced labour. It is much worse even than work reservation, and is forced labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister is always blaming hon. members on this side of the House when we plead for human relations. He then states that we want the families of all these people to stay in the white areas as well. He states that there are at the moment 1.664 million single Bantu in our white areas. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not, in all honesty say, that he also talks about all the migratory labour which is coming over from overseas countries such as the Portuguese areas?

That is not true. Those persons are not included in that figure. I said so a long time ago.

I shall then leave out the 300,000 coming to South Africa from the Portuguese areas, and also those coming from Botswana and the other areas, and also those coming from Botswana and the other areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister will have an opportunity to reply, and it is not necessary for him to interrupt me. Of this number of 1.664 million single Bantu in South Africa, the vast majority are unmarried. The other are Bantu coming from the Transkei and include Bantu who work as shearing teams and for white farmers. Some of these Bantu work in the white areas on a temporary basis only, and this includes those who, for example, work with the woolbrokers on a temporary permit. When did we ask that the families of Bantu working in the white areas should also be brought in on a temporary basis? It does not help, for argument’s sake, to say that if the families of these 1.664 million Bantu had to brought to the white areas, that if every family consisted of five members, there would subsequently be an additional 8.5 million Bantu in the white areas. There are not even that many Bantu in the Bantu areas. In the same breath another hon. Minister states that there are already 3½ million surplus Bantu in the white areas, and that we owe them nothing and that they must also be sent back to the Bantu areas. At this late stage of the Session we are dealing with vicious legislation. This side of the House is not speaking for overseas consumption when we criticize this legislation. This legislation is aimed at bringing South Africa into disfavour abroad. This legislation is phrased in this way, and it is that kind of measure. I will not violate my conscience and say nothing when legislation of this nature, which is aimed at sending the Bantu back to the Bantu areas, is before us as legislators, for I think it is an injustice we are doing to these people. It is almost a crime we are committing against the Bantu who are living in this country, who are peace-loving, who are working in this country and who are happy here.

I now want to deal with an argument put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Colesberg. I am sorry the hon. member is not present in the House at the moment, but I just want to have this matter placed on record. The hon. members discussed the position in Middelburg, where I come from. According to statistics there are 3,000 Whites, between 4,000 and 5,000 Coloureds, and approximately 5,000 Bantu. The hon. member for Colesberg stated that approximately 200 families had already been removed from Middelburg. He did not say where to, but I know that they went to Mnxesha. Actually approximately 3,000 Bantu was sent from Middelburg to Mnxesha. According to the information the Superintendent of Mnxesha gave me, approximately 168 families must have been sent from Middelburg to Mnxesha. I want to predict that if this is done, there will be virtually no more Bantu left in Middelburg. It does not help arguing about that. I have already said in this House that I went there and discussed this with the Superintendent. I also discussed this with the Bantu Commissioner at King William’s Town, and asked him to give me the name of the person in charge of the removal to Mnxesha. I wanted to take this person along so that we could go and have a look and see what was happening at Mnxesha. I received a report that servants who had been working for me had also been sent to Mnxesha. Five servants, one of whom has been working for the same person for 11 years, were sent to Mnxesha. All of them say that the official who came to speak to them told them that there was free accommodation as well as rations available at Mnxesha. They were also told that they would be taken there free of charge. They were then asked why they wanted to stay on in Middelburg and work for the Whites. They were not sent to Mnxesha under compulsion, but were in fact sent there under false pretences. In this way they carried off 3,000 of them from Middelburg. From Burgersdorp 2,000 were trucked out. From Colesberg not one has been taken away. The hon. member lives there. I refuse to believe that conditions in Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Middelburg, Colesberg, Ventersdorp, Steynsburg and Burgersdorp are not the same. Yesterday we heard of the accusation made against the Bantu of Middelburg. They had supposedly acted in such a way that they had all to be taken away. A thing like that is a disgrace. There is no reason for it, apart from the zeal as overzealous officials. These officials think they can get promotion if they treat the Bantu in this way. Five of the Bantu from Mnxesha have returned to Middelburg. One of them is back with the same housewife who employed her for 11 years. This lady told me the other day she was thankful that she had returned. The servant came walking back, whereas she had been driven in a truck to Mnxesha. There a family of 11 were given a two-roomed house. They had to use water out of a tap which had been pumped from a dam. I do not want to go into all this. Is it right to act in this way? It does not redound to the credit of the Whites. We may not treat the Bantu like this. We may not treat any human beings like this.

The hon. member for Stilfontein said that the residence of the Bantu here should be regarded as privilege and not a right. That is a terrible thing to say. He says the Bantu have no right to be here but that it is privilege from them to stay here. Then he does a sudden about face and says that in the same way it is a privilege for the Whites and not a right to go to the Bantu areas. I cannot understand how a person can base his entire argument on a statement like that. At this stage this Parliament still retains the control over all the Bantu areas, including the Transkei. We are still governing and administering them all. We arrange their finances and their transport. Everything affecting the non-White areas is being done by this Parliament. This Parliament can, in its wisdom, determine where a man can live and where he cannot live. That is what we are doing. All the citizens of this country have a right to remain in this country.

But this is white man’s country.

It makes no difference to me what that hon. member says. He says this is the white man’s country. This is the white man’s country as laid down by legislation as established by this Parliament. Before that, all the time, it was the country of all the citizens of our country.

Do you want them to live where they want to?

It is no use asking me what I want. I am stating the history of this matter. Are we arguing about that? At this stage this Parliament is still administering the entire country, including the Bantu areas which will eventually become independent states. Therefore this Parliament is administering everyone. At this stage we now have territorial areas where part of the administration is carried out by the areas themselves. The heart of the matter is however that this Parliament administrates everything. I hope that this legislation is never placed on the Statute Book in this form. It is a blemish on the white man. He has the power to make legislation and then, as guardian of the non-Whites, he makes legislation like this. I hope even before we reach the Committee Stage, that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to amending this legislation in such a way that it is acceptable and that it is not a blemish on the name of the white man and will not bring us into discredit with the rest of the world.

I rise to participate in this debate. My feelings and emotions are mixed, and this compels me to make the statement that on the one hand I am very grateful to the Minister and his Department and officials for having made this Bill available to this House for discussion. At a later stage I shall indicate more specifically why I am making the statement that I am grateful for the fact that it is possible to have this legislation before this House. As I have said, I have mixed feelings in regard to this matter. My gratitude is somewhat diminished by the fact that it will not be possible to pilot this Bill through this House this Session, in other words, that it cannot be enacted this Session. Therefore I shall indicate why I am sorry that it will not be possible to take this Bill through all its stages. I want to blame the United Party for that to a large extent, because over the past few days they have been using delaying tactics. They took up and wasted the time of this House in order to delay this legislation and to make it impossible to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member say that the Opposition used violation tactics?

I did not say that. There are hearing aids in this House and I advise the hon. member to use them. I say I am disappointed because of the fact that this legislation will fall a victim to the prorogation. The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. that the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months, was in point of fact quite unnecessary. It is clear for anyone to see now that this Bill simply cannot be placed on the Statute Book this Session. It most definitely was essential to take this Bill through all its stages this Session. Within my own constituency, within the Municipality of Harrismith, a situation has developed which has been dragging on over many years and which has been taking money out of the pockets of the ratepayers of that municipality unnecessarily. That is due to the fact that recalcitrant Bantu have been refusing to move from a deproclaimed residential area to a better residential area. The local town council made provision for a very suitable residential area in which churches, schools, amenities for sports, etc., have been built. This was not a case of a removal from one place to another under compulsion, nor was it a case of conditions being poorer in the new residential area. The new residential area was an improvement. The very reason for the deproclamation of the old residential area was in fact the findings of the medical health officers. The conditions under which people lived there were not desirable. Those conditions were neither good nor advantageous to the Whites and the Bantu in that vicinity. Although more than 90 per cent of the Bantu voluntarily moved to the new residential area, 70 families refused to do so. According to all lawyers, the local authority had no statutory power to remove the 70 recalcitrant families.

Now I am asking the hon. the Opposition whether it is in the interests of those Bantu to have remained in that deproclaimed area. The area was deproclaimed chiefly for health reasons. The conditions there were not hygienic. That residential area was situated higher up on the Wilge River, which flows past Harrismith. You have knowledge of the habits of the Bantu. Can you imagine what conditions that created for the riparian owners living further down along that river? The necessary powers are now being granted in clauses 4 and 5. In terms of the proposed section 3 (3) the Minister may, on representations made by an urban local authority for the removal curtailment or abolition of any location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel situate outside the area of jurisdiction of that urban local authority, as well as other areas situate within the area of jurisdiction of such a local authority, in consultation with the Administrator, deproclaim and remove residential areas.

For this reason I want to level the charge at the Opposition that as a result of the line of action, adopted by them in this House, they have prevented something from happening which is of great benefit to the Bantu, i.e. their removal from deproclaimed slum areas to better residential areas. Now they will have to remain there for a longer period. The Bantu are not aware of the fact that they are living there under circumstances which are undesirable. They are not aware of the fact that the Whites have established better residential areas for them. The Bantu have been incited to adopt this defiant attitude by the people who wanted to look after their affairs and who wanted to advise them when proceedings were instituted against them. They would rather serve those inciters and obey them, than serve and obey the Whites who have already done so much for them. Now I also want to reply in passing to a statement made here by the hon. member for East London City. He said that the application of this act was cruel, and he spoke about forced and slave labour. These words have often been used here. Now I want to allege in this House that what the Bantu are to-day in the Republic of South Africa is to a large extent owing to the Whites. The Whites brought civilization, and the Whites brought knowledge. Although the Bantu have contributed their share, for example to the production of foodstuffs in South Africa, an although we are also aware that they are an economic factor in South Africa, it is exclusively the know-how of the Whites which have brought them to this.

I do not have much more time at my disposal, that is why I am hastening to conclude. In conclusion I want to say that I challenge the United Party to defend on a platform in Harrismith this attitude its members adopted here during the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. Those hon. members are the guilty parties who were responsible for it being impossible for this Bill to be passed in this House and placed on the Statute Book. I am accusing them of this, for they are responsible for the fact that those taxpayers will have to bear a financial burden for a longer period of time than would have been necessary if clauses 4 and 5 could have been placed on the Statute Book. If these clauses could have been placed on the Statute Book, the position would have been quite different. I do not have much more time at my disposal, but I hope that this legislation will be among the first to be dealt with next session. I hope it will be possible to do this at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it falls to me to deliver the graveside oration on this last measure. I have to deliver the graveside oration to this measure which the hon. member for Harrismith describes as one which was essential and vital and which should have been passed this Session. I would not say that we control the business of this House; it is his Government and his party which controls the business of this House. To us it is a pleasure to see this Bill buried at this stage of the Session. It is also a pleasure to see South Africa saved from this Bill for at least the best part of another year.

Say that at Harrismith!

I shall say it anywhere, because we believe that this is a Bill which should be buried, not just for seven, eight or nine months, but for ever. It was suggested to me that this Bill was a Bill which, as Shakespeare said, was “conceived in sin” and “ripp’d untimely from his mother’s womb”. I would not go as far as that, I would say: “conceived in frustration” by a Government which for 21 years has been pretending to apply a policy, and which has found year after year that that policy does not work. Therefore, year after year the Government comes with new measures, with new desperate attempts to make an unworkable policy work. Here we have a blatant vote of no confidence in two Government Ministers. This measure is no more than a flat vote of no confidence in the hon. the Minister of Labour. It implies that despite all these uncontrolled powers of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, he is not able to protect the white workers of South Africa from integration with Bantu workers.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in reply to one of my colleagues, said that this Bill was to avoid labour integration and he invited us to read the title. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will not permit me to read the title, because it is a book in itself. The only reference I found in the long title reads as follows:

To which title did the hon. the Deputy Minister refer? Is it to the Short Title?

No, I referred to clause 11.

I have also looked at that. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is with us, because I looked at the rubric to the proposed section 20A as is being inserted by clause 11. It reads:

In other words, it is neither in the short title nor in the long title and not even in the rubric. Therefore, what Bill is this hon. Minister talking about? He does not even know that it is not in this Bill at all. He was the one who told the hon. member for Newton Park to read the title.

I gave my reasons in the Second Reading speech.

No, the hon. member cannot manufacture words now. He has clearly said, “read the title”. Well now, I have read the title and the title says “to control Bantu labour”. Then we are the people who are accused of blackening the image of South Africa. We did not introduce this Bill. In the language of every civilized nation of the world the terms of clause 11 of this Bill would be interpreted as slave labour control of people. This slave labour we find provided for in two clauses. The first one is clause 6, which specifically and unequivocally uses the words, “shall be detained thereat for such period and perform thereat such labour as may be prescribed …” Is it not slave labour if a person may be detained thereat and forced to perform such labour as may be prescribed? Then we are accused of blackening the name of South Africa, while this Government brings in a measure like this. In clause 11, we have complete and total control over the employment of every Bantu in South Africa. When I read this clause, I titled this clause the “gauleiter clause”. I named it the “gauleiter clause” because this is the sort of clause which was imposed to give people the power to determine other people’s lives, their labour and where they live. In these 16 clauses of this Bill the Government is given the power to control where a person shall live, where he shall not live, where he may be deported to, what he may do when he gets there, what work he may perform, for whom he may perform that work, how long he may perform that work, in which class of work he may work, and for which class of employer he may work. I hope the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not leaving the Chamber now.

I will be back.

Then, having determined that a person may not work for a particular employer or class of employer or do particular work, summarily declare him to be unemployed. They first of all make him unemployed, then they declare him unemployed, and then remove him because he is unemployed. They can say that he may not live there. Having made him homeless, they say that because he is homeless, they will deport him to x or y or z. The hon. member for Harrismith had the nerve to say that this Bill is essential for South Africa.

I will say it again.

It is essential only if you have no pride in the good name of South Africa; if you have no pride in our standing amongst the free peoples of the world. Whatever the intention may be …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Would you prefer the conditions now in Harrismith to prevail, if they do not have the laws to solve the problems?

That is of course nonsense. This Government has the power, for instance the Slums Act and the Bantu Areas Act. It has all the powers in the world to deal with matters of this kind. Its trouble is that it does not like dealing with matters in the proper way. What are the things that this Bill does inter alia? It abolishes the right to a public inquiry. Why? Is it afraid of the light of publicity; is it afraid of the truth? One can go through this Bill one clause after another. Look, for instance, at clause 2. the Kwa Mashu clause. I want to deal with that. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the purpose of this clause was to be able to incorporate “aangrensende” locations, that is to say neighbouring locations into a Bantu homeland. But, of course, it is not in the case of Kwa Mashu. Kwa Mashu is not a bordering area. It will be made one in the future, but it is not one at present. So, even the Deputy Minister, in introducing this Bill, misled the House as to the purpose of this Bill.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister “misled” the House?

Mr. Speaker, he said that this was to deal with “aangrensende”, neighbouring, areas. He also mentioned Kwa Mashu. I say that that is not a neighbouring area. Therefore, what he told the House is not in fact the meaning of this clause. In clause 3 there are three offences mentioned where there used to be two about the unlawful occupation of ground. Clause 4 does away with the public inquiry. Clause 5 deals with the loss of domicile, the right to remove a person who has established rights in terms of section 10 from a magisterial district in which he is qualified and entitled to live, into another magisterial district which causes him to lose his rights of residence. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny it?

I deny it. You are talking absolute nonsense.

This clause states that a Bantu shall “be removed, with his personal effects, from such location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel to any other place, whether within or outside the area of jurisdiction of such urban local authority”.

After a medical officer has declared it uninhabitable. Why do you not read the whole clause?

No, after the Minister has declared it as such in terms of any of the powers which he has. The medical officer is only one of the factors. Then they can move people from A to B in a different local authority area. If a person has rights in terms of section 10 and he is moved into another local authority, he loses those rights. Of course he must lose them. He has moved out of the area and has lost his rights to permanent domicile.

How long does he stay in the area before he loses that right?

If he has earned rights by 10 or 15 years’ occupation in one urban area, he is entitled to stay there. He can be moved under this Bill and he then loses his rights. So one goes on clause after clause taking power and power and more power. Then we are told that this Bill is to improve race relations. Has anyone ever heard such utter nonsense? This is to prevent “Bantoe-integrasie” and to “verbeter rasseverhoudings”. How on earth does one improve race relations with a measure of this nature, a measure which makes of the Department of Bantu Administration the total dictator over the lives of every Bantu in South Africa? I do not want to develop that theme, but I do want to deal with this aspect of it. I have said that this Bill was a vote of no confidence in the hon. the Minister of Labour. It is also a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Planning. But this Bill now makes the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration the person who controls, not only the lives of the Bantu, but also the future of every factory and every commercial undertaking in South Africa. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana who talked so much nonsense here this afternoon, sees this Bill as the Bill which will make white people rely on themselves for labour and not on black people. He sees this as a measure which will prevent the black people being used as a bottomless pit of cheap labour. Throughout this Session we have heard how the standard of living of the Bantu people of South Africa is the highest in Africa; how it compares with many countries of the Western world. The hon. the Deputy Minister nods. That standard of living is high, because those persons are employed in white commerce and industry, because they are employed in white enterprise, because they get jobs which bring the money which enable them to live at that standard of living. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana says that this Bill is to stop that; this is to make them work for their own people in their own areas. This Bill, therefore, is to mark the turning point from progress to a higher standard of living of the Bantu back towards a lower standard of living. By way of interjection I asked what they would eat. Do they eat berries and stones? What will they eat if they do not have the jobs? There are no jobs to employ the 13 million Bantu of South Africa, unless white enterprise, white capital and white skill are involved in providing those jobs.

You sound like Margaret Ballinger.

To talk otherwise is to live in a dream world. I challenge that hon. Minister to say how 2½ million Transkeian Bantu are going to live on less than 1,000 industries in the whole of the Transkei.

You are asking these stupid questions over and over again.

What are they going to live on? Nothing!

They are working in the white areas.

Over half of them are working in the white areas. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana must go back to the industrialist, to the entrepreneur, and tell them that he and his Government are going to see that they get no more Bantu labour. The Minister of Bantu Administration said it and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana took it further today. But where does South Africa go without Bantu labour? Where do the Bantu go without white employers? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister was sincere when he described this as a simple measure. However, if we had horses in this House, that description would have made them laugh. Because this “simple” measure is going to have consequences. First of all, to the good name of South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course it does. Secondly, and let me tell the hon. the Minister of Planning that he was not here just now when I said that this was a motion of no confidence in him, a flat vote of no confidence. It has consequences for the whole policy of apartheid, because it is an admission of the failure of apartheid. If we as an Opposition can save the country from the effects of this Bill for another nine months, we shall have done the country a service. And South Africa will thank us for having saved it from the consequences of a measure of which South Africa would have been ashamed, a measure which hon. members opposite should be ashamed to support. Having opposed and prevented this measure, we are glad that through this Government’s determination to carry out its policy it has had to come to this House with two measures fundamental to its policy but has had to drop them both, i.e. this Bill and the Bill about citizenship. In the same way it is still going to be forced to drop the whole of its impracticable policy.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

This is a late hour in the day, late in the week, and the last sitting day of this Session. For that reason I shall try to make my reply as brief as possible, for when we take the Committee Stage of the Bill just now, we will, after all, be able to argue these points further.

We have just been listening to the hon. member for Durban (Point). Sir, you will agree with me that his was one of the most irresponsible speeches we have ever heard in this House; the same goes for the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town; and the same goes for the speech last night by the hon. member for Durban (North). Not only did we expect the United Party to stub its toe against this legislation, we expected it to run up against it and get a bloody nose, and this happened, for now the National Party and the Government have suddenly become the most terrible suppressors of the black man. In fact, the hon. member for King William’s Town had the temerity to go so far as to say that “not even behind the Iron Curtain, or any other curtain for that matter”, were people being deprived of their right to such an extent as here in the Republic of South Africa. That was also the theme of the hon. member for Durban (Point) this afternoon.

Tell me where in the world it is happening?

I shall come to that. I do not want to be too hard on the Opposition for I know that here towards the end of the Session they have been having a difficult time, but I think it is a disgrace that hon. members should have stood up here one after the other and discuss a Bill while they made it clear that they did not even hear the bell ringing, let alone know where the bell tower was. They showed signs of not even having read the Bill. Instead of that they literally stood idling here, and for what purpose? To besmirch South Africa’s name in the House of Assembly by making allegations which were devoid of any truth. It is a disgrace. While I sat listening to them and heard what ignorance they were revealing in their speeches, I thought of the words by Coleridge in “Epigram on a Song”. Therein he says: “Swans sing before they die.” I then thought to myself: “It would not be a bad thing if the United Party were to die before it sang.” The way they carried on here about this legislation was nothing else but a disgrace.

There are two basic statements I want to make. Firstly, that we on this side of the House have pledged ourselves to protecting the interests of the Whites in our white country under all circumstances, and to build for posterity. This legislation is simply another brick in that building we want to leave to posterity in order to ensure in white South Africa that we retain control. Secondly, this Bill is a measure intended to take the policy of distinctive development, with the emphasis on development, a step further in a purposeful and planned way. This Bill, and I am referring specifically to clause 11, was under discussion as long ago as 1963. Since then it has developed logically until it was introduced here in this House. I have said that we have pledged ourselves to build for posterity, but at the same time we also pledge ourselves, just as we want to protect our interests here in the white area, to helping the Bantu and guiding them so that they can similarly look after their own interests in their own homelands, and to allow them to develop to the greatest extent. That is why I stated that this legislation, including clause 11, which is supposed to be so contentious, is as much in the interests of the Bantu as it is in the interests of the Whites. It is true that an act must stand in the Statute Book in the form of words, but surely the way in which it is applied is as important as the meaning the words have. And we pledge ourselves on the way in which this legislation will be applied. This legislation, particularly clause 11, has no other objective than to put a timeous stop to labour integration, to put a stop to the work which was in the hands of the Whites, passing into the hands of the Bantu, which, as we have experienced would soon have led to friction. That is why we have clause 11 in this measure.

How many Whites are unemployed in South Africa to-day?

With the exception of one, every hon. member on the opposite side, in their ignorance of this Bill, did nothing else but to conjure up spectres. That is all they did. I am going to mention eight spectres which they conjured up here and I am going to deal with them in general. Because I want to be brief, I regret that I will be unable to deal with the speech of each individual member as I would like to have done, and I hope hon. members will not take this amiss of me. I shall deal with the most important points they mentioned, point for point. The first spectre they conjured up in regard to this Bill …

Was a female spectre.

I think they were all female spectres. The first spectre they conjured up here—and it is with very great emphasis that I want to discuss this—was that this Bill was first to have been introduced in this House of Assembly, that it was then no longer to be introduced, and that it was then eventually introduced. This was done to create the impression that uncertainty existed on this side of the House in regard to this Bill. I want to state here with the greatest emphasis at my disposal, Sir, that this is an infamous lie; there is no truth in this whatsoever. We are as decided on putting through this Bill as any party could possibly be. The only reason why this Bill will only be taken to the Second Reading stage and then taken further next year, on the resumption of the Session, is that we have had a very heavy programme of parliamentary work and that other essential measures, including financial legislation had to go through. As a result of spectres which have been conjured up in newspapers in regard to this Bill, we felt it would provoke a lengthy discussion, and for that reason the Leader of the House had no other alternative than to adopt the course we have in fact adopted. We agreed with him that in view of the fact and in view of circumstances we would do what we have now done here, and I deplore the fact that newspaper reports appeared, for which the Opposition were partially responsible, in which the impression was created that there was uncertainty on this side of the House in regard to this Bill. I say again that there is not the slightest uncertainty in regard to it; we are unanimously of the opinion that this is an essential Bill which has to be passed, and we shall see to it that it is in fact passed. Because the United Party wants to create the image for itself that it is so opposed to integration, that it is more National than the Nationalists, it began to run away from this Bill in good time, because it knew that it was going to up up against this Bill and come off with a bloody nose. That is precisely what has happened now.

During the last week the United Party has apparently been employing delaying tactics in order to make sure that this Bill would not be passed during this Session. The Opposition is therefore partially to blame for the fact that owing to the heavy programme this Bill cannot progress further than the Second Reading. Sir, that was the one spectre which the Opposition conjured up, for it was nothing else but a spectre. It was as much of a spectre as the United Party has already become a party of spectres. Their performance here, particularly last week, would not have redounded to the credit of any Opposition in any other place. If an Opposition is already such a spectral Opposition, as they are, then they ought to be more careful not to conjure up spectres in regard to an important measure such as this. Sir, then they conjured up a second spectre here and walked whistling past the graveyard. There are I do not know how many members on that side who conjured up this spectre here. That second spectre is that clause 11 of the Bill will supposedly prejudice section 10. Sir, that is absolute nonsense. It is a spectre which they have conjured up and which they want to use to incite the Bantu and to cause uncertainty among the Bantu. It is an extremely irresponsible thing to do and is unworthy of this House. Sir, one of the distinguishing features of the National Party Government has always been its complete sincerity, its complete honesty and the clarity with which it states its case. The Bantu therefore know where they stand with us. We are not like hon. members on that side who blow hot and cold at the same time, and who never know what standpoint to adopt, and then in the long run adopt no standpoint at all. In this case I may as well berate them with the words with which Churchill once berated his Opposition, and which apply appositely to hon. members on that side. Churchill once said—

That is why they let these spectres loose here. They now want to imply to the Bantu that their section 10 qualification will be prejudiced by this measure. Sir, we are honest, we are upright, we are not afraid, when we come forward with measures, to state candidly what the implications of those measures are. This Bill has nothing to do with section 10. It was said here this afternoon that this Bill was intended “to whittle down section 10”. That is not the intention. This Bill is not intended to prejudice the qualifications of the Bantu under section 10. Let me state emphatically that we think that section 10 is an obstacle in the implementation of our policy of distinctive development. But, Sir, we have respect for the Bantu and we have respect for everything dear to us in South Africa, and if we wanted to tamper with section 10 then I, to whom the responsibility for the urban Bantu has been delegated, will have the courage of my convictions not to remove, in a sly way, the rights of the Bantu under section 10, but I shall have the courage of my convictions to come to this House with the necessary measures and to say to the world what we intend doing or what we are doing in regard to section 10. This spectre they have conjured up here is an ineffectual one, and it is a disgrace that the Opposition should have conjured up that spectre here. I am saying these things with emphasis because I do not want the Bantu to believe the false story we are hearing to-day in regard to section 10. I say again that we will come forward with an amendment to section 10 when the time for that comes, and we will then, as is our custom, give the Bantu the necessary quid pro quo. We will not do these things in a cunning manner, and it is irresponsible even to create the impression that we would be prepared to do this. It is also irresponsible towards the country. The hon. member who spoke first wanted to create the impression that clause 2, which deals with Kwa Mashu, would result in section 10 cases being prejudiced. In the case of Kwa Mashu I just want to say that it will in fact be to the benefit of those Bantu, and they know it, and the hon. members sitting there know it. They are pleading for them to be incorporated in the homelands. This also applies to other places which are not adjoining the Bantu homelands. Why? For they would then have terrific advantages which they do not even have under section 10, where section 10 gives the Bantu who qualify under it no other advantage than simply the advantage of residing in the urban area. Sir, hon. members on that side spoke so much nonsense that if I had to reply to all of it I would have to occupy a great deal of the time of the House here, but I do nevertheless want to reply to this one ridiculous statement in regard to section 10. Believe it or not the hon. members stood up and stated that a faithful Bantu servant had, after 11 years, been kicked out and sent to Mngqesha, or one of those places. Sir, we know that there are many faithful Bantu servants; we know how faithful they can be and we have very very much appreciation for this. They are diligent souls and we get along well with them, because we have appreciation for their services; we want to co-exist with them on a good basis, and that is why I deplore this irresponsible attitude which hon. members on that side and our newspapers as well adopt in regard to these matters. As I have said, the hon. member came and told us here about a faithful Bantu servant who had supposedly been kicked out after 11 years. Sir, that is the greatest nonsense one could think of. If a Bantu woman had been working for one person for 11 years, then she already had a section 10 qualification and could not be sent away. That hon. member therefore does not know what he is talking about, and then he discusses these important matters in such an extremely irresponsible way.

I come then to the third spectre conjured up by the United Party here in regard to this Bill, i.e. that we had ulterior motives in regard to this Bill. Speaker after speaker on that side wanted to make the world outside, and the Bantu in particular, believe that as far as the profits on the Bantu beer account are concerned it would now no longer be possible to utilize those profits in the way they were utilized in the past; in other words, that were, in the past, one-third of the profits used to be applied for social services, etc., in particular in the Bantu residential areas this would, as a result of this Bill, no longer be the case in future. In other words, they want to allege that it will no longer be possible to utilize one-third thereof, which was formerly utilized in particular for social services, etc. in the Bantu areas, for that purpose. Sir, surely that is an extremely irresponsible thing to say. They can go and read that clause. Surely they cannot come and make such statements here. What is the truth? The truth is that all this clause envisages is that it should be ensured that the two-thirds of the beer account should remain as it is. The one-third part must also remain as it is. It is clearly stated, but now one must read the clause in conjunction with the original Act. Those hon. members did not even read the Bill. One cannot therefore expect them to have read the original Act.

One of those hon. members stated that the Minister would have to approve it. That, too, is not true at all. It only comes before the Minister, and it is then placed on the Revenue Account. The Minister has no say over it. All this clause now envisages is to ensure that those two accounts remain the same. They are still divided up into two parts of two-thirds and one-third each. But, as the old Act reads, we can also apply to two-thirds part of the profit in such a way that a local authority might want to make a donation out of that two-thirds part so that this can be utilized for homeland development, can do so. Owing to the wording of the old Act this could not, however, be done in respect of the one-third part of the profit. In other words, even though a local authority wanted to make a donation out of the one-third profit, they could not do so, because the Act prohibited them from doing so. All we are now doing, is to say that a local authority which wants, of its own accord, to make such a donation from the one-third part, can utilize it for development in the homelands, or wherever. In my Second Reading speech I stated that the key word here was “donation”. That is all. We will not force any local authority to do so. In any case, we do not have the power to do so. Nevertheless one member after the other stood up there and conjured up the spectre that this Government was such an oppressive Government that it was even going to take the one-third part of the Bantu beer profits and force local authorities to refrain from utilizing these funds as they had utilized them in the past. Sir, this is disgrace upon disgrace by a useless Opposition. Let me say that at once.

I am now dealing in sequence with the most important points raised by hon. members on the opposite side. The fourth spectre they conjured up was that we were now holding the Bantu co-responsible for other Bantu residing on farming land. One member after another, without having even glanced at the legislation, rose and tried to make the country believe that the obligation would now be imposed on the white farmer to have to ensure that his Bantu were forced off the farm. Then the hon. member for South Coast still had the temerity to ask me: “What is the Government going to do now to implement this clause and have the Bantu forced out of the platteland?” He did this, not even knowing or realizing that section 4 of the Trust and Land Act of 1936 provides very explicitly that the white farmer is to be held responsible for Bantu present on their farms, and that as a result of that they cannot be dragged before the court. This stands in the old Act, but hon. members are not aware of this. All we are doing here is to add the two provisions in which we stated in the first place is that the onus is being transferred to the Bantu who takes in another Bantu as lodger. The onus is now being placed on him to prove that he may provide that other Bantu with lodgings. The original section 4 remains however. In the second place we maintain that the onus should also be placed on that Bantu who has obtained lodgings and is living with another Bantu, to prove that he is legally present there. This is being done because a farmer cannot always be aware of everything that is happening on the farm. That is all that is contained in this clause. Nevertheless they are trying to conjure up a spectre by alleging that we are in this way prejudicing the Bantu, which is not true at all.

The fifth spectre which hon. members, one after the other, tried to conjure up, is that this measure would lead to large-scale Bantu unemployment. I do not know whether they had previous discussions in regard to this matter, without studying the Bill. I made it very clear in my Second Reading speech, and also in the White Paper which I laid upon the Table, that it was by no means the intention to cause large-scale unemployment. Nor will it be caused. This is not contained in the Act either. No person can read this into the Act, particularly not after these amendments, which I have proposed, are incorporated. Why are hon. members trying to make these misrepresentations then? After all, it is not fitting when we are dealing with such responsible matters? On 25th April this year at Meadowlands I addressed 40,000 Bantu. I told them (translation)—

I told the Bantu that this impression had been created in regard to clause 11. I went on as follows—

I stated honestly and candidly to the Bantu what the intention of this legislation is—

Sir, you must remember that I was speaking before 40,000 Bantu—

Sir, do you think that I, in the position I find myself in here, would go and say a thing like this to the Bantu if it were not the truth and if it were not our intention? Why is the United Party conjuring up these spectres? Why do they not believe what they are told? Why do they not read the Bill properly? That is why I say it is a disgrace that they should conjure up these spectres. [Interjections.] I know it hurts. In respect of the fifth spectre I mentioned, i.e. that we are going to deprive the Bantu of work on a large scale, I just want to ask whether hon. members realize what the position will be if the Bantu were to believe this? If this has been our intention I could still have said: “Right enough”. But since this is not our intention now, why should hon. members now adopt this kind of attitude? Why should they adopt such an irresponsible attitude? In the same breath mention is made of classification of the Bantu workers. What is the truth in that respect? After all, the classification of Bantu workers is something which is very simple and fair. For the Bantu worker’s contract period of 12 months he is classified for a certain type of work. As long as he is serving out that contract, this is the position. However, it was untrue, when hon. members tried to create the impression that such a person would only be classified for a certain kind of work all his life. I do not have words to describe their conduct, for after that they still went on to talk about “forced labour”. Surely this is not a good thing; surely this is not nice. The fact of the matter is that after a Bantu had served out his contract period of 12 months he is free to accept any work. He can then do as he pleases, if he can get the work. That is all classification in this connection means. As I have said, hon. members also tried to create the impression that Bantu were subject to forced labour. These are all small spectres hon. members are trying to conjure up together with the spectre of large-scale unemployment. What is the factual position? The essence of our White Bantu labour relations is a voluntary basis in respect of the employment of a Bantu. The United Party must listen carefully now to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) omitted to say and what the hon. member for King William’s Town also omitted, when he carried on in such a theatrical way here, was the following. This is what he omitted to say. Compulsion is only resorted to when there is work shyness, when the Bantu do not want to work. [Interjections.] Clause 6 also relates to this. The hon. members opposite want to make a great issue of this and state that we now want to force the Bantu into rehabilitation centres, because they want to create the impression—and this was in fact said here that a Bantu could come here quite innocently looking for work, but that we are such suppressors that we would then, as it were, take those Bantu by the seat of their pants and throw them into a rehabilitation centre, where they would then stay as long as it pleased the Minister. All kinds of nonsensical statements like these were made. I want to repeat that a Bantu will only be thrown out under compulsion when he is work-shy. Then he is not thrown out by any Tom, Dick or Harry. He must appear before a commissioner and proper court proceedings have to be held. [Interjections.] This is correct. He appears before a commissioner, and only if there is the necessary proof to the effect that he is in fact work-shy, can he be sent to such a centre. Surely that is a disgraceful spectre they conjured up here, and then they do not even say that it is merely a technical correction. It is stated very clearly in the White Paper that the power we are asking for here already exists under section (d) (4). The hon. member for Houghton referred to that section and then added a tailpiece to the effect that a stigma attached to that clause. However, she admits that we do in fact have that power.

But they have to be idle …

Why does that hon. member not give this information to those hon. members, because they do not know this? We have in any case had the power or a long time. They do not add whether they want those work-shy Bantu who simply do not have to work to remain here. Do they want them to remain here? Go and tell this to their wives. Go and tell it to the wives of cur people that they want a work-shy Bantu who in reality does not want to work even if he is offered the best work in the world to continue to remain here. Such a Bantu must still appear before the commissioner, and only after the commissioner has found him guilty is he endorsed out back to his homeland. But they are conjuring this disgraceful spectre even further. We state in the White Paper that such a rehabilitation centre does not even exist yet. We still intend establishing one and we shall establish it near the Bantu authority where the chiefs and headmen of those people will have to accept the responsibility for that. They will then see to it that that man is rehabilitated. Are those hon. members opposed to the rehabilitation of such people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member’s question, but I must say that the hon. member spoke absolute nonsense in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has spoken about idle Bantu and Bantu who refuse to work.

Order! The hon. member must put his question. He must not tell the House what the hon. the Deputy Minister has already said.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not already in terms of the Urban Areas Act have the power to deal with those Bantu who will not work?

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that. Langenhoven once said that if you are involved in an argument with a man, instead of throwing a stone at him, you should rather throw a bucket of water at him, for then at least he cannot throw the bucket of water back at you. If he picks up a stone quickly, you will have to duck. I do not want to throw a stone at the hon. member, but he undoubtedly deserves to have someone throw more than a stone at him. The sixth spectre which one speaker after the other on that side conjured up was the spectre that clause 2 and certain other provisions of this Bill would prejudice the economy of this country. I have already stated explicitly what the essence of clause 11 is, i.e. that it is merely intended to avoid labour integration and to protect certain types of work. We are in fact mentioning the various types of work, i.e. Bantu counter assistants, Bantu typists, Bantu salesmen, Bantu receptionists, etc. Where a medical practitioner with a white clientele is for example recalcitrant or is not prepared to pay a white receptionist any more, or for whatever reason, he could up to now appoint a Bantu as a receptionist to work for him. Are we not having difficulty with such cases? Now they also want white women to work behind bar counters. Do those hon. members now want us to allow a Bantu woman to serve our men in a white bar, where liquor is being consumed? Is that what they want. All that we want to do is to prohibit those cases. Because those hon. members do not have more speakers and their speakers did not even want to speak, because they saw the mess the United Party made here, the hon. member for Newton Park, who should actually discuss agricultural matters, said that the Bantu had always up to now served us in hotels. That is quite true. I have been informed by the hotel industry that approximately 60 per cent of their employees are Bantu, but those have never been positions which have been occupied by Whites. After all, hotels have all these years been employing Bantu, Coloureds and Indians to serve their guests. We are not going to tamper with that matter, unless racial friction should develop. I want to state candidly to that hon. member that his argument collapsed completely. We are not going to tamper with that, nor is that the intention of the Bill, but as the hon. member for Brakpan indicated quite clearly, where there are positions which have traditionally been occupied by Whites, and particularly by white women all these years, we will not allow racial friction to arise now because we do not have the statutory powers to put a stop to it. That is all we want to do. I want to say once again that there are only a few cases like this, and that we are going to root out those cases. The Whites in South Africa will be eternally grateful to us for having put a stop to this process in time.

I should like, in all fairness, to reply to a few questions which were put to me. In the first place I want to deal with the very important matter which was mentioned here this afternoon. The hon. member for Walmer asked me whether we were going to use clause 11 in order to take steps in Port Elizabeth. I want to express my appreciation towards that hon. member, for in my opinion he is the only hon. member of the United Party who had at least made a study of this Bill and who knew what he was talking about. For that reason he made the most responsible speech of all the hon. members here and put proper questions to me. I want to compliment him on that, for one appreciates it if a person does his work properly and does not come here with all kinds of nonsensical stories. The hon. member asked me whether we were now going to force the Bantu out of Port Elizabeth in terms of clause 11, and compel them to return to their homelands. My reply to that is an unqualified no. We are not going to do that, for clause 11 is not intended for that purpose. We have statutory powers which we can use to do so and it is therefore not necessary to take those powers in this case. That is not the intention either and I hope that this reply proves quite satisfactory to that hon. member. The hon. member also alleged that as far as the Fish-Kat line was concerned, no more housing loans in respect of Bantu were being granted. In all fairness I just want to point out to him that this is not a correct allegation. We are in fact granting loans in this respect and I can mention quite a number of examples; we must however be very practical and realistic. I want to say to the hon. member that I appreciate the way in which he made his speech. I also want to say that the hon. member for Colesberg’s reply in regard to the situation in Middelburg was very short and brilliant. I want to state my personal appreciation of that. I should now like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation towards all the hon. members on this side who spoke and for the contributions they made. I just want to say to the hon. member that I am aware of those towns the hon. member mentioned when he said that things were not going so well for those people. I regret that this should be the case. Certain of those towns are already on the priority list, and I shall see to it personally that we do everything in our power as rapidly as possible to clear up those conditions at the places he mentioned. I give that undertaking to the hon. member for Walmer gladly. But we must be practical and realistic. In the following places across the Fish-Kat line it is justified that loans should be granted. These places, inter alia, Colesberg, Hanover—and the hon. member can now see how wrong his statement was—Humansdorp, Upington, Paarl, Stellenbosch, Prieska and Cape Town, are essential for single Bantu. There are however other places such as for example Middelburg, Beaufort West and Mossel Bay, where the position is a little more difficult. There there are few Bantu. Our policy of replacing Bantu with Coloureds is being applied on this side of the Fish-Kat line and consequently it is asking a great deal of a local authority to negotiate a loan over a period of 30 years, which is a heavy loan and on which a great deal of interest is payable, in order to get a small group of Bantu settled. For that reason we are trying to do everything in our power on a temporary basis on the one hand, and on the other hand to have houses built which can be occupied by Coloureds, to rectify the matter in this way. I therefore want to state to the hon. member that the matter is not as simple as it seems at first glance. The hon. member also spoke of clause 7, and I should like to mention to him an example where this clause is being properly implemented. This happened at Mdantsane near East London where it was possible after the medical officer had condemned houses. The hon. member’s presentation of the position is not correct. The medical officer will not easily condemn a house. Only when a house has been condemned as uninhabitable does this clause take effect. We also have examples already where this clause has been implemented very successfully, i.e. at Mdantsane.

I should also like to reply to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He came forward with this story that we were now, by means of clause 11, providing that Bantu women could be stopped from doing certain types of work, but that we were in fact allowing this in the border areas. That is the one point the hon. member made to which I want to reply.

After all, you are going to do so.

Yes. The other point the hon. member made was that we were satisfied to employ servants in our homes, and why were we then coming forward with clause H. These are both fair questions. In regard to the first question I should like to inform the hon. member that border areas have in fact been established owing to the large concentration of Bantu in the border areas in the white area. There the position is such that opportunities for employment are being created for the Bantu. I also want to reply now to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said. If circumstances are such that approximately 90 per cent of the clientele in border areas consists of Bantu, which has in fact been established to create specific opportunities for employment for the Bantu, who would consequently be so mentally disturbed as to apply a clause there if the Bantu are serving 90 per cent of the clientele? We do not want to do this, that is why it does not apply to border areas. In the white areas the conditions are quite different however. The hon. member simply does not understand this whole matter. I repeat that this clause is intended to eliminate racial friction. If 90 per cent of the persons in a border area are Bantu there will in fact be difficulties and racial friction if a white person were used to serve those persons. That is why we will keep it like this. The hon. member said that we were acting strangely, because we were allowing Bantu women to work in our houses, but that we were nevertheless coming forward with clause 11. The reply to this is also very clear. In our white homes we are using Bantu servants on a voluntary basis. It is the right of everyone to say, if he wants to that a Bantu servant may be utilized in his home. However, when Bantu women are being used in public to serve Whites, then it is no longer voluntary. Some of our Whites then become angry and difficulties are experienced. That is the difference between these two cases.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give us some evidence of the racial friction he is talking about? Where has there been evidence of that?

I want to make haste in order to finish, but I shall reply to the hon. member. We have had so much proof of this that repeated requests have been made at National Party congresses. I just want to point out to the hon. member who put this question to me that she was very ignorant in regard to one aspect, i.e. the question of call-in cards. I wish I had more time at my disposal, because I would have liked to have elaborated on the system. [Interjections.] Then I shall do so now. The call-in card system is now replacing section 28 (1) (u) of the Principal Act. This matter is a technical matter and I should have liked to informed the House fully in regard to it. The hon. member alleged that regulations in this connection had not been promulgated. However, a regulation was in fact promulgated by Government Notice R.23/69 on 3rd January, 1969. This regulation is being implemented, and where this is being done it is being done with great success. I have full details in regard to the call-in card system. I would like to address a friendly request to hon. members. Since section 28 (1) (u) was not in any way a real right for the Bantu, for this paragraph only granted the Bantu the right not to be refused, nothing more, and this had many implications, I am now informing this House, with all the responsibility I have at my disposal, that the call-in card system has made things considerably easier for both the Bantu employees and the white employers. All the white employer now has to do is to go to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and inform him that he wants to re-employ a Bantu who worked for him for a year and who wants to return to the Bantu homelands on holiday. The Bantu Affairs Commissioner then simply endorses his call-in card. That Bantu then takes the call-in card, and when he wants to return after a month to his white employer he is to show that card which he has in his possession, to which no further red tape is associated and which gives him a definite right to be in his homeland, to his chief. Nobody can then lay a hand on him because it has been determined by regulation that he can return immediately to his employment. If the Bantu remains away for longer than a month, that employer must send the card to the Bantu. In order to protect the white employer it has been provided that that card will not be valid for longer than one month. That is why I am saying that if I had the time to explain this matter in detail to hon. members they would have seen what attempts are being made to make it easier for both the white employer and the Bantu employee if a Bantu wants to return to his employer.

I have now replied to most of the questions put by hon. members, but I want to conclude with a quotation from a person for whom I have the greatest respect. It is said that if someone speaks a bushel of nonsense one must listen very carefully for one may perhaps be able to pick up a grain of sense. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) really spoke a lot of nonsense in his speech, but he spoke one grain of sense which I also picked up. That grain of sense was the following: “The crux of the difference between the Nationalist Party and this side of the House is that the United Party do not look upon the Bantu people as the Nationalist Party look on the Bantu people, being in the European area only on a temporary basis.” Now I just want to quote from a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Dave Marais also said that.

Yes. Dr. Verwoerd made this speech at the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs in Bloemfontein on 17th September, 1956. This is a very succinct summary of our policy to which we adhere and to which I have committed myself personally. He stated the following (translation)—

Listen now to this last part—

Then Dr. Verwoerd said the following—

This was said in 1956, Sir, 13 years ago. This Act is a further implementation of that wise view of yore.

That is why I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House pledge ourselves on the one hand to bear what is precious and noble to our white civilization aloft through the throng, as befits civilized people, and on the other hand to lead the Bantu and to help them, as befits a civilized people, and as this Government is doing. It gives me personal pleasure to do this. That is why this legislation is a further contribution, as a result of which our people will be able to cry out:

“How brightly the future of my nation is unfolding!”

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and M. J. de la R. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 10 o’clock to-morrow morning, just to receive the messages from the Senate. I move—

That this House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I should like to put the record straight. According to reports in the Opposition Press it was entirely due to the delaying tactics of the Opposition that the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill was not passed through the House before the prorogation. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Durban (Point) made that same claim yesterday afternoon. I want hon. members to be under no illusions. If I had wanted this Bill to be passed through all its stages before yesterday evening, I would have introduced a guillotine motion on both the Regulation Registration Amendment Bill and the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. As a matter of fact, Sir, after what happened on Friday last, I seriously considered doing so. It was only after my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, gave me the assurance that it was not essential for the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill to be passed this session that I abandoned the idea of introducing a guillotine motion. Mr. Speaker, I want to give hon. members the assurance that if, in future, it is necessary to pass a Bill in all its stages before Parliament is prorogued, I shall have no hesitation in introducing a guillotine motion. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform this House that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet again on Friday, 30th January, 1970. I move—

Motion put and agreed to.