I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker,

The Publications and Entertainments Bill, submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time.

I move—

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House. It is perfectly clear that the hon. the Minister hardened his heart against the arguments of this side of the House and that he was not prepared and will not be prepared to make any concession in that connection. We were not unreasonable in connection with this legislation. If there had been any evidence of an accommodating attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister we would have voted for the third reading of this Bill. If there had been any sign that he was prepared, for example, to consult with the provincial councils or the divisional councils, we would also have been prepared to vote for the third reading. The direct consequence of the passing of this Bill will be, of course, that great difficulties will be created for the provincial accountants and auditors and for divisional councils throughout the country, and I am actually sorry for the Minister when I think of all the problems with which he will have to cope in the years which lie ahead of us. There is no doubt at all that the contents of this Bill are much worse than the provisions of the existing law, and I hope that the Minister will remember our warnings when he starts becoming inundated with complaints from divisional councils and provincial councils. When I look at this Bill, at this mutilated Section 83, one of the legs of which has been amputated, then I can only say to the Minister that this amended section will stand as an everlasting reproach against the Government and against the Minister who have dealt a tremendous and painful blow to this honourable and highly esteemed provincial system of ours.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have finished. We are unable therefore to support this Bill at its third reading…

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—78: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Hiemstra. E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H.C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Souy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I do not know what the groans coming from my left signify, except that they show ignorance of the subject to which those hon. members have been unable to make any contributions. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you do not need the assistance of hon. members opposite. I wish to deal with the third reading of this Bill, a Bill which affects the lives and livelihood of many people in South Africa and which will even affect some of the hon. members on the Government side if they look a little bit further ahead into the transport of South Africa. Unfortunately I cannot deal with their ox-wagon transport age in this debate, What I want to say is that the hon. the Minister has given certain undertakings in regard to the application of the powers which this Bill grants him. It is largely an enabling Bill; it gives the Minister power to make regulations and on the carrying out of those powers will depend the effectiveness or otherwise of this measure before the House. The measure in itself can do very little. It is the way in which the measure is applied by the Minister which will determine whether it will improve the position or otherwise in regard to civil aviation. We will have the opportunity next year to test the application of this measure. What I wanted to say to the hon. the Minister was that there will be relief amongst those interested, excluding of course those hon. members on his side who are making such a noise, but amongst those genuinely interested in this measure there will be relief because of the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister that he will make real and consistent use of the advice which this Bill will make available to him. With that advice I am sure the hon. the Minister can strike a blow to improve the position of civil aviation in South Africa. We on this side of the House, therefore, give the third reading of this Bill our blessing.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, when it became known that it was the intention to amend this Act, a good deal was written about in the public Press, and there were arguments as to what the Government’s intention really was. Many conflicting statements were also made. On the one hand the Bill was welcomed and on the other it was condemned. And it was not condemned on party political grounds really. Even in the Press which does not support the Government there were instances where it was stated that it looked as though the Government had hold of the right end of the stick. It would seem that there is a great deal of confusion with regard to this matter and that people do not fully appreciate precisely what the problem is that we have to overcome. I have decided therefore to give the House a very clear exposition, to the best of my ability, so that hon. members may get some idea of the background and also of the necessity for these amendments.

In terms of the present definition of a White person in the Population Registration Act of 1950 there are two alternative tests whereby we determine whether a person is White for the purposes of the Population Registration Act, namely the appearance of the person and his acceptance by the community as a White person. It must be noted that I emphasize the words “by the community”. The last test that I have mentioned here, namely acceptance by the community, which is expressed in the Act in the words, “generally accepted as a White person”, is decisive. In all the classifications, this has been the decisive test. That is to say, if anyone is able to prove that he is generally accepted as a White person, then he must be classified as a White person, whatever his appearance may be. As far as the test of appearance is concerned, it is provided in the definition as it reads at the moment that a person who is generally accepted as a Coloured person will be classified as such even though he is obviously in appearance a White person. In other words, any person who is accepted as a Coloured is classified as such; even though he looks like a White person and is accepted as a Coloured, he is classified as a Coloured.

The provisions presently contained in the Act were intended originally to ensure that more importance was not attached to the test of appearance than to the test of acceptance. We must not attach more importance to appearance than to acceptance. We should try to steer the middle course. The reason for that is very obvious, because a person who in appearance is not obviously a White person will generally not be accepted unquestioningly by society as a White person. When we see a person, whether it be a White person or a Coloured, a Malay or a Bantu or anybody else, we immediately form an impression, and if we set our minds to it we immediately say to ourselves, “That is a White person,” or “That is a Coloured person”, to whichever Coloured group he may belong, or “That is a Bantu”—or whatever the nationality of the person may be. But we must see to it that acceptance and appearance are considered strictly in conjunction. It was also felt at the time, not without justification, that the best judge in these matters was the community itself or public opinion. Public opinion is there to judge who is a White person and who is not a White person, without necessarily having regard to the person’s descent and without paying too much attention to his appearance. That system worked. If the community takes into consideration these two factors which I have mentioned here, namely acceptance and appearance, then it is not necessary to delve deeply into the question of the person’s descent to ascertain whether he has a few drops of non-White blood in his veins dating back to the second or third or perhaps even an earlier generation. That is not not necessary, neither was it ever the intention of the Act. It was not necessary to set in motion a witch-hunt; it was not necessary to see whether one could catch out a person who was accepted as a White person although he was not in fact a White person. These factors are taken into consideration by the community before it gives.its verdict and before it accepts a person as a White person or rejects him as a White person. In order to use descent as a test it would have meant digging far back into the past for proof, and the moment one has to start digging into the past one becomes lost in a labyrinth.It was considered impracticable. I am still talking about the present Act now. It was considered entirely impracticable because in most cases such proof was unattainable, in view of the fact that in earlier years there was no reliable record of many of these facts. For example, in some of the provinces facts of this kind have only been noted since 1915 in registrations of births and deaths. In other words, one canont trace the origin and the race of the person.

This approach which I have outlined here briefly, with few exceptions has produced the desired results in implementing this Act during the period of nearly 12 years that this Act has been in operation. It was found that there was no better yardstick than public opinion.I should like, if I may, to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there have been only 3,593 cases where formal objections have been lodged to race classifications. These are the latest figures, up to 27 March. As hon. members are aware, these race classifications were made on the basis of the 1951 census return which were completed by the individuals themselves. For the rest we made use of the registers of births, deaths, etc., and other information available to the Population Registrar. The individual concerned was thereafter entitled to object to his race classification. Practically all those race classification objections have been disposed of; only a few hundred still have to be dealt with. They are not difficult cases but the Board still has to dispose of them. I shall give the results in a moment. It appears that objections have been heard by the Race Classification Appeal Board and the courts in 297 cases. 233 cases have been decided in favour of the objectors and only 46 cases against the objectors. All I want to prove here, particularly with the last three figures, is firstly that during these 12 years the case made out by the objector has been carefully considered and, secondly, that where there has been any doubt at all, the Appeal Board has given the benefit of the doubt to the objector. All these cases that I have mentioned here have usually been approached with the greatest degree of humanity, so much so that the former member for Salt River, Mr. Harry Lawrence, expressed his satisfaction on various occasions and as recently as last year in the debate on the Interior Vote with the humane way in which the question of race classification was being approached and the humane way in which it was being done. I attach a good deal of importance to the fact that a person like Mr. Lawrence, whose ideas about other actions of the Government are well-known, found it possible to voice favourable criticism in connection with this matter.

Because there is and was doubt with regard to what constituted adequate proof of acceptance, it was indicated by my predecessor in general terms two years ago what sort of proof he would regard as sufficient to prove acceptance as a White person, provided, of course, there was no evidence to the contrary. During the past year—after my predecessor had announced the new kind of proof that he would accept and to which he would give serious attention—various cases occurred where persons who had submitted the specified proof of acceptance as White persons, subsequently applied to have their race classification amended. And these are all classes where persons had been classified as Whites by the Population Registrar, either on appeal or without appeal, after they had lodged objections. In Cape Town alone during the past year—and this is the only figure that I have been able to get—we had 15 such cases where people had been classified as White and where they subsequently applied to be re-classified as Coloureds.

Is that not because of the Immorality Act?

No, wait a moment. The reason given by the person concerned was that when the protection of the few persons who had signed and filled in those forms and who had assisted him to be classified as a White person, disappeared, and he had to face the public with a White identity card, he was not accepted as a White person. Public opinion would not accept him; public opinion rejected him to such an extent that he felt so unhappy amongst the Whites that he went back and asked to be re-classified as a Coloured because he could not be accepted in White circles. Mr. Speaker, these are facts, and they are very important facts. I want to make the point that the humanitanism factor cuts both ways. It is humane to classify a person correctly, but equally it is inhumane to influence a person wrongly with the result that he is classified in a group in which he should never really have been classified. In Cape Town alone we have had 15 such cases just in the past year.

This fact proves two things to my mind.I think it proves that the community is still the best judge, and the community will still continue to be the judge. When you see a person walking in the street, you apply your own test. Let hon. members walk down the street and ask themselves when they see a person, “Is this man White: is he Coloured or is he a Cape Malay?” They themselves will immediately classify that person in their own minds. What is the use of classifying a person in a book as a White person when he is rejected by public opinion, which is the best judge, and which has to accept him? What is the use if that judge says, “I am not going to allow you into my house; I am not going to admit you to my living-room, I am not going to allow you to eat at my table”? That, to my mind, is the first proof.

The second point that proves my case is that there are persons who for reasons of theirown—I am not going to ascribe motives to them —are prepared to say that a person is generally accepted as a White person when that is not the case. I do not suggest that these persons are deliberately out to wreck separate development. I do not want to suggest that, but for some years the Government has had cause to think that there is something wrong. Unless there is wilfulness somewhere along the line, we find it inexplicable why these people carry on in this way. I do not want to suggest that a deliberate attempt is being made to misuse this Government’s humanitarian attitude, in connection with a very delicate matter such as race classification, with the object of bringing about integration via the back door. I do not suggest that. But after 12 years practical experience of race classification, we are well aware that possibly those who have had to furnish proof of acceptance may have erred, but nevertheless in certain cases I cannot exclude the possibility of absolute wilfulness.

In view of this state of affairs, we would be grossly neglecting our duty towards the community if we did not take active steps in this matter. That is why we are laying down more stringent requirements for the proof of acceptance. Previously, as hon. members are aware, proof had to be presented in the form of certificates or affidavits by at least one or two of the following persons, the police officer in charge, a school principal, a minister of religigion, an employer, a Senator, a Member of Parliament or a member of the provincial council, and from two friends of the family to the effect that they regard and accept the objector as a friend of the family. It was then decided—this has also become general knowledge already—that except in exceptional cases, at least three of the categories I have mentioned previously and at least two friends of the family had to submit affidavits to the effect that they accepted the person concerned. The friends of the family were also expected to testify that the person concerned—that is to say in respect of the classification where any doubt existed—was accepted socially as belonging to their own race. Because if acceptance is to mean anything, then at least it must mean that when I accept a person as my equal and want to treat him as my equal, I must admit him socially to the sanctity of my own hom and associate with him as an equal. The moment this happened there was a storm of protests, but it proved to be just a mild gust of wind which soon blew over, and the reason for that, in my opinion, is this: Public opinion rebelled immediately against those voices of protest. Public opinion endorsed that what had been done was correct. How can you testify that a person is White while refusing to treat him as an equal socially? Because after all then you have not testified that he is a White person. But the storm blew over, and I feel that the people of the Republic know what they want. Whether they belong to the National Party or to the United Party, and I would go so far as to say whether they belong to the Progressive Party, they know what they want and they are not unmindful of what has been happening in the rest of Africa in recent years, a fact which proves that throughout our history the people of the Republic have adhered steadfastly to the idea of separate development and no miscegenation. As a matter of fact, the policy of the United Party, like that of the National Party, is that there must be absolutely no social or residential integration. In those spheres they also believe in apartheid, just as we do.

It now appears, however, that there are certain White persons in this country who, again for reasons of their own, are prepared by means of affidavit to assist a person who admits that he is a full-blooded Chinese by descent, that he looks like a Chinese, and who in appearance is obviously a Chinese, to be accepted as a White person by declaring on oath that he is accepted as a White person. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member wait until I have finished? I am quite willing to reply to his questions. This happened in spite of the indisputable fact that was not the opinion of the community, and I challenge any hon. member on the other side to take this Chinese, David Song, out of the environment in Durban where he is living and to place him in any other environment in Cape Town or Pretoria or Johannesburg and to get the verdict of public opinion as to whether he is a White person. And yet these people declared on oath that he was accepted as a White person. I say without any fear of contradiction that is not true; he is not accepted as a White person. He may be accepted as a White person in certain homes where he grew up, or by Whites with whom he attended the same school, or by Whites with whom he played when they were children. There may be certain White families who accept him and invite him to their homes, but they do not accept him as a White person. It has become perfectly clear now that the Government’s humanitarian attitude in approaching this very delicate matter has been grossly abused. Race classification is a very delicate matter. It is not something to be toyed with. It is not a matter in which one can hurt people unnecessarily to-day and then think that one can heal the wound to-morrow. I say and I repeat that during the 12 years that this Government has administered this Act it has done everything in its power to take into consideration the humanitarian factor and not to wound and hurt people unnecessarily. If there is a possible loophole in an Act, it is quite possible that people may make use of the loophole and juridically that they may be correct in doing so. We do not dispute that, nor did we appeal in this case. The loophole is there. This person admitted that he was a Chinese. He admitted that he was born in Canton and that he had no White blood in his veins. But on the principle of acceptance only misuse was made not only of the loophole in the Act by coming forward with affidavits, but from the humanitarian point of view, the implementation of the Act was also misused and people’s feelings were trampled upon. That is why it has become necessary once again to take steps to see that integration does not take place against the will of the community. As I say, I set out from the standpoint that society, public opinion, does not want integration in this sphere, and it is the duty of this Government to consider that public opinion and sentiment and to give effect to it. That is why we move an amendment in Clause I which changes the definition of “White”.

Now, hon. members know what legal language is. To me as a layman it sometimes sounds unnecessarily complicated. As a layman I ask myself: What does this new definition mean? This new definition, to my mind, contains three principles, not necessarily new principles, as we now propose that it should be amended. I start from the bottom, at the end of the definition as it stands here. The first principle is that somebody admits—and I emphasize the word “admits”; he is not forced to do so, but he does what David Song did. He gets up and says: I tell you I am Chinese and I have only Chinese blood in my viens. That person voluntarily admits, without being compelled to do so In any way, that in so far as his descent is concerned he is a Native or a non-White. That person will not be classified as a White. He is not looking for a loophole in the law. He frankly admits it, and perhaps he is proud of it, but for reasons of his own he would rather be classified as a White, because according to Press reports David Song said that he wanted to be classified as a White because it is more convenient in this country to be a White. We are now closing that loophole. We say: If you admit you are a Native or a Coloured, you can do what you like, but in terms of this definition you will not be classified as a White. I do not know whether hon. members opposite can find fault with this, except of course if they again stand behind the door with all kinds of suspicions and try to see whether we are not in some way cheating these people again; except if the opposition refuses to accept an accomplished fact, that this Act is applied with the greatest humanity, and if somebody is hurt it is not done deliberately by the Population Registrar or by the Department, but that a preliminary classification is made according to the data available to them, and when a person lodges objection the Act is administered in such a humane way that even the Opposition has praised us for it.

Who? Only one man.

I do not expect anything from the hon. member, but there are others over there who will believe it.

In the second place, this new definition means the following: a person who ordinarily passes for a Coloured will not be classified as a White, even though he appears to be White, even though he looks like just like a White man. We are not going to walk around and say: “But you look very much like a White man. Why are you still a Coloured? You can apply, because you look like a White man. We will make you a White man.” Our definition now says, without any doubt, that if that person passes for a Coloured, even though he looks like a White, he cannot be declared to be White, because he is a Coloured.

Then we come to the third leg of this definition, which says that a person who by appearance is not White will not be classified as White even though he generally passes as a White.

Please explain that.

A person who looks like a non-White will not be classified as a White. The second part is: A person who is accepted as a Coloured will not be classified as a White. One who admits that he is a Coloured will not be classified as a White. That is quite clear. Now we have the three legs of what public opinion is. Public opinion itself classifies these people in that way. It says: How can you be classified as a White if you admit that you are a Coloured or a Bantu? It says: How can you be classified as a White if you are accepted as a Coloured or a Bantu? And it says: How can you be classified as a White if you look like a non-White?

I can think of many people who look like Whites.

The hon. member should not become worried now. He looks like a White to me.

I am all right, but look around you.

This is a very serious matter, and it is just as well for us to laugh a little. Now hon. members may ask: Why are we doing this thing? Our reply is: In the first place we want to prevent—and that is the duty of the Government—integration taking place deliberately or as the result of a mistake, because people do not know what they are doing; and we are only doing so because that is absolutely the traditional way in South Africa. If the Opposition opposes the principle, they are simply opposing the state of affairs which has prevailed here ever since we White people came to this country. To me the important point is that we realize very clearly that if there is race classification, even under the former definition or in terms of any definition we may have, there will be cases of unnecessary hardship. We must be realistic, but I want to assure those people, who perhaps, in their opinion, are going to suffer unnecessary hardship. that their cases will still, as in the past, be dealt with by us as humanely as possible. I want to give them that absolute assurance to-day. What the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) said by way of a joke is quite correct. We cannot only take the one case. There will be cases where a man is absolutely White, but where his appearance is so much against him that one would perhaps not classify him as a White. But then we come to the acceptance, and when later we come to the next provision the necessary proof will also be furnished that this man’s family has already been accepted for generations and his children are accepted. I just want to give the assurance that the former definition resulted in problems, and this one may also do so, but these people will be treated as humanely as possible.

I want to say frankly that I regret it. Matters had just begun to run smoothly in regard to this whole classification. Hon. members know from replies we gave here to questions that a large number have already been disposed of. We are struggling at the moment only with a small number who have not yet obtained their identity cards as the result of the fact that they changed their address, so that we could not trace them. But identity cards have already been issued to 2,039,000 Whites, 704,505 Coloureds and 171,744 Asiatics. We estimate that we still have to issue identity cards to 40,000 Whites, 111,000 Coloureds and 108,000 Asiatics. I say I am sorry we have to do it at this stage, but we have no choice, and I think this House has no choice, because in the case I mentioned a deliberate attempt was made to frustrate our legislation and to try to ridicule it. But what have those people gained by it? Those people did not realize the consequences of their actions, and as the result of their actions they have caused unnecessary concern and misery to other people who were wrongly classified in this way.

Have we ever considered what it means if a person is classified as a White and begins moving in White circles and people look at him askance, so that he takes out his identity card and asks them why they look at him askance, and then he says: I am here in a public bar and I want to have a drink. or I want to go to the cinema and I am White, and then later that person comes and asks us: Please classify me as a Coloured again? That is surely a terrible position to be in.

It happened in only 15 cases.

Who is the cause of it? I say it is the people who gave those people wrong advice who caused all the misery. Surely it is not a disgrace to be a Coloured or a Native, no more than it is a disgrace to be a White man. It is not a disgrace to belong to a particular race, but it is a disgrace to forsake one’s own people and to join another group of people whose traditions and cenceptions can never become one’s own, and where one never feels at home. Every member of every racial group has a function to perform in this stage of our existence, to ensure that the pride and the identity of his own group, its morals and its traditions, will not become lost, and to ensure the greatest possible measure of prosperity for all within the limits of their own capacity. If only we would realize this; if we want to help, let us help as Members of Parliament and as responsible persons only in cases where we really feel help is necessary, and such cases have been brought to my notice already by hon. members opposite, where I readily, when I got the data from them, immediately ordered a reclassification to be made and said: I am convinced that this is a bona fide case. Let us do that; it is our duty. We do not want to debar from the White group people who belong there, but on the other hand we do not want to allow people to infiltrate into the White group when they do not belong there, and then they are eventually the sufferers and sit back and laugh and say: Have we not played a nice trick on the Government?

I shall briefly deal with the next clause. I am not going to discuss Clause 2. We only make it quite clear there that “he” means the Director of Census. In regard to Clause 3, this is also a difficulty we came across in race classification. Before the Population Registration Amendment Act of 1956 came into operation, any person could at any time object to a race classification made by the Secretary of the Department, whilst a period of only 30 days was allowed in which to take the decision of the Board on appeal to the Supreme Court. This House passed the Amending Act which inter alia also limited to 30 days the period in which anybody could object to a race classification made by the Secretary, because it was felt that having an unlimited period would lead to uncertainty, if objection is raised years after a classification was made. That is what the House considered at the time. It was considered to be in the interest of everybody, and particularly in the interests of the persons concerned, to obtain certainty in regard to their race classification as soon as possible. In practice it appeared that this position contributed much towards the progress made in regard to race determinations and the clarity and calmness which resulted in this respect. However, the courts later held that the provision, as worded at present, was not peremptory, and expressed the view that the Board investigating the objection could condone any delay. Delays of up to five years were condoned as the result of this judgement, because the provision in regard to the 30 days was not regarded as peremptory. In the proposed provisions of Clause 3 it is now provided that the intention of the House in 1956 should be stated very clearly, viz. that a person has the right to object to the classification only within 30 days of having become aware of it. Because this Act is applied humanely, it is realized that in some cases it may be possible that the period of 30 days will be too short, and therefore, it is further provided in this clause that the Minister should be given the power to condone such delayed objections for a maximum period of one year. Fairer than that we cannot be. But then the Minister cannot condone just any delay, and therefore I want to give the undertaking to-day on behalf of the Government the delays will be condoned only if it appears that the objector, due to factors beyond his control, will be deprived of the right to have the correct classification made if he is not granted an extension of time, and under no other circumstances. I want to repeat that. If it appears that the objector, due to factors beyond his control, will be deprived of the classification to which he is entitled—in those cases we will do it.

Then I come to Clause 4. The Secretary for the Interior now has the power only to instruct the person in regard to whom details are being entered in the register to submit proof of the accuracy of such details. It is now proposed that the Secretary may institute investigation, or appoint somebody to do so, as to the accuracy of such details. It is regarded as essential because of the inaccurate information contained in the census forms of 1951 in regard to citizenship, births, marriages, racial descriptions, etc., that the Secretary for the Interior should be clothed with these powers to prevent inaccurate information being entered in the register, or the illegal or deliberate infiltration of members of one population group into the ranks of the other.

May I put this question to you? You are now providing this power to investigate. Is it possible that as the result in the amendment of the definition of “White”, certain persons will now be reclassified?

Later on I will give that assurance to the Leader of the Opposition very clearly. I still have to inform the House that there is a small amendment which I myself will move in the Committee Stage.

This power I refer to will, with one exception, not be used to investigate the descent of persons, except Bantu. Hon. members know that we can investigate the descent of Bantu. But the descent of persons will not be investigated, because descent is not the decisive test in the case of Whites, although it is such a test in the case of Bantu. I want to give the assurance that the descent of Whites will not be investigated as the result of this power now being given to the Secretary to investigate, because descent (afkoms) is not the decisive factor in race classification.

“Afkoms”?

“Herkoms” (descent). If we were to do that we would put many people who for many generations perhaps had passed as Whites in a difficult position.

I say there is one exception, and that is in the case of an admission by a person that by descent he is a Native or a Coloured. That is the only case where descent will have anything to do with the provisions of this Act, when the person admits that he is a Native or a Coloured.

How do you differentiate between “afkoms” and “herkoms”? Surely “herkoms” is the place where he comes from, and “afkoms” is the race from which he comes.

The hon. member should read the English text, then he will understand it more clearly. The English text refers to “descent”. Our law advisers have translated “descent” as “herkoms”. It is not the place where the person comes from, but it refers to the blood in his veins. In any case, that is something we can discuss later in the Committee Stage. In order to prevent anybody through ignorance, or for reasons of his own, making an admission which will be very harmful to him or his family, I intend moving in the Committee Stage, at the end of the proposed definition of a White person, that the following words be added—

These words will be inserted in Clause 1, after the words “of ’n gekleurde is nie”. In English the words will be “unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact”. This provision—and I shall illustrate it in a moment by giving two examples—will ensure beyond all doubt that an admission made in ignorance or for other reasons, whilst the facts of descent prove the contrary, will not harm innocent persons. To take the two cases which pertinently came to our notice, there will be no difficulty with this definition in the case of David Song without the tail attached to it. But now another case can arise, and here I pertinently want to mention the case of Singh and the Bloem girl. A person, like Mrs. Singh, who has contravened the Mixed Marriages Act, could very easily say: I admit that I am non-White. For all practical purposes, it will perhaps be to her advantage to admit that she is an Indian, because in terms of our laws she illegally married an Indian; we do not recognize her marriage. Therefore, in order to prevent our Act being stultified further, it is necessary to add “unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact”, and then her descent will be investigated.

I want to state very clearly that in no other cases will my Department investigate the descent of persons, either those who still have to be classified or those who have already been classified. Persons whose race classification is in dispute will be dealt with in the same humane manner that they have been dealt with in past years. That is also a promise. The amended provisions in regard to race determination will not affect the position of persons already classified, but I want to give a very clear warning here that as from to-day no classifications or reclassifications will be considered and no objections will be referred to the Board for investigation, before this amending Act has come into operation and its provisions can be applied. I hope there will not be a long delay. Hon. members should not waste their time by telling us that we classified David Song as a White person; that Song is married to a Chinese and that it is an illegal marriage. Song was married before the Mixed Marriages Act was promulgated and that Act, as hon. members know, condoned all existing mixed marriages. Therefore Song is legally married and he can stay married.

I want to express the hope that we will not regard this Bill from a party political point of view. Perhaps I am now making a big mistake; perhaps I should just allow the Opposition to put their foot more deeply into the trap. I think that is what I should have done, but I want to put it this way: I do not think it is worth while for the Opposition. We now have race classification in this country in terms of an Act which is on the statute book. Hon. members may not be in favour of the races being classified, but they have been classified and they will be classified; and if the Opposition seriously regards itself as being the alternative Government of this country, I am convinced that hon. members opposite are just as proud of their White skins as I am of mine and that they will not allow people to slip in by the back door to be classified as Whites— not that I look down upon the other classifications and classified persons, because they in turn are proud of their skins. We have mutual respect for each other, but we have no respect for those who want to encroach on. anybody’s terrain.

When one has listened to what the hon. the Minister has had to say and has tried to sort the wood from the trees, it would seem that he has succeeded in putting before this House a Bill which, whether he likes it or not, is going to tighten up admission into the White group and which, whether he likes it or not, is going to have certain effects which he apparently does not foresee and which it would seem he would like to avoid.

He has said that there will be no reclassification of individuals under this legislation because of a change in the definition. Nowhere in this Bill and nowhere in the original Act is there a prohibition on reclassification. All we have then is the Minister’s assurance, and we have already been conscious of the fact that since he has been in charge of this Department there has been a tightening up as opposed to what the position was under the previous Minister. He cannot bind future Ministers, and I see no provision in the original Act, its amendments, or this Bill, which prevents reclassification as a result of this change in definition. The hon. the Minister gave me an assurance, very confidently, but it is not borne out by the terms of the Bill before us.

It is difficult for us on this side of the House to approach this Bill without having regard to the background against which we must see it, and without having regard to the principal Act which it seeks to amend and our attitude to that principal Act. I think that after the hon. gentleman himself has dealt so fully with certain aspects of that Act, I may perhaps be permitted to say that when the original Act was before us, we found it objectionable on a number of grounds. We believed that with that Act the Government was attempting to classify what could not be classified, was attempting to classify the unclassifiable, attempting to sort out what 300 years of history had done in South Africa in a manner which we did not believe was possible; secondly, that while the border-line cases might only affect tens of thousands of people, what was going to be done under the Act was going to affect the consciences of hundreds of thousands of people because the results attendant upon reclassification in the social sphere, in the economic sphere and in the political sphere were so severe. We know from our own experience of the untold misery suffered by many families as the result of the application of the provisions of this Act, untold misery which was foreseen at the time and which this side of the House warned against. Thirdly, I think particular attention was drawn to the fact that there would be repercussions to this legislation in the international sphere, repercussions which would be far-reaching, especially in our relations with organizations outside South Africa and other countries of the world; and I think one can say that after 12 years these allegations have been established beyond any doubt at all. They have been established not only beyond any doubt but to such an extent that the country to-day is still in some measure paying for the consequences of this legislation and the philosophy which gave rise to legislation of this kind.

Now, Sir, there is to be a change in this legislation. There are going to be changes introduced to meet certain difficulties which have arisen in respect of classification and difficulties which are still affecting the consciences of many people to the same extent perhaps as the original Bill itself. One has heard the Minister outlining the difficulties and one reaches the conclusion that one wonders whether he has met the difficulties that he outlined and whether he has not in fact created far greater difficulties than the ones with which he had to contend before he set about amending this Act.

It has been quite obvious from the hon. the Minister’s speech that the amendments are designed to deal particularly with the Cape Coloured people. They were without a doubt the main target of the original Bill, as was clearly stated at the time by the Leader of the Opposition, Field-Marshal Smuts himself. But the then Minister of Interior, the present Minister of Finance, realizing the difficulties and the problems with which he was faced, realized too that in establishing something in the nature of a human stud-book, he was dealing with a very delicate matter indeed, so delicate a matter that he preferred to stick to the judgment of society in coming to conclusion as to the clasification in which people should be put. He preferred to accept the conventions of society, conventions which had been built up as the result of experience, as the result of day-to-day contact, as the result of general acceptance, and he made general acceptance the test really. The hon. the Minister himself, on a previous occasion in this House, not only showed that general acceptance was the test but how, if general acceptance changed, an individual could be reclassified. It was only last year that the hon. the Minister said in this House—

Then the hon. the Minister goes on—

Have you any objection to that?

I have no objection to it.

Then it is still acceptance, in reverse.

The Minister has just told me that there will be no reclassification. Now we are beginning to get down to it. In other words, I am using this example at this stage for one purpose only— I will use it for others later—and that is to establish that as far as the Minister was concerned, general acceptance was the factor to which overwhelming importance would be given. Despite that example, despite the example of the previous Minister, the hon. gentleman is coming here to-day and he is changing that principle in two respects. In one respect he is allowing appearance to triumph over general acceptance, because he has told us himself that a person who appears obviously Coloured will not be classified as a White man even if he is generally accepted as a White man. Sir, there are very many dark people obviously accepted as White people, and that is why general acceptance was the test to which attention was directed in the original Act.

I said the same thing.

The hon. the Minister now says that he said the same, but to-day he is departing from it.

No, I used exactly the same words.

Sir, I hate arguing with people when we differ on facts. Let us get it straight. The Minister said that there were three principles which were fundamental, and the third of those principles was that a person who appears Coloured—and I put in the word “obviously” Coloured because that is the definition in the Bill—a person who appears Coloured, even if generally accepted as a White man, will not be accepted as a White man. Is that right?

Yes.

That, then, is a change from the previous position.

I gave the reason.

At last we are getting it straight. In other words, that is change number one. A person who in the opinion of the Secretary, in the opinion of the officials responsible, is obviously a Coloured person in appearance, is going to be a Coloured person whether he is generally accepted as a White person by the community or not, and it is no use telling me that this is just to deal with the case of one Chinaman. This is going to have repercussions throughout South Africa. What inspector has this hon. Minister got who is such an expert that he can decide that a person in appearance is obviously a Coloured man if society accepts him as a White man? Sir, at the time when this original Act came before the House, I challenged the then Minister …

General appearance.

… with the support of that hon. member, judging by some of the noises he made—I said that the Minister was trying to establish a stud-book without properly trained inspectors, and I got the approval of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister wants to go on general appearance. If the hon. gentleman wants general appearance, then he must rule out general acceptance.

May I come back to the hon. the Minister. In other words, we are now to have a test, the test of general appearance, which is to overrule the acceptance of an individual by society as a White man. Sir, where is the individual, the trained expert, to whom the Minister can entrust that function? How dare he come along and say to us that where a man obviously appears to be a Coloured man, he is going to classify him as Coloured although society accepts him as a White man? It is no good his talking to me about the fact that there were false affidavits and things of that kind. Let him change the system of proof, if he likes; he can lay that down by regulation; that is nothing to worry about. The courts can decide whether a man is generally accepted as a White man or not, but here the Minister is taking the power to place some official or other or to place a board in charge, who is going to say that if a man by general appearance is Coloured, then it does not matter if he is accepted by society as a White man; that is a finding on fact and he is classified as a Coloured man. He may find that there are many families in which we know that there is Coloured blood. We who have lived in South Africa for a long time know the history of many of the old families here. We know that there are occasional throw-backs and that people appear who are obviously Coloured in appearance. Are they going to be classified as Coloured although society accepts them as Whites? Sir, the hon. gentleman is creating for himself more trouble to-day than he is avoiding. He is introducing a provision here which is a vicious provision, a provision which can be a cruel provision and one which makes us like this change even less than the original Act.

But then, Sir, there is a second change. Originally descent was of no importance at all. The tests were general appearance and general acceptance. That is well borne out by a question that I put to the hon. the Minister at the time in the course of the second reading debate; I said, “What happens to the child of two people accepted and registered as White people; is that child necessarily White?” and the reply was, “the test is appearance and general acceptance”. That was the reply. Descent played no part at all. Sir, we realized that the result was an elastic line, but the line had been elastic in South Africa for many hundreds of years; it was not possible to come along and change it overnight. We realized the difficulties involved in classification. We felt that the line had to be elastic because of the hardship involved and the consequences of classification, and we realized too, with the Minister, that classification could be impermanent because of that test, and we accepted that was so. The Minister himself has indicated here by his statement that classification can change when circumstances change as well. But what is the Minister doing now? He is abandoning that and he is introducing the element of descent by a back door in a somewhat clumsy, inexact and unscientific manner which it seems to me enables him to take advantage of the element of descent to the detriment of every applicant but never to his advantage. May I put to the hon. the Minister the position as I see it. No matter what the applicant looks like, no matter what his general acceptance—he may be blond and blue-eyed, he may be generally accepted by society as a White man, but if he admits that by descent he is Coloured, then he is classified as a Coloured man. Genetics play very strange tricks. If the hon. the Minister wants to know about them I can send him to certain Coloured schools where he will see some very strange things, which will undermine many of his preconceived ideas as to tests, if they have not been undermined already as the result of his experience in administering this Act.

Sir, what is the position in which we are now? When is a man inclined to admit, when he may admit, by accident or otherwise, when may he admit without knowing properly what the legal consequences are, that he is Coloured by descent? You see, Sir, we are in this position now that if a man is obviously Coloured in appearance, and the Minister has established that, it does not matter that he is generally accepted as a White man; it does not matter that he can prove conclusively that there is not one drop of Coloured blood in his ancestors; he is going to be classified as a Coloured man. That is the effect of this Bill. It that what the Minister intended? Does he realize what he is doing? The man may look White, he may be accepted as a White man, but if it appears that he admits that he has some Coloured blood, if he says that by descent he knows he is a Coloured man, then he is Coloured; then he has admitted that by descent he is Coloured and he is classified as a Coloured man. He may be White in appearance; he may be generally accepted as a White man, but because he is an honest man he says, “Yes, my grandmother or my grandfather was of mixed blood or was Coloured or came from St. Helena or was a Mauritian.” We know the various difficulties and the various grades that one may have. In that case the Minister classifies him as a Coloured man and there is no option at all.

The one twin could be Coloured and the other White.

What are the consequences for the family? Supposing one brother admits that he is Coloured, what about the other brothers and sisters? Supposing a parent admits that he was Coloured, what about the family? Sir, the Minister does not know what he is doing scratching into cases of this kind. The moment descent is introduced, where does he end? I cannot understand how an hon. gentleman with the experience that he has had could take the risk of introducing a factor of this kind. When can you say that a person in honesty should admit that he has Coloured blood? It may be that his blood is one-quarter Coloured; it may be an eighth, it may be a half, it may be one-sixteenth or it may be one thirty-second. When is he a Coloured? The Minister says, “unless it is established that the facts on which the admission was made are inaccurate”. If it is established that the facts on which the admission was made are inaccurate, then of course the Minister is not going to accept that admission. But when does he not accept that admission? At what stage does he not accept it? Must he say, if there is any Coloured blood at all, that the admission is accepted? Because technically that person is Coloured; genetically there is Coloured blood in him. Sir, I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes now what he has done. Mr. Speaker, what is the position now, where is the line going to be drawn, what are the results going to be? In the United States of America they had exactly this problem and they laid down when a person was a Negro and when he was not. I forget what percentage of negroid blood there had to be for a person to be a Negro.

One-eighth.

One-eighth, but my impression is that it varied from state to state. Now what test is the Minister going to apply here? What crueller test could the hon. gentleman apply than one of this kind? You see, Mr. Speaker, we would be against any change at all at this stage which was going to make things more difficult and which was going to result in a harsher application of this legislation which is anathema to us anyway, which we would like to see repealed anyway. But, Mr. Speaker, here you have an attempt to tighten up, to meet one or two exceptional cases, which in my opinion could be met very, very simply by a change in the regulations or a change in the proof required, and you could have gone on and at least you would have some measure of permanency. Where are you now?

The next point I want to come to is this: What is an “admission” for the purposes of this legislation? When does a man admit that he is a Coloured man or that he is a Native for the purposes of this Act? Is it sufficient if he admits that he has got a mixed birth certificate? Is that sufficient? There is going to be an investigation now. The Minister is taking powers, or the Secretary, to investigate, or to appoint somebody to investigate on his behalf, in respect of—

Well, one of the matters is “race”. So there can be an investigation into race. The Minister tells us that they are not going into descent in establishing race. But how can they avoid it? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it, to prevent them going into the race of the individual concerned and going into his ancestry in order to establish his race. And we know through our experience during the last 12 years, despite the fact that general acceptance was the overwhelming test, how often the one problem with which we were faced was a mixed birth certificate, or a death certificate of someone who had been described as “Coloured”, or a marriage certificate in which an individual had been described as being of mixed blood, and we knew always that was the first hurdle to overcome, and then you could get the other tests applied. But now where descent is a factor, what is to prevent the individual who is appointed to do the investigation to meet the gentleman concerned, whose classification is in doubt, and say to him, “I have here a mixed birth certificate which represents that you are of mixed blood; do you admit it or don’t you admit it? Is it yours?” The answer is “Yes, it is mine”, without qualifications. Is that sufficient for the purposes of the Act? If there is a marriage certificate of his parents, in which one is described as of mixed blood, and he identifies that and admits that those people are or were his parents, that he is born of a marriage of people of mixed blood, of parents one of whom is of mixed blood, is that an admission for the purposes of this Act? Where do admissions begin and where do they end? The hon. the Minister has given the case of an individual who, having been accepted as a White person, admitted that he was purely of Chinese blood. Well, it seems to me that is a most exceptional case that could be dealt with in another way. What are you going to do if it comes to the question of classification, and the investigating officer is now appointed? Remember that he can force you to answer questions. Under the regulations if you don’t answer his questions, you can be prosecuted. He says to you: “What is your ancestry? I require that information, a birth certificate, a marriage certificate.” He says: “I have heard people say that one of your grandparents is Coloured. Do you admit it or not?” Is that sufficient proof to make him Coloured for the purposes of this Act? Where are we going to?

Now comes the question of reclassification. The definition has been changed. I accept that where a person has had a decision of the Board, or a decision of the court, the original Act says that it is final and binding on the Director, now the Secretary. But where there has not been a decision by a court or a decision by the Board, and it is an ordinary classification, what is the position? The Minister himself told us here that there could be a change in a classification. He said so and he said it once before in this House, because circumstances may change. What happens now? At what point of time is the new definition going to be applied, and at what point of time does the old definition stop being applied? Is it the definition in force at the time you apply to be classified when you become 16 years old? Or is it a subsequent point of time? Because the hon. the Minister has told us now that he is accepting no new classifications until this Act has been passed. Now where are we? Suppose there is a challenge after the coming into operation of this Act. I may be wrong about this, I hope I am wrong. The Minister has given me an assurance that there will be no reclassification. I can’t find a provision in the Bill to that effect. It seems to me there can still be reclassification.

I want to put to the hon. the Minister the next step in this matter. There are parents who are White under the old definition. They have a child which is now going to be classified under the new definition, and it may well be that under the new definition that child is classified as Coloured. Can you imagine what the result of that is going to be to family life, to their place in society, to what the world thinks of us in respect of matters of this kind? It seems to me that the hon. gentleman in coming with these provisions has overlooked the anguish that he can be causing, he has overlooked the human tragedies that can result from a Bill of this kind.

There is one further point. We have a change now in classification upsetting the whole studbook because apparently of one decision. The whole thing is being upset. The rules for admission are being changed because of one decision. Supposing somebody else found a loophole somewhere that the Minister does not like. Is it going to be changed again? Is the Population Register going to become something like the Group Areas Act which is being changed every year or two? And, Sir, when you have regard to the consequences, the social consequences, the economic consequences, the political consequences of a change in classification, of the differences as it affects different members of a family, then I feel that this is a terrible piece of legislation, a vicious piece of legislation. It is not a piece of legislation which should be passed by this House.

I go further. What is the object of this clause providing for powers for investigation? Surely the hon. the Minister and his Department has all the powers they require. Under Section 12 of the old Act, they have the right to demand further evidence in respect of any matter—

There is the power to demand that evidence must be furnished. But now he wants the right to investigate, to appoint someone who is going to conduct an investigation, who goes snooping round into the private lives of the person concerned, snooping round amongst his associates and finding out what the position is, whether everyone accepts him as White, or whether there are some who have doubts, and whether there are some who are not sure. Imagine the state of affairs! The person who does the snooping, the person who does the investigation may well keep quiet about his job, keep quiet about information he gleans. But imagine the effect on the person whom he interviews during his investigations! Can you imagine the effect on the social standing of the individual concerned?

No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept that clause either, and I think there is only one amendment which is fitting in respect of this Bill and that is the amendment I now move—

I second the amendment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has very briefly touched on the background of this Bill, and he referred to the attitude of the United Party at the time of the passing of the original Act, I presume in 1950, when they found it objectionable. Now I do think the principle of registration, or of the division of the population into various groups, should not be under discussion at this stage. I presume that aspect was very well canvassed at the time of the passing of the Act. In any event, I do not consider that the Opposition with its announced policy of racial federations is entitled to oppose the registration of the different races. I should like to hear from them how they intend to put their ideas of racial federation into practice unless they have a system of population registration of the various races. According to their announced policy, the different races will have their different representatives in a common parliament, but it will be absolutely essential for their policy and in order to put it into practice, to have a system of registration of the various groups. So it would appear that the principle of registration of different population groups should be unanimously accepted by this House. The only point that could arise now is the definition of what is a White person and what is not. In that respect it is also a pity that the Opposition has not furnished us with their definition of a White person. Perhaps it would be easy for them to furnish us with a definition and we could then compare. If they could furnish us with a definition which is more acceptable, I am quite sure we would be pleased to accept it, because it is a most difficult definition to arrive at. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct when he says there is a change in the law. I believe that we are ad idem in regard to the interpretation as announced by the hon. the Minister namely that in future not only the acceptance by the White population as a White man is necessary, but also that in appearance he is not obviously a non-European. When one considers this amendment, then in view of the background of this Bill and the loopholes mentioned by the hon. the Minister, one cannot see any other way of defining a person as a White person, and I cannot see the hardship which could be caused by classifying a person who is obviously a non-European as a non-European. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that an inspector could come along and he could go and classify any person as a non-European on appearance only, although he might be accepted by the European community as a White man, and this might create a severe hardship. He asked what experience these inspectors have. I want to point out that there is an appeal first of all to the classification Board, a board consisting of a senior magistrate or a Judge as chairman and two other members. From that Board there is not only an appeal, but a full hearing before a supreme court. The supreme court is entitled to call further evidence and to see the persons in person as has happened in the case in which Mr. Justice Snyman gave his recent judgment.

They have to have regard to the law

Obviously when the Board considers a person who is obviously in appearance a Coloured person, they declare him a Coloured person in accordance with the law. If he is not satisfied he goes to the Appeal Court, and he appears personally before the Judge of appeal, and it is only when the Judge of appeal also considers this person to be obviously a Coloured person, that he is classified as Coloured. There can surely be no objection to that procedure, nor to the classification in that way.

There is the further point that was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition with regard to an admission that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person. As I see it, the person will have to answer not in detail, but if he is a person who honestly admits that he regards himself as a Native or a Coloured person, then he is so classified. Those are the questions I presume will be put to him, not what his grandparents were, or his father or his mother. The question is simply put to that person and his answer is final. There is no appeal, there is no investigation there. He admits himself that he regards himself as a Coloured person or a Native. Then surely there can be no hardship in classifying him as such a person.

Mr. Speaker, I need not go further into the matter. I consider that the definition as it is now framed is a fair one and the only possible one to stop these loopholes. After all, the law must be effectively carried out and it must be so worded as to be effective. Otherwise, you might as well abandon the law, and as I have already stated, there should be unanimity on the point that race classification is essential in South Africa. I therefore support this Bill.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised a few points dealing with the Bill. I’ll touch on the last point raised by him first. That is that he could not see the hardships which could be inflicted on people affected by the amendment we are now dealing with in regard to their race classification. In other words, he could not see the hardship that could be incurred by people who would be classified as non-Europeans when they apply for registration as White persons. He went on to say that various remedies are open to those people by means of appeals, ending up in the Appeal Court. I wonder if the hon. member realizes that in the vast majority of these cases, you are dealing with people of the working-class type, people who have by no means the money to face Appeal Court cases when fighting the Government. The Government takes these cases on principle right through to the Appeal Court. They don’t want their laws upset, and they are almost bound to take them to the Appeal Court. But no private individual, and particularly the majority of these individuals, have the wherewithal to face these costs. They are already hard enough put to provide a decent home and decent living conditions for their families, without having this additional burden thrown on to them. So when it comes to a question of hardship, quite apart from the hardship of being classified (which I will deal with at a later stage) there is the financial hardship incurred right away. There is also another hardship, the hardship of the mental anguish which that family has to go through waiting for these various appeals to be settled. I personally dealt with many hundreds of cases coming under this particular ban…

Hundreds?

Yes, literally hundreds of cases, there are many which can never go forward. You can give them nothing and I want to say at the outset that as far as the staff of the Registrar’s Offices are concerned, in dealing with these cases, they are very considerate. It is only fair to say that one meets the most sympathetic consideration and a most helpful attitude is generally adopted. So in any strictures, in any criticism I make, I am not referring to the staff whose job it is to carry out the law, but I am referring to the impracticability and the wickedness of the law itself. When the hon. member talks about the lack of hardship, I wonder if he has ever seen a father and mother, knowing the penalties which other Government legislation will apply to their family once they are classified as non-Whites, the bitter anguish they have to go through while waiting to know their fate. Because that is what it is, “their fate”. I would like the hon. member to think that over. These people are human beings, the same as we are; they are South Africans, the same as we are. They are part of the flesh and blood of us, every one of them part of the White race of this country. Our people, our forefathers, were responsible for them coming into being, the forefathers of both language groups. Let us face up to that. We can’t shrug that off. We can’t throw off our responsibility towards them as lightly as some people appear to want to do.

Many Coloureds have not a drop of White blood in their veins. Don’t you know that?

I want to ask the hon. member if there were any Coloured people in what is now the Republic of South Africa before the White man first landed here.

What about all the Hottentots?

Surely they are classed as Natives?

Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly on this point. We are dealing primarily with the people whom we know as the Cape Coloured people. The question of the Bantu and the Hottentot or any other racial group does not enter into this. The Bill itself is directed mainly at the Cape Coloured people. It might be as well to refer back for a moment to the days of the passing of the original Act to get our minds quite clear as to what the purpose of the Act was. I want to refer to Hansard, Vol. 71, of 1950, Col. 2525, and I refer to the speech opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition by Gen. Smuts, in which the General said—

We want to get that in the back of our mind when we deal with the Bill now before us, because it removes many mistaken impressions of what the legislation was really intended to do. The Act is part of the framework of the Government’s policy as it affects the country as a whole. That policy can be directed to assist in many ways the purpose and intention of this type of legislation, intention which was not so clearly expressed when the legislation was passed, as the operation of the Act now makes clear.

The amendments proposed in the Bill before us, particularly in respect of Clauses 1 and 4, concern the most intensely personal and private feelings of the people affected as it is possible to imagine, particularly the most private and intimate of human feelings the persons directly concerned have with regard to their own surroundings, the circle of friends they have built up, their own family and their own future. In considering the effect of these amendments, we are also bound to consider the direct penalties which apply as a result of other pieces of Government legislation and Government policies. Direct penalties which now follow automatically the classification in one or other race group—either benefits or penalties. It is not possible to consider the amendments before us now divorced from these direct consequences which must follow decisions flowing from it. The racial classification which is governed by Clause 1 of this Bill, the racial classification under which a man or woman is registered as Coloured, completely governs amongst other things: The area in which they are allowed to live; it governs the possible employment in which a man can earn his living, as also his whole family; it governs the school in which his children can be educated; the standard of education they will be allowed to attain; whether they can or cannot attain university education, as we understand university education; it governs also the persons with whom he can associate, either in his work or in his daily ordinary domestic private life; it governs his entertainment, sport, recreation; the method and the class of travel to and from his work, and the very friends he can entertain in his own home. All these features, all these facets of human life are governed by the race classification under this particular clause, and I say that Parliament cannot consider the clause, unless we also take into account those penalties which apply in these cases. Because in the case of classification as a Coloured person, these are penalties which automatically come into operation. In fact it is not too much to say that the decision as to a person’s race classification controls every aspect of that person’s life and his family’s life from the cradle to the grave. There again I just want for a moment to get the position clear that in introducing the Bill itself, the hon. Minister responsible for its introduction at that state, the present Minister of Finance, accepted that view. He said—

The Minister dealt with the case of a stillborn baby, and he then went on to say—

Mr. Tighy, a late Member of Parliament, then interrupted him and said—

It sounds like a funeral oration.

And the reply of the hon. Minister introducing the Bill was—

I wonder how many hundreds of Coloured families will not substantiate that last remark of the Minister’s to-day. It has been the funeral of their hopes; the funeral of their aspirations; the funeral of all their hopes of building up a family life. That is what race classification has meant to hundreds of families. But how true was that remark of the Minister’s when he introduced the Bill at that time. As I have already explained, it has meant the loss of rights and freedoms to which every decent living man is entitled to, no matter what his colour. It has meant the loss to him of certain basic human principles, human rights and human freedoms.

Clause 1 of this amending Bill proposes certain important changes in the qualifications by means of which a person will be classed either as White or non-White. In other words, it is providing for a fairly wide new definition of the method to be used in race classification. What flows from that clause really forms one of the basic principles of population registration. May I refer you back to the words of Gen. Smuts. And that is only one aspect of it, namely, the political aspect. There are many others which weigh far more heavily on the individual concerned than whether or not he has the franchise. The hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill, referred to the difficulties which were being experienced in dealing with race classification. When the 1950 Bill was before the House, Sir, the Government was warned with regard to that particular aspect but the Minister of the day shrugged it off. He said there would be no difficulties. I wish to refer to Hansard, vol. 71, pages 2531 and 2534. In dealing with the 1950 Bill Gen. Smuts referred to a Select Committee which had sat some years previously to inquire into the possibilities of establishing a national register and he said—

And I think we can endorse that even to-day, Sir. The principles which applied then, apply equally if not with more force to-day when we are facing this amending Bill. The General went on to say—

Gen. Smuts then went on to say—

As recorded on page 2534 he said this—

The very thing that the hon. the Minister tried to warn us about in his opening remarks. He referred to the difficulty they experienced in getting information to classify people correctly. He referred to affidavits upon which he cast certain doubts. Gen. Smuts went on to say—

Indeed, Sir, we had a man of vision who was dealing with the Bill at that time, a man who foresaw the difficulties which are confronting us to-day, the difficulties which the Government is trying to overcome by the introduction of this amending legislation, the difficulties which have been besetting the officials who are charged with the carrying out of this legislation from the very day they started to carry out the provisions of the Act, the difficulties those officials have experienced in trying to achieve the impossible. We are dealing with human facets, Sir, human facets which cannot be dealt with by means of black and white rules and regulations in the form of legislation. We have to consider them from the human angle. They have to be considered with tolerance and sympathy and with the spirit of Christianity which we are all supposed to practise ourselves. I think that is the basic principle which should apply.

I tried to follow the opening remarks of the Minister as closely as I could, but he has not said a thing which to my mind in any way justifies the acceptance of this amending Bill. As my hon. Leader has already said, we stand committed to remove this Act from the Statute Book when we take over. We do not think it is workable. We believe there are ways and means of achieving with justice and fairness exactly what the Government is working for namely the preservation of the South African race as a whole. Only we will employ different methods; not by this type of method. There is not a law on our Statute Book to-day, not even including the Immorality Act, which has caused so much sheer misery, heart-break and sorrow in so many families in this country, as has this piece of legislation. And there is nothing in the amending Bill which will alleviate that position. In fact, Sir, it will worsen it. I think the opening remarks of the hon. the Minister completely justified the criticisms voiced by Gen. Smuts from this side of the House when the original Act was introduced in 1950. You can go right through the debates on the Bill at that time, Sir, and you will find statement after statement which completely fits the position into which the Government has got itself to-day. They find themselves in such a difficult position to-day that they have to come to the House with amending legislation in an attempt to find an easy way to do the impossible. They will not find it, Sir. Even if we accepted this Bill unanimously to-day, they will not find it except at the expense of the misery of hundreds and hundreds of more families in this country. This side of the House is not prepared to perpetuate that position.

I say that this law has done more to break down race relations between White and non-White in this country than any other piece of legislation. There is only one answer to this Bill and that is the answer given by the Leader of the Opposition, to have nothing to do with it. The parliamentary way of saying that is to move that the Bill be read this day six months. That means that the Bill is not worthy of consideration by Parliament it should be put on one side and forgotten as quickly as it is possible to forget it because it is such a bad piece of legislation.

Despite the very eloquent appeal which the Minister made in an attempt to justify the acceptance of this Bill, he has not made out any case. The Bill remains a wicked Bill which should not be accepted by the House. As I have said, this amending Bill deals with an Act which we are pledged to remove. Any attempt to amend it—an attempt which in our opinion will make it worse—is something which we cannot support. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister himself and many of those hon. members who have discussed this legislation—maybe I am wrong in the case of the Minister because he has only recently been charged with it—but I wonder if members who do not come into personal contact with the effects of this legislation on human beings, fully appreciate the real terror and fear which it arouses in people, particularly people with families. Those people think of how the future of their whole family is going to be damned practically forever as a result of this sort of legislation. I wonder whether hon. members opposite appreciate that? I have seen those people; I have spoken to them; I know what they feel like. I think it is one of the most bitter responsibilities which a Member of Parliament has to shoulder when he has to deal with those people. In many cases there is no hope for them. In terms of the existing legislation you cannot even try to alleviate their burdens. There it is, legislation passed by the House and you have to accept it. But that in no way justifies its existence. In many cases those people think of the penalties that will be inflicted on their children and their children yet to be born in the years to come. They know that once they have been put in this particular stud book…

What penalties?

What penalties! Heaven help me. With this Bill before us, you have the audacity to ask “what penalties?” The penalty of the misery and the degradation which you are inflicting upon the Coloured people of this country.

Words, just words and hypocrisy.

What do you know about it?

May I ask a question?

No, I am not answering questions. The hon. member can make his speech and ask any questions he wishes.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that what the hon. member is saying is hypocrisy?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say what I did indeed say. I said “words, and words and hypocrisy” (huigelary). I withdraw the word “hypocrisy” if you rule that it is un parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about what the member thinks. I am dealing with this Bill from personal experience and not from political expediency as the hon. member is doing. I am dealing with it on the basis of the knowledge which I have acquired to my sorrow, of people who have suffered under this legislation. I am not prepared to perpetuate that position by means of any type of amendment such as we now have before us.

The Bill goes further. The Bill now proposes, under Clause 4, to introduce a system of investigators in regard to matters in respect of which particulars are required, particulars to be recorded in the register. In his opening remarks the hon. the Minister has given us what he feels is a form of guarantee that these investigations will be carried out discreetly and that they will endeavour to keep them as confidential as it is possible to do. Sir, these are things which cannot be kept confidential. These are things which you cannot keep under cover. Immediately an investigator asks a question of any one of the circle of friends, to whom he will have to go, you start a fire which you cannot put out. You will have started something in respect of which there was not the slightest suspicion in the mind of the person you have spoken to. I wonder again, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister realizes that, no matter how carefully such an inquiry is carried out, that the suspicion it raises, that the mud it stirs up, can never wholly disappear. Can the Minister imagine a family which has built up a happy home; they have their circle of friends in the area in which they live, friends who have accepted them as White people. They live a White standard of living. They behave as decent White people. Their children are accepted in White educational establishments. They live the accepted life of a White person. There is no justification in any shape or form to change it. Then suddenly the investigator comes along and asks one of their friends to substantiate that Mr. A or Mrs. B are indeed White. We know what human nature is like, Sir. Once such a question is asked you plant the seed of doubt and how long does it take for that little seed to grow as far as these things are concerned? How long can people survive that blast of suspicion? They may never hear a word of verbal criticism but it is there. Even under the method which has been employed hitherto where that person could go to a personal friend of his own choice and ask him for a certificate, where he could go to somebody in an official position such as his Member of Parliament or his Provincial Councillor his employer or Minister, people who normally forget such a thing as being confidential once they have done it. How many families whose race classification has ultimately been accepted as White, have been driven out of their surroundings by the inquiries made. Have had to move elsewhere rather than to continue to tolerate the looks and suspicions of their friends, those friends amongst whom they have lived formerly, have had to move elsewhere as a result of the inquiry which they themselves have had to institute. People have come to me, Sir, and asked me: “In God’s name, have I to go to somebody whom I have known for the last 20 years as a personal friend and now go to ask him to say that I am White.” What would we do if we were placed in that position? I wonder what the hon. the Minister would do? I wonder what I would do? Can we be surprised at the antagonism which has grown up amongst the Coloured people towards us as a result of what has been perpetrated against them?

It is not as bad as all that.

How can we justify it, Sir? It is all very well for my friend over there to sit and gabble. He does not know of half the dangers, half the damage, half the wickedness that he is perpetuating. And he does not care. He cares less than he knows apparently. We talk glibly about Christianity. What Christianity is there in the principles of the Bill we are dealing with at the moment? How can you justify it on the basis of your Christian belief, Sir, the Christianity which hon. members profess to believe in? It is completely un-Christian. It falls below the standard accepted for normal civilization. I could quote from Hansard, but I do not intend taking up the time of the House by doing so. But I can quote from Hansard where Gen. Smuts warned this country when the original Bill was introduced and said that this particular measure would bring us into disrepute overseas, that it would bring bitterness and bad feeling towards South Africa. How well his warning has been justified. How would we like to have this sort of thing imposed upon us as individuals, Sir. No matter how sympathetically or how humanely it is done, how would we like to be subjected to it? Those people have just as much right to a decent life as we have. They have just as much right to security as we have. They have just as much right to their own dignity and their own family feelings as we have. What god has given us the power to break down those rights of theirs and to subject them to treatment which many a farmer would not mete out to his cattle.

You are a vicious agitator.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order is the hon. member in order to say that the hon. member is an official agitator?

Order! What did the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) say?

I said that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) was a vicious old agitator. I do not know that “agitator” is un-Parliamentary.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Must I withdraw the word “agitator” Sir?

No, the whole of it.

The hon. member must withdraw what he said.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, I do not propose taking up more time of the House. I merely wish to reiterate that as far as this side of the House is concerned we are fully supporting the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is the only amendment which Parliament can accept in a case like this. Parliament has no right, is not justified, to perpetuate legislation of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it in order, in dealing with this amending legislation, to discuss the whole principle of the 1950 Act.

The principle contained in the amendment may be discussed.

When we discuss such a delicate matter as the classification of races, we ourselves have to approach it calmly, and not get as heated about it as the hon. member did who just resumed his seat. The difficulty is that when it comes to very complicated issues such as, for example, the classification of races, there will always be hard and difficult cases. But the principle that we should have a population register was accepted by this hon. House in 1950. That was accepted and the principle laid down, and to-day the law has to be carried out and administered. The trouble is that hon. members of the Opposition are not prepared to accept that principle. As the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has just said, it is their intention to remove that Act from the Statute Book if they should get into power. They are not prepared to accept the principle of race classification, and all the objections which they have raised this afternoon against this amending Bill stem from that.

I do not wish to go into the principle of this matter. I do not think that is relevant. We are dealing here with an amending Bill. The question of the classification of races is dealt with in Clause 1 of this Bill and, before the National Party came into power, before 1948, hon. members of the Opposition were in favour of the classification of races. As late as January 1948 the provincial councils instructed the administrators of the provinces to approach the then Prime Minister, Field-Marshal Smuts, with the request that a national register of races should be compiled, irrespective of their colour. That national register would not have been anything else but a population register; it could not have envisaged anything else but the classification of races as is envisaged to-day under the existing legislation. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out that the Opposition have undergone changes in respect of the principle which was accepted and, because the United Party have changed since 1948 as far as the principle is concerned, they are raising these objections to-day.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment contained in this amending Bill deals with the definition of a White person, and the new definition as contained in Clause 1 (a) (b) is in spirit the same as the original definition, except for the addition of a few words in (b) at the end of Clause 1. The only new words which are incorporated in the present definition are the following words in (b) “… and is not in appearance obviously not a White person.” Before I go further I just wish to say that neither this definition which we have here to-day, nor any future definition nor the original definition, is or will be acceptable to hon. members opposite. We will never be able to satisfy them in respect of any definition. When the original definition was laid down they raised the same objections, they saw the same ghosts, they saw the same dangers. All they are doing to-day is simply to repeat them. We heard the same tearful stories which we heard when the original definition was before this House.

Blood and tear stories.

Yes, blood and tear stories. The two basic principles on which the definition is founded remain the same. The first is whether a White person is in appearance obviously White; and the second is a White person is somebody who is generally accepted as a White person. These two principles still form the crux of the new definition. In the original definition, however, the first principle was qualified. It read that a White person was somebody who in appearance was obviously a White person, with this qualification: But who does not pass for a Coloured. The second principle, namely the acceptance was not qualified, and what we are now doing is to qualify the second principle as well namely that a person who is generally accepted as a White person is a White person provided he is not in appearance obviously a non-White.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised an objection this afternoon and said that, in terms of the present amendment to the definition, the conception of appearance will supersede the conception of acceptance; the conception of appearance will carry more weight, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, than the conception of acceptance. He gave us an example: the case of a person with Coloured blood in his veins who admitted in all honesty that his grandmother or great-grandmother was of mixed descent—was a Coloured from St. Helena He said that would be the end of it; in that case such a person would be classified as non-White. But the hon. the Minister said a minute ago that in such a case, where a person passed as and was accepted as a White person, and who appeared to be non-White, and was classified as a non-White, all that was required was to produce proof and lead evidence as to the principle of acceptance. All that has to be done in such a case is to produce proof that person, in spite of the fact that he acquired non-White blood in his veins generations ago, is, nevertheless, accepted by the Whites and the community as a White person, and in that case the principle of acceptance applies.

You are completely wrong; ask the Minister. He has admitted.

If he admits it, there is still a legal provision that evidence can be led to the effect that his admission was incorrect. The fact of the matter is that a person who is generally accepted as a White person, and who is accepted by the community as a White person, and who looks like a non-White person, will be classified as a White person.

Even though he admits that he has non-White blood?

I am dealing with paragraph (b) of the clause, and the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) knows nothing about it. He should rather keep his mouth shut; he should go and swim. The point which I wish to make very clearly is that we are dealing with the crux of the matter, namely that when a person alleges that he is accepted as a White, and a blind man can see that he is not a White person, he is certified as a non-White. If in appearance he is obviously a non-White, he gets classified as a non-White. But, in spite of that, evidence can still be led that, although this uncle looks as dark as he does, and, although his hair is as short as it is, he has been accepted all these years as a White person, and if that evidence as to acceptance is sufficiently substantial, he is classified as White. But in that event the evidence as to acceptance must be substantial, and we do not object to that. [Interjections.] I do not expect all hon. members to understand it. When it comes to classifying border-line cases the deciding factor remains the principle of acceptance. The principle remains the same as that enunciated at the time by the Minister of the Interior when he moved the second reading of this Act and when he said the test to be applied under the Act would be the opinion of the person’s fellow citizens, the test of appearance and the society he moved in. That remains the dominant principle in the present Bill.

The Minister himself says that is not the position.

You did not understand the Minister correctly. I am telling you what the law says, am I not, and, if you cannot understand it, you should not blame the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Objections which were lodged in the past in respect of the classification of people, objections based on descent have never been taken into account in the case of appeals. As a result of that problems have recently arisen, all bounds of reasonableness have been exceeded and that is why a firmer attitude is being adopted in the present amendment in respect of the principle of acceptance as well as that of descent. Firstly, in respect of descent in as much as if the person himself admits that he is of non-White descent and he is a non-White, his word is taken for it subject to the proviso of which the Minister has just given notice and which he will move at a later stage. That, Sir, is the new approach as far as the principle of descent is concerned. Except if he himself admits that he is of non-White descent, a person’s descent will not be investigated otherwise. The change which is made in respect of acceptance is that embodied in the amendment in Clause 4 (b) where the Secretary is now being empowered to conduct an investigation either himself or through somebody else into the details which are necessary for his register in respect of the classification. Previously the Secretary also had the power to seek certain information but he could only seek specific information on specific forms and any information that could not be obtained by means of the questions in those forms, were on appeal regarded by the courts as being irrelevant. The Secretary is now given the right either personally or through somebody duly authorized by him, to conduct an investigation into the bona fides of the evidence which is led on appeal when there is a dispute as to a person’s classification. He can send somebody out, not to start a witch hunt and find out who was the grandmother or grandfather of somebody, or whom he is courting, but to ascertain whether the evidence which is submitted to the Board of Appeal or the Court is correct. He can go further and gain information and submit it to the Appeal Court or to the Supreme Court to refute the evidence which has been submitted. He will also be entitled to investigate anything else which may be a deciding factor as to how a person should be classified, provided it is in connection with the principle of general acceptance, as the Minister has said, and not in connection with origin or descent. Although the attitude was originally adopted that objections which were based on descent and blood should not be taken into account when the two main principles of appearance or general acceptance were in favour of the applicant, the Minister foresaw the difficulties which that would cause in future when he introduced the legislation. He said in 1950 that for the time being that easy definition could be accepted, but even at that time he foresaw that it would be difficult to adhere to that easy definition. His words at the time were—

Mr. Speaker, we are not going so far to-day as to apply a test of descent but I just want to tell the House that the then Minister foresaw the difficulty that this easy test would not stand the test of time. The classification of borderline cases is a very difficult and delicate problem and very wide in its scope. In 1959 the Minister of the Interior said that in respect of the Cape Province alone there were 60,000 doubtful cases which had to be investigated and classified. The Department tackled that onerous task and I submit that once the Department started to investigate those 60,000 cases, they found that in the case of the Cape Province alone, the number had doubled, because the one leads to the other. But the Department acted with the greatest possible circumspection and compassion. They tackled that onerous task and they dealt with those 60,000 and more cases so that only a small percentage is left to-day which has not been classified, and in respect of the decisions they had made, only 3,593 objections were lodged, as we were told to-day. During the entire 12 years this easy test has worked quite well until last year when people saw in this Act an opportunity to concern themselves with things which were not in the interests of the composition and structure of our nation.

As the Minister said on a previous occasion the officials had definite instructions at the time to treat the public as sympathetically as possible and to be as accommodating as possible and we have irrefutable proof that the officials and the Department have acted in that spirit. The Minister has referred to the previous member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I think I should tell the House what the hon. member for Salt River said. He said this in 1960—

He did not only say that in respect of the Minister’s actions, but also in respect of those of the officials. In 1959 he said—

And that is true. The officials went out of their way in these difficult cases to treat the people humanly and to help them with their problems. I just want to give a few examples to illustrate how the Department went out of its way to help in those difficult cases of classification. As you know, Sir, Section 5 (3) of the Act provides for re-classification. Even where cases had been finalized and new evidence becomes available to it the Department re-opened the case in terms of that Section and decided in favour of the applicant on the strength of the new evidence. But they went further. After they had made the classification they informed the person concerned in writing. That is not expected of them in terms of the law, but they notified the person in writing that he had been classified as such and such but that he had the right of appeal and that such and such was the procedure he had to follow in order to appeal. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked with tears in his eyes what was the use of a right to appeal because there were poor people who did not have the money to go to court. The Department even thought of that and the Minister said that arrangements had been made in respect of those cases where the people were poor in that where a case went to court and the person could not pay an advocate could act for them pro deo so that justice could be done without any cost to them. We have proof throughout that this Board of Appeal which the Minister has brought into being has treated every case most humanely and with the greatest possible circumspection on its merits. We had evidence from the Minister to-day that of 279 appeal cases 233 were decided in favour of the appellant. Mr. Speaker, I have said that when it comes to a matter such as this, when it comes to the administration of this type of legislation, you will always come up against difficult cases. But the fact remains that the principle of the law was accepted in 1950 and we cannot again discuss it to-day; and the Opposition is not prepared to adopt the attitude that this principle has been accepted and that this is a question of carrying out the law in which they have to assist. But in spite of that we will continue to carry out the law sympathetically as we have done in the past and people like the former member for Salt River will continue to be grateful to us but on the other hand there will always be those people who will try to avail themselves of the opportunity of raising fear, stirring up feelings, people who act like political vultures in circumstances such as these in order to make political capital out of the sorrow of families. That is why I say this last mentioned group is beyond redemption and we have to ignore them when it rests on our shoulders to carry out the law.

I wish to point out to hon. members that the principle of the Population Registration Act is not under discussion now. That was accepted in 1950.

I wish to associate myself with the eloquent and well-reasoned speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and with the amendment moved by him. Despite the assurances given by the hon. the Minister of the Interior this afternoon, I am strongly of opinion that this Bill will have the effect of causing greater misery and more hardship to those unfortunate citizens who at the moment are on the racial borderline in this country and who up to now do not know officially whether they will be classified in terms of the law as Coloured or White citizens. I go even further and say that the provisions of this Bill not only seriously affect those people whose cases are presently pending, but I am of opinion very firmly that this Bill is likely to affect a very large number of our citizens who, on investigation, may have to admit that they are by descent Coloured persons. In my view the consequences of this wholly unnecessary Bill are extremely difficult to estimate and I am certain the Minister of the Interior himself has not been able to gauge the harm that this Bill may do to the citizens of our country. I am certainly convinced that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who does not appreciate the fundamental distinctions which this Bill seeks to introduce, cannot possibly appreciate the great harm which this new definition may do to thousands of people in this country. I take the very serious view that this Bill will do untold misery and hardship to a large number of our citizens. I repeat that the observations I make here do not only apply to the many cases still outstanding where people still do not know what their future destiny will be in our racial set-up, but the Bill is likely to be used against many of our citizens who up to the present have escaped the effects of the Act. The sword of Damocles has hung sufficiently long over the heads of countless law-abiding people in this country and there seems to me to be no reason at all why we should extend the numbers who fall within the ambit of this new definition now proposed by the Minister.

For the benefit particularly of the hon. member for Parow. I want to deal with the definition now proposed by the Minister and compare it with the present definition in the existing Act. This Bill seeks to amend the definition of the term “White person” in the Act. If one refers to Section 1 of the original Act, the definition of a White person is—

On the face of it, this definition may seem to be somewhat confusing, but it has been generally interpreted by our courts and by the Minister’s own Department as meaning that a person is entitled to be classified as White if in appearance he is obviously White and is not generally accepted as a Coloured person, and if he is generally accepted as White. Under the existing definition, that is the interpretation given to it. In other words, under the existing definition evidence of acceptance as a White person is the decisive and determining factor. I want to impress that upon this House. Under the proposed amendment the Minister seeks to change the existing definition so as to make appearance the domining factor. [Interjections.] That is what the Minister himself said this afternoon. The Minister now seeks to change that existing definition and to make appearance the dominating factor. Sir, I say that this is a very dangerous step indeed. If appearance is to be the important factor from now on. I say we are treading on very dangerous ground.

But it was the dominating practice previously also.

No. I have explained it, if the hon. member would only listen, that if a man was generally accepted as a White person he could be classified as White. That was the dominating factor. I only want to repeat what the Minister himself said this afternoon. If our system of race classification is now to be changed as I envisage it under this new definition so as to make appearance the dominating factor, many additional citizens of this country who are on the racial borderline—and let us admit that there are many of them—will now have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads as well as those unfortunate people who are still waiting to hear the outcome of their applications. Their racial classification will now depend on the impression which their appearance makes upon the officials who will be charged with carrying out this race classfication under the new definition. To my mind, this will make the task of those unfortunate officials even more difficult and more disagreeable than it is at present.

But apart from this aspect, I say that this is a very dangerous innovation. I say that grave mistakes have been made in cases where appearance was the determining factor. When the original Bill came before the House in 1950, in the course of a speech I then made I quoted to the House instances which had come to my knowledge in my professional and public capacity, instances of extreme hardship which caused a great deal of misery to the people concerned, instances where appearance was the dominating factor in determining whether a man was White or Coloured. It is parhaps not inapproriate, for the benefit of some of the younger members, that I should repeat some of the examples I quoted then.

I recall the case where a man was forcibly ejected from the White enclosure at the Newlands rugby ground on the allegation that he was a Coloured man and not entitled to be there. His appearance was the dominating factor which decided the officials to have him ejected from the White enclosure, because he looked like a Coloured man. He took action against the W.P. Rugby Union for having been forcibly ejected in public, and you can imagine, Sir, the invidious position in which the W.P. Rugby Union found itself when it was discovered that this man’s own brother was refereeing the principal rugby match being played that afternoon.

Was it as bad as that?

Yes, it was. It was only through the intervention of Mr. Justice Jones, the president of the Rugby Union, who had to make the most abject apology on behalf of the Union, that I was able to prevail upon this man to forego his action. That is one of the instances showing how dangerous it is to judge a man by appearances only.

I recall another tragic case of a young school-boy of 12 years of age, who hanged himself in his parents’ kitchen out of sheer desperation and frustration because he was refused the right to attend a White school because in appearance he looked Coloured. At the inquest, where I appeared professionally for the family concerned, the evidence revealed that this boy’s own blood sister was a pupil at that very school to which he was refused admission. That is another instance of how dangerous it is for a man’s classification to be determined merely on appearances.

Sir, if these cases have not made any impression on hon. members opposite, I want to recall another very unfortunate incident, where a member of this House, judged merely on appearances, was refused the tenancy of a flat in Sea Point which was reserved for Whites only. I mention this again as an example of the very dangerous ground upon which we are treading if the hon. the Minister pursues his new definition to make appearance the dominating factor in regard to a man’s race classification. I have mentioned these instances as examples of how dangerous it is to make appearance the dominating factor. I regard the Minister’s new definition as a retrogressive step. [Interjection.] Sir, if the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) will give me an opportunity I can proceed. If he wants me to do so I can sit down and let him make the speech. I was saying that I regard this new definition of the hon. the Minister, in all seriousness, without any political implications being involved in this matter, as a retrogressive step.

But all these things that you have mentioned happened under the old definition.

No, with respect, not. The hon. the Minister is now falling into the same trap as the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), as he will see if he refers to the new definition…

But all these hardships took place under the old definition.

I say that you are going to aggravate these hardships under this new definition where appearance is going to be the dominating factor. Under the existing definition, evidence of acceptance as a White man was decisive. This definition is now being altered so as to make appearance the dominating factor. I say that this will open the door very wide indeed and is likely to affect a considerable number of otherwise law-abiding citizens of this country. I think it is appropriate that we should bear in mind the fact that there are many people on the racial border-line who have not yet been told whether they are going to be classified as White or as Coloured. The numbers make no difference. I am at variance with the hon. the Minister as to the numbers that he quoted, but I think that the numbers make no difference. It does not matter whether there are a few hundred concerned or a few thousand concerned. There are many now who are still awaiting the Department’s decision as to whether they are to be classified as White or Coloured. This new definition, which makes appearance the dominating factor, will to my mind increase substantially the number of unfortunate citizens who will have to be re-classified. You can imagine the humiliation and misery which this is going to bring to those unfortunate people, who have committed no crime at all other than the fact that they may possibly have an admixture of Coloured blood going back a couple of generations. That is the only crime that these unfortunate people committed. I ask the hon. the Minister in all conscience: Is it necessary to inflict any further hardship upon these unfortunate people? We were told in a report which was made by the Controller and Auditor-General and which was tabled in this House a few days ago, that since the start of race classification in 1950 an amount of R3,573,892 has been spent by the Population Registration Office. Sir, to what purpose has this money been spent? To my mind all that has been achieved by spending this vast sum of money, is the elimination from the White group, in the most humiliating fashion, of law-abiding citizens who were on the racial border-line and who were doing nobody any harm. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what possible harm can result if some of these border-line cases, even some of the doubtful cases, succeed in their endeavour to be classified as White people under the existing definition. I say that under the new definition the hon. the Minister is going to restrict even more the facilities that these people will have of trying to be classified as White people. Many of these people have lived and have been accepted as White people in this country despite the fact that in the dim and distant past their birth certificates may have read that they are descended from mixed parents. How would anyone in this House—and I say this with the greatest respect to everybody in this House—how would anyone in this House feel if he were suddenly summoned to appear before a Government official for racial re-classification because an ancient birth certificate read that he is descended from mixed parents. To my mind, leaving out the question of appearance for the moment, the Minister in his new proposal is making the definition even more restricted than the existing one. Generally the law should tend towards the liberty of the subject; here the hon. the Minister’s definition is restricting, more than the existing definition, the liberty of the subject. I have shown how the dominating factor under the Minister’s new definition is going to be appearance whereas previously it was general evidence of acceptance as a White person. That was generally accepted and was decisive. But, Sir, the evil does not stop there. There is an even more dangerous element being introduced by the hon. the Minister in his new definition of a White person, because as I read the new definition a person who is not in appearance obviously not a White person and who is accepted in the society in which he moves as a White person, may nevertheless be classified as a Coloured person if he admits that he is Coloured by descent. The hon. the Minister has said that in as many words; I have perhaps put it more concisely, but the hon. the Minister will admit that he has said that a man who, although in appearance is obviously a White person and who is accepted in society as a White person, may be re-classified as a Coloured person if he perchance admits that he is of Coloured descent. To my mind this is a wholly unnecessary provision, but I go further and say it is a dangerous provision. Sir, we cannot appreciate the serious consequences which this provision may bring in its wake. What does the hon. the Minister mean by “descent”? How far does he intend going back with this witch-hunt? Is it intended, for instance, that an admixture of Coloured blood on the paternal side or the maternal side of any of our citizens, say two or three generations ago, will render that citizen a Coloured person instead of a White person if he admits that admixture of Coloured blood? I mention this as an example of the dangerous ground upon which we are treading. Does the hon. the Minister realize how easy it will be now for poison-pen letter writers and for unscrupulous informers to advise the Population Registrar that in the dim and distant past a respected and law-abiding citizen of this country had an admixture of Coloured blood on the side of some of his forebears. If he admits that, he will have to be classified under the new definition as a Coloured man. Again I want to ask the hon. the Minister: To whom is it intended that this admission of descent should be made? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put some very pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister. I should like to know to whom it is intended that this admission of descent should be made? Is it intended that the citizen should be obliged to make the admission to the Population Registrar or to any of its officials, or is it intended that the mere admission will be binding if it was made in an unguarded moment to a fellow-citizen? Will that be an admission sufficient to justify a man being declared a Coloured person? Or is it intended that the admission has to be made under oath? No. Sir, the more one examines the proposed amendments, the more does one realize how utterly complicated this issue becomes. At present the definition of a White person varies from Act to Act passed by this Parliament. These definitions are such that for the purposes of one Act a citizen may be regarded as a White person and under another Act he is regarded as a Coloured person. The present definition which the Minister has submitted to this House for consideration to-day will complicate the matter even further, because there he is going to be judged either by appearance as the dominating factor or by an admission of descent in the circumstances which I have just described, which is in conflict with most of the definitions under the other Acts to which I have referred. I say that the present Bill will tend to make the definitions of a White person even more variable than they are at present, and I am inclined to the view that it will create greater misery and bring more hardships upon our unfortunate citizens—much more than they have had to suffer up to now. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that when the original Population Registration Act was introduced in 1950, his predecessor, the present Minister of Finance, claimed that the Act was an essential instrument of the policy of apartheid. We know that is so. He then stated that the object of race classification in this country was that there should be some easy means available for proving the particular race of citizens where such proof was required in carrying out the Government’s policy of apartheid. Later the same hon. Minister, when his attention was drawn to the great misery and hardship which was inflicted upon a large section of the population in administering this Act said that the Act was required for “administrative purposes only” and that he would issue specific instructions to the officials of his Department to apply the Act in a humane way. I think it is appropriate that I should mention the actual words used by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in office. These were his words—

And they do.

It has often been quoted here that Mr. Harry Lawrence quite conscientiously said that officials duly gave effect to what the Minister had instructed them to do, namely to apply this Act in a humane way. The hon. the Minister’s immediate predecessor. Mr. Tom Naude, also declared in this House that instructions had been given to the officials to deal with all cases in the most humane manner possible, without inflicting unnecessary misery or hardship upon any of our citizens. I want to say this in fairness to the present hon. Minister. I was very glad indeed to hear from him this afternoon that he had no intention whatsoever of altering those instruction and that he would perpetuate those instructions that even under this new definition the officials were to carry out their duties in as humane a manner as possible. I personally was very glad to hear that assurance, but I want to say this to the hon. the Minister that Ministers come and go; we do not know whom may succeed the Minister. Moreover, officials come and go; we do not know what the future trend is going to be. But apart from that I say that the official’s task of administering the act humanely will become a more onerous and difficult one if the question of descent is now going to be introduced to complicate the issue. In the circumstances, therefore, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with this definition, but even if he is to proceed with it, to amend it in such form that descent will not be a factor that will be taken into account, even on the admission of any unfortunate citizen who has to be brought before the Population Registrar. Sir, I repeat: What does it matter if by chance a Coloured person, a doubtful case, becomes classified as a White person? Does it mean the downfall of our Republic? Does it put an end to our Western civilization in this country if it so happens that one or a dozen or a hundred Coloured people perchance become classified as White people where they are borderline cases? Is it such a terrible thing? On the other hand, look at the misery and the hardship inflicted on these people. For generations they and their families have been accepted as White people, and in terms of the Minister’s new definition they are to be re-classified because by appearance they are obviously Coloured or because they admit to an admixture of Coloured blood going back a few generations. The hon. the Minister spoke this afternoon of just under 4,000 cases awaiting re-classification. I am of the opinion that by extending the definition on the lines indicated in this Bill, the hon. the Minister is opening the door to many more thousands of our citizens coming up for reclassification if they are to be judged solely by appearance and descent. I would remind the hon. the Minister that a survey was made by the S.A. Institute of Race Relations a couple of years ago as to the number of possible cases that would fall into the borderline category, and the conclusion that was arrived at was that as little as 1 per cent of the population might be affected. This seems a very small figure when taken in terms of percentage, but in numbers it would mean that nearly 140,000 of our South African citizens might have to suffer the humiliation and indignity of having to go through the process of racial classification under this new definition. All these people, to my mind, will have the sword of Democles hanging over their heads and will live in fear that their ancestry is being investigated, with the constant danger that they may be re-classified as Coloured people. I say that there is no necessity at all of inflicting any further misery upon so many of our law-abiding citizens. In any event, in view of the tremendous adverse criticism which South Africa has received from the outside world and which unfortunately we are still receiving, is this the time for the Government to come along with a further ridiculous definition, which already has made this country the laughing-stock of the world. Sir, it is this type of legislation that continues to make us the laughing-stock of the world. Surely in the light of present-day circumctances the Government should do everything in its power to reduce the internal suffering in this country and the world ridicule which has been brought about very largely by the tortuous apartheid laws, of which this is one, introduced by this Government, and particularly the ridiculous race classification definition which this Government has brought forward from time to time. It is this crude type of definition, this crude type of classification, that has exposed us to the derisive laughter of the rest of the world. If the Government feels that it is essential, in giving effect to its policy of apartheid, that there should be definitions of race and distinctions between man and man in this country, then it is in the interest of South Africa that those definitions should be as simple and as unambiguous and as flexible as possible. We should not aggravate our definitions, whereby different criteria apply under different Acts. One set of criteria is being applied under the Group Areas Act, another under the Population Registration Act, another under the Cape Education Ordinance…

Can you improve on the old definition?

The old definition is bad enough but it is certainly a thousand times better than the new one. What was wrong with the definition…

Order! The old definition is not under discussion.

We are seeking to amend the old definition, and I ask the hon. member who interrupted what is wrong with the definition which lays down that an individual who is generally accepted as a White person should be classified as a White person for the purposes of this Act. I say that we should not aggravate the situation in this country.

Some years ago the then Minister of the Interior, realizing how absurd the situation was becoming in this country, was obliged to appoint a special inter-departmental committee to investigate whether it was possible to arrive at a common definition of the various racial groups for the purposes of all legislation. I am sure that the present Minister knows of the appointment of that committee. In due course that committee reported to the Government, but the task was really beyond its powers. You cannot define for all possible laws who is a White man and who is not a White man. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to enlighten this House as to whether any progress has been made in that connection. All we know is that there are many cases where families have been broken up, where the education of children has been disrupted and where jobs have been lost through conflicting definition and classification under these different Acts. This Bill to my mind, will aggravate that unfortunate position. Sir, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has read it, but I would really commend this to his very serious attention: There was a fact-finding report entitled “Race Classification in South Africa and its effect upon human beings,” which was issued some years ago by the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. If the hon. the Minister pays attention to that report he will realize how thousands of human beings in this country are deeply hurt and humiliated under our system of race classification and under our definitions. I say that the definition that the Minister envisages in the present Bill will aggravate that indignity and that degradation. I am convinced that this Bill, far from ameliorating the position that I have described will aggravate it. I can see no reason whatsoever, particularly at this difficult time in our country’s history, for the Government to introduce an amending Bill of this nature which introduces a new definition which is much more restricted than the present definition. Some little time ago there appeared an excellent leader in the Burger in which the leader-writer of the Burger said this—

I can hardly imagine anything worse being placed in the hands of the agitators than this new definition proposed by the hon. the Minister. I can hardly imagine anything militating more against better race relations than the Minister’s proposal in this Bill. For those reasons I propose to support the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Before replying to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I just want to say a few words with reference to what the Leader of the Opposition said here this afternoon. He stated that they were opposed to the original Act of 1950; that the Opposition opposed that Act “because you cannot classify what cannot possibly be classified”. The last speaker also said that there was a commission of inquiry and that they also found that race classification was not possible. The Leader of the Opposition is the leader of a party which wants to introduce race federation in South Africa. If they want to introduce a race federation in South Africa, they must surely at some time or other have a race classification. My submission is that in this definition, as in the old definition, an attempt is being made at race classification. It is no use that party saying that they want to introduce a race federation if they cannot make a race classification. It is pure political hypocrisy to come here to-day with hard luck stories.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “hypocrisy”.

That is the second time now.

Mr. Speaker, I have studied your rulings and those of your predecessors in regard to the word “hypocrisy” and saw that you ruled it out of order if the word is used without the qualification “political”. The term “political hypocrisy” has always been allowed in this House, and I would like to know whether you will not allow me to use it to-day.

What is the difference between political hypocrisy and ordinary hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

Then I withdraw the word: I abide by your ruling, but I want to say this: It will not avail the United Party to go to the electorate with all these hard luck stories, as they did here to-day. It will not avail them to mention all these tragedies, these cases of blood and tears. This is not the only law which causes blood and tears. The whole statute book, big as it is, causes difficulty, causes hurt and misery. This Act will also cause hurt and misery, but it will not avail the United Party in this particular case to hold up all the harm and misery which will flow from this Act in order to condemn what the Government is trying to do here in all honesty. They themselves want a racial federation; they themselves want to institute a race classification, but they have not the courage of their convictions to draft that race classification and to tell us how they want the definition to read. I challenge the hon. Leader of the Opposition to take this definition and also the one in the principal Act and to tell us how he will improve on them when he has to make his race classification for his so-called race federation. He cannot do it; he will never be able to do it. I have in my hands an article written by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), in which he says that they do not intend repealing the 1950 Act. He says they are in favour of this Act we are now amending.

Where did he say that?

In his article in the Sunday Times he said that they would not repeal this Act but would only apply it in a better way. Those were the words he used. They want a racial federation. I now ask them and challenge them to be honest and sincere, unlike the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who told us a lot of stories to-day in regard to the hurt and misery and discrimination which are being caused now. We know that there is discrimination in every case where one has one racial group which is less developed than another. There must always and necessarily be discrimination. If it is not discrimination in terms of the law, then it is discrimination applied by society itself. Whilst talking about discrimination in society itself, these hon. members are terribly concerned about so-called discrimination applied by legislation, but they themselves are the best examples of the application of discrimination without legislation. The hon. member for Simonstown not only discriminates against non-Whites; he discriminates even against the Jews, because exclusive clubs are established in the Peninsula to which Jews may not belong, and that happens right throughout the country. But now suddenly there may not be any discrimination! We know for a fact that they do not want legislation to apply discrimination, but they apply discrimination throughout their lives. They would be the first people to object if certain of these laws were repealed.

I do not want to carry on further on these lines I want to come to the actual matter to which we should devote attention this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that according to this measure there are three yardsticks or factors in determining who is a White person. According to him, there is the yardstick of descent, the yardstick of appearance and the yardstick of acceptance by the public as a White person. My submission is that he is not right in the one instance, because “descent”, even with this amended definition, is no yardstick. Not at all. Racial descent is a factor which is only taken into account when the person concerned has already been classified according to the other yardsticks and acknowledges that by descent he is a Native or a Coloured person. Then the question of descent is taken into account, not as a yardstick but because he admits to being a Native or a Coloured. Then in terms of the amendment of which the hon. the Minister has given notice, if it is in accordance with the facts, his admission will be accepted. Why should it be necessary for this matter of admission to be inserted? We can, in particular, mention two cases to show why it is being included. The first is the case of the Chinese mentioned by the hon. the Minister. The Chinese are a group of people who have a higher standard of living than, e.g., the ordinary Coloureds, at least many of them. Many of the Asian peoples live on a high level. Take, for example, a Thai who comes to live in our country. He would maintain a standard of living equal to that of the Whites in South Africa. Because he maintains that standard of living and mixes in that society, and is accepted by the Whites because he maintains that standard of living, he can pass as a White person if acceptance is to be the only yardstick.

What of it?

Under the old definition he says he is accepted by society, but he says frankly he is a Chinese. He admits then and there that he is not a White person.

What about the Japanese?

A Japanese also, if you want it that way. They maintain that standard of living and now they make that admission. It is to exclude those people from the White group that we say that they must be classified according to their admitted descent. Because the Coloured race in our legislation must cover all those who are not Bantu, but who are not White either. That classification of Coloured covers them all, even the Asian races, for example. Now such a person admits to being an Asian. Surely it would be unreasonable to say that in spite of his admission of his descent and that he is an Asian, we would nevertheless classify him as a White person simply because he is accepted as a White person and his standard of living is that of a white man. The other one is this, and I say this particularly to those hon. members who are so liberal-minded: We know that there are quite a number of liberals who are continuously trying to evade the laws of the land. They now want to say that they are Coloureds, and if they have to be classified they will say: I want to be associated with the Coloureds. That is a real danger, and that is why it is necessary to have this definition. [Laughter.] The hon. member laughs, but she herself is a great liberal, this hon. member for Houghton. Those who make the admission then become subject to the test. He makes the admission and then the Minister goes further and says it must be in accordance with the facts, and then he will apply the other yardsticks and see whether that is in accordance with the facts. But that alone is not used as the yardstick. He will see whether it is only his descent, and if that is his descent then the two other yardsticks provided by the definition come into operation.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) contended that this matter of descent would now be the test in any case. That is not so at all. It will be no test at all. It will only come into operation if the person himself says, “I am by descent a Coloured or a Native”. Only then, but it is never applied as a test by the authorities. Why does the hon. member for Peninsula now aver that by means of this definition we are now making descent the test and that we will have “snooping expeditions”, to use his own words, and that we will now investigate what the man’s ancestry was? That was never the intention of the Act nor will it ever be the intention.

Then why have this provision? What about mixed marriages?

If he comes along with a birth certificate indicating that his father was White and his mother non-White, and he states that he is a Coloured, well, he has admitted to being a Coloured. But the proviso is that must be supported by the facts. The hon. the Minister will then determine whether the facts are correct, and whether he therefore measures up to the other two yardsticks as required by the Act.

But you are wrong.

The requirements of appearance and general acceptance. That must be taken into account and will be taken into account.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that appearance is a yardstick. But appearance alone is surely no criterion. It must be considered in relation to general acceptance. In both sub-divisions of the definition, (a) as well as (b), the appearance must always be considered in relation to the acceptance, or the acceptance taken into account with due regard to the appearance. They are equal factors, and it is not true as the hon. Leader of the Opposition contends, that “appearance is to triumph over general acceptance”. That will not be the case at all. If a person is White in appearance and he is accepted as a non-White, then he will be classified as a non-White. Both tests are made in conjunction with one another. If he is generally accepted as a White but is a non-White as far as his appearance is concerned, he will be classified as non-White. Here again the two tests are applied in conjunction with one another. To take them separately, one by one, as was done by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is not a fair interpretation of the position. I also want to draw attention to the fact that the factor of appearance was to-day interpreted by several speakers opposite as if it were a question of colour alone. It is a question of many other factors as well.

Name them.

I shall.

Name them all.

I will not be able to state all of them, as I am probably not as much of an authority as the hon. member in this regard, but there is, for instance, the question of nails, high cheekbones, hair, and of gums. There are all the various factors whereby a person can be identified as belonging to a particular race. It is not right to contend that it is just a matter of the colour of the skin. There are many White people who have a brownish skin, who have a dark complexion but do not exhibit any other signs of race and who are certainly White, will remain White and will be classified as White. It is the general effect of all these factors which will determine whether a person is White or Coloured. For instance, a man from the southern states of Europe is dark-skinned. He comes possibly from Spain or from Southern Italy; he is swarthy, but he will not be classified as non-White for this reason alone. There are other factors by which a Coloured can be recognized.

The hon. member for Peninsula also adopted a wrong attitude towards the question of descent. He approaches the matter as if the question will be put to each person. I have already said that this is not the case. And then he asks whether it will be one forbear, or more, who were non-White. In any case, this is no matter for the State. If the person concerned is now going to admit that he is a Coloured because his grandfather, for instance, was a Coloured, then it is his affair, but the State will have to investigate the facts, the man having made that admission, to determine whether, according to his appearance and by general acceptance, he is a Coloured, because his admission must be supported by the facts. That is the effect of the amendment, and hon. members cannot get away from it. The hon. member also wanted to know to whom the admission will have to be made. The admission should in the first instance be made to the Secretary, that is to say, the Director of Census, who takes the census, in which a person declares this or that. He is asked in the form whether he is White or Coloured, or a Native. If on that form he states that he is Coloured, he naturally has made an admission. Or if he states that he is White, then he has admitted to being White. An admission has therefore already been made, in the first place, in the records of the Department of Statistics. No special “snooping agent” is then sent along, as alleged by the hon. member for Simonstown. Clause 2 only applies later.

But it is in the Act all the same.

Yes, but it only becomes relevant later, not at the stage where he makes a statement in the first instance, but later when, for instance, he objects to his classification. In the event of his objecting to his classification, then further investigation will be instituted. Judge Snyman said in his judgment that any further information which may come to light will not constitute a portion of the record. Now, in terms of this amendment in Clause 4 it will indeed become part of the record. Then it will be a question of someone having to go round to hear his views on the matter. Thus, in the first place the admission is made to the Secretary. If the person concerned then appeals to the Board, he can repeat his views and state his case, or he can withdraw it if he has certain reasons for doing so, but that will necessarily have to be done before the Board. Thirdly, if he is not satisfied with the finding of the Board, he can go to the Appeal Court and make his admission there. There is no question of his having to make such an admission to any person he comes across, or of his being trapped unawares into making an admission and having to abide by it.

I come to the other point which was raised here, the so-called benefit of the doubt which must be given, and the contention that this will no longer apply under the new definition. I have no idea where the hon. member gets that idea, because the hon. the Minister gave a definite assurance that he will act in future just as he has done in the past, in the event of there being any doubt in the matter; then the person concerned will be given the benefit of the doubt. It is not right to say that, because of the new definition, the benefit of the doubt will now be excluded. The hon. member gave no reasonable ground at all for that argument.

Another argument that was advanced, particularly by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that there appears to be nothing in the Bill which will either make a reclassification imperative, or to the effect that it cannot take place. I am convinced that no government, merely because the definition has now been altered, will change the whole register and bring about a reclassification. This definition will apply when the Act comes into operation. It will apply in regard to all classifications made as from that date. It will not be necessary to revert to the old classifications which have already been made. Therefore that argument is, in fact, no argument at all.

But it is, after all, possible under the Act.

It may be done in terms of the law, but then reasons must exist why it should be done in a particular case. There must be special reasons why a person’s position comes to be re-considered. The possibility exists, but it is absurd to suggest, as was done by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that a general reclassification will have to take place.

Then there was the argument regarding world opinion. I must now honestly say that we on this side of the House are getting very tired of hearing all these tales about world opinion. We are constantly told by hon. members of the Opposition that we are busy with legislation which will have the effect of turning world opinion against us. It is not this legislation, but they who continually incite world opinion against us, and it starts in the first place in this House by the hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. members of the Opposition grasp every opportunity, for the simple reason that they are bankrupt and have no political policy at all. It is for this reason that they always seek to sow suspicion, as they did again this afternoon in citing these so-called “hard luck” stories in a disgraceful way for the benefit of the public, and this type of thing is raked up in every debate and is blazoned far and wide, particularly by the English newspapers in our country, and on that the world bases its opinion. I doubt whether there is a single newspaper which has ever made known to the public the actual provisions of any Act passed by us here, so that the outside world could see what we were really doing. It is what is said by the members of the Opposition that is published to the outside world. The argument of the hon. member for Peninsula, that we are busy creating a definition which will once again stir up world opinion against us, no longer holds any water. We are considering a definition which is being exploited by certain persons in an attempt to ridicule our legislation; we are busy closing the loopholes, and hon. members of the Opposition are seizing the chance to exploit this. I really believe that if the Opposition had carefully compared this definition with the earlier one, they would have realized that nothing is in fact being added to it. It is just to ensure that the emphasis is fairly laid on both of the tests, both the test of appearance and that of general acceptance, and that acceptance should not be given priority over appearance, or appearance over acceptance, but that both factors should always be taken into account in conjunction with one another.

I am not going to follow up the hon. member for Heilbron’s argument about South Africa and the outside world. We know that he does not care what the outside world thinks of South Africa. He is happy in his small, isolated state with his own small and bigoted mentality. Therefore I don’t propose to deal with any of the comments that he has made in that regard, except to assure him that the world does pay a great deal of attention, not only to what is said from this side of the House in opposition to the Bills which are introduced by the Government, but to the Bills themselves, and more important to every single stupid and ill-considered act that this Government does outside of this House in terms of regulations, in terms of petty annoyances, in terms for example of absurd bans on golf tournaments. These are the things that hit the world headlines. And none of the grandiose schemes that the Government offers for Bantustans, none of the figures they can produce in regard to housing projects for Coloureds or for Indians or for Bantu have any effect whatever.

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

I will come back to the Bill immediately, Mr. Speaker. I want to take up the hon. member for Heilbron on a point that he made that no existing classifications are going to be affected by this Bill. The hon. the Minister himself in introducing this Bill also told this House that only future classifications would be affected and that the reclassification of people who have already been classified under the Population Registration Act would not be affected at all. I don’t know where either the hon. the Minister or the hon. member get that from, because the original Act makes provision for reclassifications.

I did not say that.

Of individuals.

I am only talking about individual cases. Nobody is talking about race groups. I am talking about individual cases, and as the hon. member for Peninsula pointed out, originally there were something like 100,000 doubtful cases, borderline cases. Not all of these cases have as yet been classified. In fact last year, in 1960, the hon. Minister himself, or his predecessor, stated that 60,000 cases in the Cape alone had not been dealt with finally, borderline cases. The new estimate is that something like 30,000 of these borderline cases in the Cape alone still remain to be classified. Now all these cases can be reopened at any time in terms of the original Act, and I want to read the section out to this House. There is nothing to prevent anybody from informing on people who have already been classified, who were borderline cases at the time that they were classified, and who still remain borderline cases, whether they had been classified or not: because any informer can come along with information.

What information?

Particularly in terms of the new definition. They could always do this, but in terms of the new definition it is made very much easier to go with information to the Registrar. If the hon. member for Vanderbijl-park for instance happens to know that there is a case where somebody has been classified as White whilst he is not really a member of the White race, and he has some information about that person’s grandmother or grandfather, and he informs on this person and the person is hauled up before the Director, or the Registrar, and the Registrar says “I have information that you are of mixed descent, do you admit that you are of mixed descent”, then what is the position? I presume the person is under oath and has to admit that he is of mixed descent. And then, Sir, he can be reclassified.

Can you quote one instance where that has happened?

I can.

No doubt the hon. member can, and in the future there may be hundreds of such cases, because it is made so much easier. Let me read this section out to the hon. member, Section 5 (3) of the original Act.

I have read it.

Let me read it again, because other members in this House may not have read it, and if the hon. member has read it he apparently has not understood it. It reads—

The hon. member shakes his head. Can he not understand that under the law as it stands, and there is no amending provision in the amending Bill before us now, at any time in the future persons who have been classified as White may, if the Director receives information which leads him to believe that a person has been incorrectly classified, be reclassified?

I said so.

The hon. member did not say that. The hon. member said that no hard cases would be affected by this, that only persons coming up for reclassification in future would be affected. He said that it may be allowed in law, but that he was quite certain that it would not happen. Sir, as long as the law allows reclassification and as long as the definitions are widened to include not only this question of appearance and acceptance, but also descent, where formerly acceptance was the dominating factor, many people can be affected. But now there is the third factor which never existed before, namely the admission of descent. As long as the definition is widened and as long as investigations are possible, and indeed this new Section 4 seems to me to encourage the idea of investigation and information being given, as long as that is so, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent every single one of these 100,000 borderline cases from coming up again for reclassification. And this is as far as I am concerned, one of the most objectionable factors that this Bill introduces. Already thousands of people have gone through this agony of classification, the misery of classification, and the suspense in regard to classification, which is more than one can really describe. And now, whether it is the Minister’s intention or not, the fact is that the law now lays it open for every single one of those borderline cases to be reclassified. I know that we are not dealing with the vast majority of our people when we discuss this sort of classification or race Bill. The vast majority of people in this country fall into specific broad categories, but there are these borderline cases, 1 per cent, perhaps 2 per cent—nobody knows what the percentage is—but in terms of individuals it comes to thousands of people and the old miseries are now going to be intensified, and however humanely the Act is administered, the anxiety and the anguish cannnot be over-estimated in the case of this particular Bill.

The hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill, and particularly in regard to this little descent sub-clause which is now being introduced for the first time, mentioned specifically that he was motivated in so doing by this famous Song case.

The Singh case.

When the House adjourned for dinner, I was busy trying to explain what to my mind were the reasons for the introduction of this new definition into the Population Registration Act, and I said that the main reason for the change in the definition of “White person” and, in particular, for the new descent clause, was to be found in the Singh case and the Song case. I think—and here the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that it is the Song case which gave the direct reason for the introduction of the descent clause, and the Singh case which is directly responsible for the introduction of a new proviso which the Minister, I believe, is going to propose in the Committee Stage. Why do these two cases mean so much that the hon. the Minister feels himself obliged to come along and change the entire definition thereby causing additional difficulties and greater hardships? How many Singh and Song cases are there in the whole of South Africa and which could possibly be effected by this Bill? I should like to deal with the Singh case first of all. In this case, Mrs. Singh is attempting to get herself classified as an Indian—as a Coloured, in fact, in terms of this Act—so that she may live lawfully with her husband in South Africa which is the country of their choice. Sir, how many women in this country would attempt to have themselves classified into a group which would for all purposes, i.e. social, political, economic, etc., be for them a lower classification? This is a very unusual thing, and if Mrs. Singh chooses to do so, then surely that is her own choice! It is her own choice how she wants to live her life. It is, after all, her own life. Surely, this Government is not so authoritarian as to try and determine exactly how every individual in this country should live his or her life? As to the Song case, the hon. the Minister is perhaps not aware of what Mr. Song had to go through in order to get himself reclassified as a White in terms of the existing definition. I intend telling the House something of what Mr. Song had to produce to the Board before he could get himself so reclassified, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister in the light of that whether he believes that out of the 100,000 odd borderline cases, there are more than a handful of people who would be able to produce all this evidence in order to get them reclassified? But even if they do succeed in producing all this evidence and in getting themselves reclassified, then what does it matter? How would that alter society in South Africa if a few hundred people are able to get themselves reclassified as Whites? Are we, indeed, such a pure race that this injection of so-called borderline cases is going to make such a difference to society as a whole in South Africa? But let me tell the House what Mr. Song had to do before he succeeded in getting himself reclassified. His application was in the name of David Song and was accompanied by a petition which was signed by 350 White people. Therein they testified that they had known Mr. Song and his family for many years and that they associated freely with that family and accepted them as Whites. In addition oral evidence was led from some 20 White persons and testimonials were received from a number of persons and institutions. It was, therefore, not just a matter of Mr. Song going to the Board telling them that he was being accepted as a White person although in appearance he was Chinese which he admitted he was—although that would not have disqualified him at that stage. No, Sir. There was much more to it than that. He went along with the petition signed by 350 White persons and all the testimonials and oral evidence which he could produce before he succeeded in getting himself reclassified. I should like to give some examples of the type of testimonial which Mr. Song produced. A well-known school of modelling and deportment in Durban testified the following—

The Durban Y.M.C.A. testified as follows—

A certain Badminton Club testified as follows—

The following testimony was given by a well-known Durban firm of wholesalers—

The Durban Business College testified as follows—

I ask, therefore, what does it matter when this entire family is accepted as part of the White race? What deterioration in the society of South Africa could possibly result therefrom? What do hon. members think they are that they should take unto themselves the impertinence to think that the acceptance of a family such as this can in any way deteriorate the White race of South Africa?

But who said so?

I say it will be extremely difficult, even under present conditions, for many cases to pass the Board and to be classified as White in terms of the existing definition. All sorts of cast-iron evidence will be necessary before that can be achieved. The hon. the Minister need not, therefore, fear that there will, because of the Song case, be a flood of applications for reclassification as Whites, so that the White society in South Africa will be endangered and undermined. This Bill to me is just another tragic reminder of the Government’s sick obsession—that is the only way in which I can put it—with colour and race. It is to me a tragic reminder of what is going on in this country. It is the sort of legislation which nullifies any possibility of our being accepted as a mature country by the Western civilized world. This sort of legislation can never achieve its purpose, which is to herd off each individual member of the South African population into his or her own particular little racial kraal. It cannot succeed, but must fail because there is no scientific proof of race. There are of course physical characteristics, colour of the skin, and other features which were mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), but none of those features has a scientific basis. Even the phrase “Coloured blood” which is so freely used in this country, has no scientific basis whatsoever. You can as much tell the race of a person by his blood as you can tell it by his fingerprints. In other words, you cannot. There is no scientific test which can determine these borderline cases. So that, ironically enough, this legislation cannot possibly succeed.

This brings me to a point which was touched on by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), namely the question of a standard definition. Since we are so obsessed with the idea of race and colour in this country, the question of a standard definition which would determine a person’s race for all time, crops up again and again. Is this new definition of what is to be a White person, going to be the standard definition? In 1958 the then Minister stated that the question of a standard uniform definition of race had been referred to the law advisers. He said further—

That was as far back as 1958 and two years after the appointment of the inter-departmental committee which inquired into the practicability or otherwise of a uniform standard of race classification. I am sure that we will all be interested if the Minister would take this opportunity of telling us something about this confidential document. Did it state that the Government could, in fact, give us a uniform definition, or did it tell the Minister that he was trying to define the undefinable? Even the identity card—which I carry with me and other members probably too—is no proof of race. It is not admissible in a court of law as proof of race, but if it was, it would not be of any help because the definitions vary from one Act to the other. In this respect we have assumed an extraordinary chameleonlike character in South Africa. We can, for instance, be classified as White under the Population Registration Act but as Coloured under the Group Areas Act. I, for instance, can be classified as White under the Population Registration Act but if by chance I have married an Indian or a Coloured man, I will be classified as Coloured or Indian under the Group Areas Act. If I subsequently divorce my Indian or Coloured husband, I then revert to my former race classification. Let us take the case of an African. He can be classified as a Coloured in terms of the Group Areas Act, White under the Immorality Act and Native under the Native Representation Act. There are so many variable definitions under our legislation that the position has become completely absurd. And this is all very relevant now in view of the dangerous new subclause which is being introduced by means of this legislation, i.e. the descent clause. I wonder whether hon. members realize that the definition of Native alone has something like ten variations under the various Acts. In terms of the Population Registration Act the basic definition of “Native”—I am using the term which is used in that Act—is qualified even further by the specific inclusion of ethnic groups, groups which themselves are undefined. The unfortunate Coloured person is afforded no positive criteria at all under the Population Registration Act. His membership of the Coloured group is ascertained entirely by the negative process of exclusion. Under the Act, a Coloured person is defined as a person who is not a White person or a Native. But once he is so classified, he is further classified according to seven sub-groups which have been proclaimed under the Act. There is, incidentally, considerable doubt in legal circles as to the validity of these sub-classifications. This is the type of maze in which one is landed when one tries to impose race laws on a heterogeneous society, because these are, in fact, race laws and ours is, in fact, a heterogeneous society. It is impossible to impose race classifications, sub-classifications and group classifications, etc., all of which are themselves undefined. As I pointed out already, for the Coloured group alone there are seven sub-groups, viz. the Cape Coloured group, the Malay group, the Griqua group, the Chinese group, the Indian group, the other Asiatic group, the other Coloured group—all in terms of the Population Registration Act. The “other Asiatic group” is defined as—

This excludes Japanese however. The “other Coloured group” again is defined as—

Now, Sir, this is the absurd sort of maze we get into when we try to compartmentalize every single individual into his or her own little racial group. The Population Registration Act has been called the cornerstone of apartheid. But so many other Acts are looked upon as the cornerstones of apartheid, that apartheid has many corners and most of them are dangerous corners. The hon. the Minister said that this Bill was intended to plug the loopholes of the principal Act to prevent people from crossing the line and obtain a race classification which they should not have. The question, in the last analysis, is why people try to cross the colour line? Why is it that Coloureds try for White and why is it that Africans try for Coloured? The real reason is, of course, that there are so many differentiations in the modes of life, in the status, rights and privileges of the different racial groups. The easier way and the more harmonious way to set about the problem would be to iron out the differences which exist between the different racial groups in this country instead of trying to plug loopholes in Acts.

Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to cover a very wide field in this debate. Originally the details of the principal Act were enlarged upon. I do not intend doing that except to say that I am very sorry—and I want to refer to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) in this respect—that this opportunity is being used to dig up unpleasant things as was done during the discussion on the principal Act. I wish to indicate that with this Bill we are simply continuing to build on the existing Act. Section 5 of the principal Act provides for the classification of Whites. Coloureds and Natives and because of the existence of that section it is obvious that the law should contain a definition in order to effect classification. The Bill which is before us to-day really contains only three principles. In the first instance it changes the definition of a White person so as to enable us to effect the classification which is referred to in Section 5 of the principal Act. Secondly there are provisions in respect of the period within which objections can be lodged and thirdly we have Clause 4 which makes it possible for the Minister to institute further investigation if he wishes to do so. I wish to deal with certain matters which have already been raised by hon. members. I shall in fact endeavour not to deal with this matter on a political basis—and I hope other members will also do that—but in a spirit of trying to ascertain what will be the best definition for the purposes of the classification which is provided for in Section 5. The classification is already there and all we are doing here is to try to find a better definition on which that classification can be based. I think it is our duty as responsible people not only to want to break down but also to avail ourselves of this opportunity to find a definition which will make it possible to apply the Act as effectively as possible. Although many hon. members opposite do not agree with the principal Act it is still necessary for them when they criticize to criticize constructively and to make suggestions as to how the definition can be improved.

You are building on sand.

If I were to react to an interjection like that I would be building on sand! I asked the hon. member for Peninsula this afternoon whether he could make any suggestions as to how the old definition could be improved. I am under the impression that hon. member is more satisfied with the old definition than with the new one, but that was as far as he took the matter. He also referred to the misery which was occasioned on the border line. In this respect we must accept it that when we try to define who is White, who is Coloured and so on, a line must of necessity be drawn somewhere along the border. It is of no avail, therefore, for that hon. member to come here this afternoon and to say that it causes misery to this or that group, because the fact remains that as long as there is a border line there will always be “hard cases”. Seeing that is so, the “hardship” to which hon. members have referred, will not be eliminated by altering the definition slightly in one or other direction. There will always be people who will be hit by the border line, even thogh the definition is made as favourable as possible for those border line cases. We have to accept that and on that basis try to find a definition with the least number of loopholes and one which will give rise to the least uncertainty because where there is the least uncertainty, you will find the least dissatisfaction. The hon. member for Peninsula also alleged that whereas association was the most important yardstick under the old definition, appearance was the most important yardstick under the new definition. In this respect I differ from the hon. member as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has already disagreed with him. This is a point, therefore, on which the hon. member for Houghton and I agree! I wish to state clearly that in terms of the existing definition a “White” person can be classified as such on two different grounds, whereas under the proposed definition a person can only be classified as White if both those grounds are present. The existing definition says that a person is White when he is obviously White in appearance, subject to a proviso which appears later. The second ground on which a person can be classified as White is when he is generally accepted as a White person. It must be noted that these two grounds are separately valid, that is to say the two are not linked together with an “and” but are separated by an “or”. The hon. member for Peninsula alleges that in the existing definition appearance is being pushed into the background and that association is the most important consideration in determining whether or not a person is White. I differ from the hon. member on this point, because in my opinion the two grounds, namely appearance and association are equally important. As a matter of fact, appearance is mentioned as the first ground in the definition. In this connection I wish to refer the hon. member to Section 19 of the principal Act and ask him whether in view of the provisions of that section he agrees that appearance is indeed regarded as the most important ground under the present definition. Section 19 (1) of the principal Act reads as follows—

In other words, appearance is such an important consideration in the existing definition and is so decisive that when his appearance proves it, the person concerned is automatically accepted as White unless the contrary is proved. The onus is placed on the person who alleges that the person who is classified as White, is indeed not White. The hon. member for Peninsula went further and alleged that under the proposed definition, appearance was the dominant consideration. Here, too, I differ from him, because appearance and association are no longer regarded as two separate grounds, but are taken together for obvious reasons. The proposed definition provides that a person is White if he is obviously White in appearance—exactly the same, therefore, as the existing definition. But the definition goes further and says provided such a person is not generally accepted as a Coloured. The two grounds are no longer regarded as separate tests, therefore, but are regarded as one test, in other words, it is no longer an “or” but an “and”. To put it different it means that “appearance” becomes positive whereas “association” is negative. In other words, a person must positively appear to be White, whereas he must not pass as a Coloured in the negative sense. This definition to which I have just referred is more or less reversed in paragraph (b) of the proposed definition and it states that a person who is generally accepted as a White person and who in appearance is not obviously a non-White is White. In other words, you have a positive statement in respect of passing as a White person and a negative statement as far as appearance is concerned. I cannot understand, therefore, how the hon. member for Peninsula can conclude from this definition that appearance will be the deciding factor. On the contrary. I think the hon. member will agree with me that in the proposed definition a more decisive meaning is not attached to appearance than in the existing definition.

The hon. member also said that in future descent will play an important role, but the fact of the matter is that we are only adding something to the definition, namely—

In other words, if a person is White or regards himself as White by reason of one of the grounds already mentioned and wishes to be classified as White why should he admit that he is not White? The hon. member for Houghton gave us an account a moment ago of the freedom which people ought to be able to enjoy, that Mr. and Mrs. Singh should be able to live their own lives etc. We are now making it possible for anybody who harbours any doubt and who thinks that he is a Coloured person to admit that he is Coloured and to be classified as such. Hon. members object to this, however. They do not want those people to have that right. Hon. members conclude from the relevant provision that descent is a determining factor. Descent is only important in so far as it is referred to here and where it is made possible for someone who knows that he is Coloured by descent to admit that he is Coloured. The hon. member for Houghton has referred to the case of Mr. Song and alleged that we were changing the definition because of that case. But it is not the case of Mr. Song alone which has given rise to this. As a matter of fact, we are not concerned about individual cases. What we are concerned about is the principle. The fact of the matter is—and hon. members who think seriously about this matter will realize this—that there is an important weakness in the existing definition which must be eliminated. That weakness is this that a person can be classified as White if he is generally accepted as a White person.

Is the hon. member discarding the decision of the community?

No. I do not intend discarding the decision of the community. What I wish to point out to the hon. member is that the decision of the community can become ridiculous. [Interjections.] We had the case of the Chinaman who we all knew was born in China and, rightly or wrongly, a Chinaman is not regarded as White in South Africa.

What about the Japanese?

I am not talking about the Japanese at the moment. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I wish to show hon. member how ridiculous public opinion can become under the old definition. I have already said that everybody knew that the Chinaman whom we are talking about was a Chinaman and he himself admitted that he was born in China. A number of people, 350 of them, come along and make statements. They say they associate with that person as though he is White and because of that he should be classified as White. I want to ask hon. members, if a pitch black Native associated with Whites and 350 or 1,000 White people said that they associated with him as though he was one of them, whether they would be prepared to say that he was White? [Interjections.]

Order!

The example I have given is perhaps a little far-fetched. They may perhaps say yes, but White people will never do that but hon. members do not in fact want to hear what I am saying to them. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that those two examples are identical, exactly identical. An obviously non-White whom everybody accepts as a non-White because he is Chinese, is non-White… [Interjections.]

Order!

He associates with Whites and those White people stand together and say that he associates with them and that he should become White. If that can happen in the case of a Chinaman it can also happen in the case of a Native.

And also to a Japanese.

Do not let us become ridiculous. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says that if the person were a Native he would regard him as White.

I did not say that.

Order! These interjections only cause confusion. The hon. member should not allow them to distract him.

If that is the basis on which we differ we cannot talk to one another, but I am convinced that is not the basis. I merely wish to point out that the weakness in the old definition was a ridiculous weakness and that we are putting it right here, in this sense that the person should not only associate with Whites or be regarded by the community as a White, but that he should also be White in appearance. Without that addition the definition will not be water-tight. Hon. members opposite are continually trying to create confusion, however, as far as the definition of a White person is concerned, because they want to create confusion, because the more uncertain such an important definition is, the greater the number of difficulties that will arise and the greater the dissatisfaction, and they want this legislation to cause dissatisfaction. That is why they want to have confusion and why they do not want to have a clear definition.

Who made this law?

Order! If the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) wishes to make a speech, I will give him an opportunity.

We can safely say one thing and that is that the definition which we have here is very clear and lends itself less to uncertainty than the previous one. I wish to endorse that the less uncertainty there exists and the clearer the definition, to that extent there will be dissatisfaction and “hard cases”, When you analyse this definition, Sir, you will see that two factors are necessary. That is appearance and that he must be generally accepted as White. I want us to analyse those words “generally accepted”. What do they mean. I want hon. members to consider those words “generally accepted”, or “deurgaan” in Afrikaans. They can be interpreted in so many different ways that you can interpret them to mean practically anything because of the fact that what some people regard as “accepted” or “deurgaan”, other people do not. When is he accepted? My own interpretation is that he is accepted as White when he is regarded by the general public as White.

All?

That is my problem. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has hit the nail on the head. By whom or by how many? In the case of Song 350 said that they associated with him and that he was generally accepted. But in the same case of Song thousands of others would have said that they were not prepared to associate with him. That was why the hon. member for Kensington asked how many, and that is my problem. I do not wish to enlarge upon that but it is for that reason, the uncertainty of what “generally accepted” means, that there should be greater clarity and that we can expect trouble under the existing definition. That is why I think it is desirable that there should be greater clarity in regard to this aspect of the definition. There must be a yardstick. If we wish to compile a population register in which Whites, Natives and Coloureds appear separately, it is essential that we have a yardstick. It would perhaps have been possible to define a non-White and to have said that those who were not non-Whites, were Whites. But as the definition reads to-day, it defines a White person and perhaps that is right, because the White community is the community to which it is desired to belong. Consequently it is better to define “White”. “White” is defined and those who are not White are non-Whites. But there must be a yardstick and in conclusion I wish to appeal to hon. members opposite to accept that the better we formulate that yardstick, the greater will be the unanimity and satisfaction in the country in regard to the application of the register. They have a duty to perform in that respect and I will be glad if they will assist and do their duty properly. They can assist us in finding a definition which will give a greater measure of satisfaction. Hitherto we have not had it but I do hope we will still get it before this debate closes.

When one listens to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), one appreciates that never in the annals of the history of “baasskap apartheid” have so many been embarrassed so much by so few. I have seldom seen that able debater, the hon. member for Ceres, look so nonplussed when asked what about the Japanese.

Order! Yes, but I prevented him from discussing it, because that is not under discussion now. The hon. member must deal with the amendment.

On a point of order, Sir, this Bill deals with race classification and this particular clause deals with race classification, and I submit that the Japanese fall under it.

That argument can be advanced later, but I first want to hear what the hon. member is going to say.

The hon. member for Ceres followed the pattern set by the Minister and made a call to the blood, as did the Minister. He said this new definition was necessary in order to protect our White skins. This hon. member for Ceres was also making a call to the blood, and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) could only speak about gums, nails and hair. I wonder whether before this debate is over, the Minister himself will explain to us this pig iron curtain and tell us what lies behind it. The hon. member for Ceres typified the attitude of hon. members opposite. He spoke with some restraint about the hard luck cases. He said that there were some people who were always unhappy. Cannot he realize that these so-called hard luck cases, an expression coined on that side of the House, are human tragedies; that they are not hard luck cases but human tragedies, whose children will suffer increasingly if this amendment is passed. The hon. member for Ceres asked why we did not suggest a better definition. My leader made it clear this afternoon that the only way you can deal with this matter is to have a basis of appearance or acceptance. This amendment introduces a completely new concept.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No.

You funk it.

May I ask you, Sir, to ask the hon. member to withdraw the word “funk”?

Order! Any hon. member has the right to refuse to answer a question. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) must obey me when I call for order.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I hope that when the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) does make a speech he will not produce on the face of the Minister the look of horror that the other three speakers did. The hon. member for Ceres started off by saying that there were three principles involved here, and the one principle was that it was a description of a White person. There is nothing further from the truth. This is not a description of a White person. There is no description of a White person in this amendment. What this amendment does is to exclude from the status of being a White person an awful lot of other people who up to now have been members of the White group and with that status, under this Nationalist Government, go all the privileges to which every human being is entitled. It is all very well for hon. members to ask what difference does it make and what hardships there are. The hon. member for Heilbron said that. He spoke about there always being discrimination. Does he not know that this will take people from the higher grades and push them into a lower status? [Interjections.] Of course it is true. Would any hon. members opposite like to be classified as Coloureds?

We do not mind.

They would not be able to enjoy the position and the privileges they enjoy to-day. They would not be able to earn a living for their families as they do now. They would have to go and live somewhere else and they will not be able to sit where they do now. It is no good the hon. member saying it does not have that effect. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) had an opportunity to make his speech and I protected him while he did so. He must now keep quiet.

One of the frightening things about this debate to me is that none of the hon. members opposite seem to appreciate the tragedies involved in the situation. I do not believe that any of them have such cases in their constituencies, otherwise they would not talk as they do. The stupidity, the illogicalities and the tragedy of this Bill and this new approach in the Bill have been emphasized by my leader. It was suggested that this was an attempt to define the undefinable. I have very good authority for this. I want to read something and perhaps the hon. member for Heilbron will appreciate it because it is a legal decision, the words of a Judge who later became the Chief Justice of South Africa.

On a point of order, the hon. member said the law was stupid and now he wants to read more law. Is that permitted?

Corporal, no wonder they stripped you.

Order! If hon. members go on like this, I will have to act very strictly, and I now warn the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I must tell the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) that all books which have brown covers are not statutes. This is a law report. This is what the Judge said.

Which Judge?

It was Fagan, J., who later became Chief Justice, and I hope that I will not have any sneering, miserable little remarks from the hon. gentleman sitting there about a great man like this. I hope the hon. member will remember that it is not parliamentary to speak like that of one of our Judges. These were the words of the Judge—

It is precisely the same wording as in the principal Act which we are now amending—

I think that puts it fairly clearly. He went on to say—

That was the definition under the Mixed Marriages Act. I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging will have a look at that also. Sir, there it is. There is the situation which the Minister is trying to do something about. He cannot do it. We cannot do it. There is no legislation which can do it, or undo, as the Judge said, what the Creator has already done. We cannot clear up what He has blurred. There is this dividing line. One of the things that frightens the hon. member for Ceres was that there might be one person who looks like a Coloured, and for that, and for a few Japanese and one Chinese, a handful of people who happen to be darker than others, we have to introduce a completely new definition. The whole attempt by this Government to try to define, to try to draw a line through these boundaries, the boundary groups, become more and more impossible.

Let us take the process of the Mixed Marriages Act. I said that the test under that Act was the same as the test under this Act we are now amending. If this Bill is passed in the form in which it is, it is now going to be possible to have people classified as Coloureds because they have one Coloured ancestor somewhere and they have been honest enough to admit it, and because of that they will forever be Coloured and there is nothing that the Minister can do about it. It will not be one of those cases in which he has any discretion at all, because the law we are about to pass says that if you have one Coloured ancestor then for ever and ever you will be classified as Coloured. That is what we are asked to pass here to-night. But there is no amendment of the Mixed Marriages Act before us to-night. I wonder if the Minister will tell us whether there will be, because in terms of that definition there are people who are married to-day who will become disqualified under this Act, and if hon. members opposite think that is far-fetched, I would like to refer them to several cases reported in the law reports where it has happened in fact.

There is one case reported in Natal where an Order of Court was obtained declaring that for the purposes of the Mixed Marriages Act the woman concerned was entitled to be married although she was classified as Coloured under the Population Registration Act. What is the position that will now arise? Are these people going to be reclassified? The trouble is that once they have been classified, because they have a Coloured ancestor, that is the end of that classification, and this is the sort of anomaly which we will have in South Africa if this Bill is passed. It is an anomaly which apparently does not worry the Minister. If the Minister will look at the case of Herbst vs. Kuhn (1961, S.A.L.R., p. 555), he will see at page 563 that the Judge, dealing with this question of the one statute and the other—and that is what I am considering, the Mixed Marriages Act—said that the fact that there is another Act, the Population Registration Act, does not concern us. The Judge said that no one can expect this woman to wait for more than two years until the Minister’s Department has classified her. He went on to show that there are two different considerations which apply. If a White woman wants to get married, she can, if she has a Coloured ancestor, get married to a White man. But your race classification in terms of the Act we are now amending, is entirely different. What absolute nonsense, Sir! [Interjections.] The hon. member said that he could not see any harm in classifying someone who is obviously a non-White, but I think he rather missed the point. The point of sub-clause (b) of the first clause of the Bill changes the law in this respect, that whereas before, if a person was accepted as a White person, that was the test which applied. It did not matter if he looked like a Coloured person, or if he had the appearance of a Coloured person. The situation that has now arisen under this amendment is that if a man looks like a Coloured person, like a Mauritian, which is expressed in the negative in this Bill, and if such a person is generally accepted as a White person, then as the law stands to-day, whether he looks a little Black or not does not matter, he is entitled to be classified as White. But now, if he is accepted and he is dark and if, as expressed in this Bill, he is not in appearance obviously not a White person, in other words, if he appears to be Coloured, then he will be classified as a Coloured from now on. I wonder whether hon. members opposite who smirk when we talk about these tragedies realize what this means and how many people there are in this world who, through no fault of their own, are dark in colour, who are not obviously White? I wonder whether the hon. member has ever come across people from Mauritius who are accepted as White, in Durban at any rate, where I know a lot of these people; from now on those people can be classified as Coloured and there is nothing they can do about it. That is the tragedy. All the flexibility is now removed. Whereas before there was a certain flexibility, that is now being taken away, and these persons who are, unfortunately for them, dark in colour, although they are accepted as Europeans, will now not be able to be classified as White. The Minister then adds to the two definitions in (a) and (b) something else. He adds a condition to that. I hope the Minister will make it clear whether or not the last two lines in Clause 1 apply to both (a) and (b). I think he has said so, but I hope he will make it clear. Perhaps the Minister will indicate by a nod. If he does not, it is a mystery we will have to unravel by ourselves. It does not include a White person either when he is obviously White and not accepted as a Coloured, or one who is generally accepted as a White, and is not obviously not a European, because those people may not be White people if they admit that they are by descent a Coloured or a Native person. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us what is meant by admitting that you are a Native or a Coloured person by descent. How do you admit it, Sir? Do you use the words in the Act? I do not think so. It introduces something quite new, something which we have not as yet had in South Africa in relation to these matters, because we never had these matters until this Government came into power. The whole trend has been away from the blood test. The whole trend has been towards the idea of association and appearance. Now we have this blood tests. How do you make such an admission? What does “descent” mean? What does “by descent a Native or a Coloured person” mean? Does it mean that you have one ancestor who is Coloured? And if it does, does that mean that you are descended from someone who was a Coloured person or a Native—I think that is the ordinary meaning of descent? How far back do you have to go? Even in Nazi Germany when they classified the Jews, they only went back four generations. How do you admit that you are a Coloured person by descent? It is a legal phrase, Sir, which has no meaning. It could have a hundred meanings.

How do you admit that you are a European?

I can ask him an easier question: How do you admit that you are a United Party supporter?

I am sure the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will never be called upon, and if he is called upon he can sit in his lofty tower and look down upon the scene with the haughtiness which he has here, unrelated to the things that happen in these cases. No one is going to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether he is a Coloured person by descent.

Don’t be so self-righteous.

I wonder if you went back into the history of this country a hundred or two hundred years, how many families would fall under this definition. I sometimes wonder whether half of the Europeans in this country would not, in terms of this definition, become non-Europeans overnight. Perhaps more than half, Sir.

Why do you wonder?

I do not know. I only know that a long time ago there were very few Europeans. When you read this new definition, when you read this introduction of having a Coloured ancestor, with Clause 4, I think you have a proper appreciation of what is being aimed at in this Bill. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) said that the purpose of Clause 4 (b) was to see that the evidence which had been given was true. I want to demonstrate that is quite incorrect. Section 3 of the Act says that certain particulars are required for the compilation of the register and that they are to be taken from the census forms received by the Director or the Secretary in connection with the census “and such other records as are available to him”. Clearly that does not involve the right to investigate which is now being given in terms of Clause 4. It clearly does not involve that. It refers to existing records. If there is any doubt about that, perhaps hon. gentlemen will look at the case which I believe this Bill is all about, or one of the cases it is all about, and the decision of the Court which this Bill is intended to meet, namely the case of M. and Others against the Race Classification Board. I refer to the judgment of Snyman J. as recorded in the South African Law Reports, 1962 Vol. 1 (T.P.D.). On page 720 the learned Judge says—

What is the point?

What is my point! I am specially doing it in easy stages so that the hon. member for Parow will understand it. Clearly then this investigation which Clause 4 provides for is not necessary to get information from which to compile records because the records are there. What is it all about? Obviously it is so that this new part of the definition can be implemented properly. The hon. the Minister is not just going to rely on people to admit that they are Coloured by descent. I cannot imagine anybody in his right mind admitting that he is Coloured by descent.

Why not?

It is going to involve him in the situation where he will be classified as a Coloured whereas he now enjoys the status of a European. The hon. the Minister said there were 15 cases.

Are you concerned about the Coloureds?

Of course I am concerned about them. I am not merely concerned about myself.

If they do not admit it, it is of no significance.

That is very interesting indeed, Sir. I want to ask the hon. gentlemen to have regard to Clause 4 and to this proviso, if I may call it that, to the new definition. What is going to happen? These people will now be able to investigate anything required in terms of this Act. And one of those things is whether or not you have a skeleton somewhere in your family cupboard. They are going to search for that skeleton. They are going to smell it out. Whereas before all that the Secretary could do was to get proof that the facts were true which he had in his register, he can now appoint anybody, not necessarily a civil servant, not an officer of his Department, but any person, to make these investigations. And the investigations which they can make are the investigations as to whether or not you have a Black skeleton somewhere in your family tree. I myself have come across at least 13 people who have Coloured ancestry. They admit it. They cannot help it that they have Coloured ancestry, but the fact is that for the last two generations they have been living as and accepted by Europeans as Europeans. I am sure all the hon. gentlemen over there know them too. Those are the people who are going to be affected by this. If hon. gentlemen do not believe me when I say this, I want to tell them—and I want to tell the hon. the Minister too—that this sort of thing has been going on in any event. Despite the fact that it is quite clear from this judgment that they have not had the power to make these investigations, nevertheless his Department has been making these little witch-hunts. If the hon. the Minister reads the case to which I have referred him, Herbst v. Kuhn, he will see in the judgment which was delivered in that case that all sorts of investigations were carried out by the Department after the appeal was noted against the classification. That is the sort of thing that has been going on already.

Hon. members opposite must appreciate what a complete depravity this makes of all human dignity. The hon. member for Simons-town (Mr. Gay) mentioned a great many of these cases. I know of cases, one in particulat which makes me very angry. I hope it will make the hon. the Minister very angry too. In that case the offices of the Population Registration office in Durban called in a family and told them that they were not satisfied that they were entitled to be classified as Europeans and that they wanted to make further investigations. The husband was first called in and he was asked to bring in his family so that they could be looked at by this individual in the Minister’s Department. What a scandalous invasion of a man’s dignity, Sir. Do hon. members who are smirking and smarming on that side of the House think it is not? Would they like that to happen to them? I want to say that it could easily happen to anyone on that side of the House, and if it were not for the fact that they mentioned that they were a Member of Parliament they would be, and they would feel very humiliated by this.

If I lodged a complaint against the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) what would he do?

This has been going on for some time. What an extraordinary cheek, Sir, for a clerk to ask someone to bring his family in so that he, the clerk, who probably has a Std. X certificate, can examine the children and decide whether or not they are White. In several cases they actually had a discussion about it.

How melodramatic!

It is not melodramatic, Sir, it is like a Greek tragedy, but it goes on and on. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is who is going to be appointed to make these investigations, to do this smelling out for him in the family cupboard? Are they going to be paid for it or is he going to use some other organization? Or is he going to use the sources which he obviously already has, because it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister has sources of information. It is quite clear that people, after they have been classified as White, suddenly out of the blue, through some vision which somebody has had, are suddenly classified differently. They are informed by people around the place, and the hon. the Minister now wants to legalize these informers and what they do. If that is not what he wants to do, why does he not say that it must be an officer of his Department? How is an admission made, Mr. Speaker? I can see what is going to happen here. These people will go around and say: “Your grandmother was Coloured, you know.” And the person says “Yes, I know”. And that is an admission that he is a Coloured person by descent. If you go back further, as I have said, I am sure the hon. the Minister will find that is the position in the case of half of the population of this country.

This will cause an awfully greater delay. I have not the time to do so, but I would like the hon. the Minister to read what the learned Judge said in the Herbst versus Kuhn case about the delays that there were. One last thing, Mr. Speaker. My leader asked the hon. the Minister whether or not this would apply to people who had already been classified. The hon. Minister said no.

He did not.

Did the hon. the Minister say that? If the hon. the Minister did say that, as I believe he did, it is very interesting to see that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) does not think so. But I hope the hon. the Minister will go further than just assure us they will not and that before the second reading debate on this Bill comes to an end, he will give us a further assurance that he will put a clause into this Bill making it lawfully impossible for him or his successors or anyone else to do so. Because if he does not, I think we have every reason to suspect that there will be in this country the most horrifying and horrible witch-hunt by this Nationalist Party.

The hon. member who has just sat down came here from the Other Place with the reputation of being one of the ‘‘bright boys” of that Place. I felt obliged on one occasion to say that he was the “stupidist bright boy” whom I had ever come across. I must honestly admit that I have respect for the hon. member but I have yet to hear him make a good speech in this House. I can give him this assurance that in the next five years he will not make a more rotten speech than the one he has just made. In the first place he is too young a member to hurl insults at the Minister and this side of the House. Why did he feel obliged, he who regards himself as one of the protectors, one of the friends of the Coloured people to insult the Coloured people the way he did to-night? I wonder whether he realizes what he has said. He said: “Nobody in his right mind will admit that he is Coloured.” Why not? If you are Coloured why should you not admit that you are Coloured? Is it a disgrace to be a Coloured?

Will you admit it?

If I were Coloured I would admit it, yes. [Interjections.] The hon. member might just as well ask me whether I want to be like him. Of course I do not want to be like him. He might just as well ask me whether I would like to be a baboon. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please stop shouting so loudly.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may that hon. member say the hon. member for Vereeniging is like a baboon.

I did not say it.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the hon. member for Transkeian Territories for many things, but I have never taken him for a coward.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call me a coward?

He did not.

The hon. member for Vereeniging did not say that.

What I said was that I had never taken him for a coward. Nor did I take him for a coward now, but he must be careful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trifling with the Chair.

The hon. member must leave it to me to decide. Will the hon. member please resume his seat…

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker…

Order! Will the hon. member please withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon Mr. Hughes withdrew.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vereeniging insinuated that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was a coward. I want to know whether that is parliamentary and where you are permitted to do so?

The hon. member for Vereeniging did not call the hon. member for Transkeian Territories a coward.

My point of order, Mr. Speaker is that he implied that he was a coward. My point of order is whether you may imply that somebody is a coward.

Did the hon. member for Vereeniging imply that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was a coward?

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what I said. I said that I had never taken him for a coward. He then jumped up on a point of order. I then said that I had never called him a coward nor did I call him a coward now, but if he went much further I will perhaps call him a hero.

On a point of order, I heard very clearly what the hon. member for Vereeniging said…

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order…

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging has given an explanation and the hon. member must accept it.

Sit down!

On a point of order, Sir…

Order! It is not necessary for the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) to shout “sit down”. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) may raise his point of order now.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling on the second point of order. My point of order refers not to the second statement by the hon. member for Vereeniging which he has now repeated, but to his first statement which was that he had not until to-night… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging has given an explanation.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the statement as repeated the second time by the hon. member for Vereeniging was as he stated. My point of order is in respect of his first statement, the first statement which he made was a deliberate reflection on the hon. member for Transkeian Territories in the words in which he used it. I ask that the first expression be the expression on which you rule.

Order! The hon. member has given an explanation and hon. members must accept it.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vereeniging threatened the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and said that if he went on he would call him a coward.

He did not.

On a point of order, is it permissible for the hon. member for Vereeniging to threaten the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and to say that if he goes on he will call him a coward?

Absolute nonsense!

He did say it.

Mr. Speaker, may I continue… [Interjections.] I do not know why he is making such a fuss; he does not fall under this Act. He is completely White; he is snow White; he is so White that his liver is white. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is back…

On a point of order, did the hon. member withdraw his remark?

Order!

I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Durban (North) is back, because this was what he said: Nobody in his right mind will admit that he is a Coloured. I ask him whether he denies that he said that.

Will you admit it?

If I am a Coloured I will admit it. Of course I will admit it. To judge from the hon. member for Durban (North), you would swear that to be a Coloured is to be a leper, Sir. What is wrong with being a Coloured? This was what he said: Nobody in his right mind will admit that he is a Coloured. All this Act says is that somebody who is a Coloured should not come along and pretend that he is White. What is wrong with admitting that you are a Coloured if you are a Coloured?

What is a Coloured?

Order! The hon. member for Durban (North) has had an opportunity of making a speech.

He also asked me whether I would object to being classified as a Coloured. If I were a Coloured person, of course, I would not object to it. I do not know why the hon. member laughs. The hon. the Minister said this afternoon that there had been 15 cases where Coloureds who for one or other reason had been classified as Whites had pleaded to be re-classified as Coloureds. They are proud of it. I cannot imagine anything more cruel and more undesirable than to classify a person who is a Coloured person as a White person. That was why many people again applied to be classified as Coloureds. I also regarded that hon. member as a reasonably brave member and I hope he will not refuse to answer this question. I wanted to ask him a question while he was speaking. He said his leader had said that their yardstick should be appearance and general acceptance. I wish to ask him the question which I wanted to ask him earlier on and I hope he will have the courage to say yes or no: Is he satisfied with the definition as it appears in the Act to-day? Why is he so quiet? Is he satisfied with the definition as it appears in the Act to-day?

He must first ask his Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am surprised at the Opposition, but I must honestly say that I had not expected them to carry on the way they have; it started with the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban (North) has carried on in the same way. What is their argument against this amendment and against the principal Act in particular? Their argument is this: That this legislation is causing terrible hardships. As the principal Act stands at the moment, according to them, it causes terrible hardships and that this Bill will cause similar and worse hardships. The hon. member for Durban (North) said that we called them “hardships”. They are the people who call them “hardships”. He says they are not “hardships he says these things are “human tragedies”. I challenge that hon. member to mention one of these so-called “hardships”—and I admit there have been—which would not have been experienced even if this Act had not appeared on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) mentioned one case which I remember very vividly. That was the case of the person who went to Newlands and was transferred—he was not kicked out—to the Coloured section. He wanted to institute an action for damages against the Western Province Rugby Union and Twentyman-Jones, the Chairman of the Rugby Union then tendered an apology. That is quite true. The person who was transferred to the Coloured section was the brother of the person who refereed the main game. I remember that incident. Why did the hon. member not tell the House that incident took place before the introduction of the Population Registration Act? He then told us about the youngster who had hanged himself…

You are twisting what I said.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Vereeniging is twisting his words.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them. Sir.

The hon. member mentioned a number of cases. He mentioned the case of a person who hanged himself because he had been classified as a Coloured. The case he mentioned was one of the first cases. It was the most blatant case which you could find of those “hardships” Sir. I want to know from him whether those “hardships” were suffered under the Population Registration Act? That happened long before there was a Population Registration Act. To be honest, Sir, those things happened before the National Party came into power. The point is this that had the Population Registration Act been in operation at that time the brother of that referee would not have been subjected to that humiliation. It would only have been necessary for him to say: Here is my identity card; it is clear that I am White.

It is very clear why we have this Bill. We have it so as to eliminate certain abuses which have taken place because of certain loopholes in the Act and because we want to close those loopholes. The Opposition now grasp at this opportunity not only to try to disturb race relations in South Africa, but they grasp at it in a desperate attempt to make matters more difficult for South Africa overseas. They painted a distorted and wrong picture this afternoon and said that as a result of this change in the definition, as a result of this Population Registration Act, we have all these so-called “hard luck cases They want the world to believe that this is a Government which oppresses people in gruesome fashion, a Government which commits these cruelties, knowing that is not the case. Now that tremendous progress has been made with the population register, now that it has nearly been completed, they again have to tell the world of the type of thing which is happening. The Population Registration Act is being administered in the most human manner. Not one of them can deny that. As the Minister has already said the former member for Salt River, Mr. Lawrence himself referred to the human way in which it was being administered. To-day in order to meet those agitators—because they are the only people who are causing difficulty—hon. members create the impression that as a result of this Act terrible oppression is taking place in South Africa.

Which agitators?

The hard fact of the matter is this, Sir, that as long as there is separation, and as long as there are separate institutions, there will have to be a definition as to who is White, who is Coloured, who is Bantu, as the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) has already said. That is the crux of the matter. It is not the population register which is causing these difficulties. It is not this definition which is causing them. Do away with the population register, do away with this Government and put the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in power and you will have exactly the same “hard luck “cases that you have to-day. Sir. Let me give an example. It is the policy of that party to have separate residential areas, is it not? Is that their policy? Can the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) tell me whether that is their policy?

May I ask a question: Were there separate residential areas in South Africa before the introduction of the Population Registration Act?

The hon. member should not do himself the injustice of asking such a stupid question. He is not as stupid as he looks. The point is this: They are in favour of separate residential areas. If a Coloured pretends to be White and he wishes to build a house in Rondebosch, who will decide whether or not he is Coloured? Are they going to tell him he can build there or he cannot build there? Who will decide? What definition will they apply [Interjections.] They refuse to tell us what their definition will be? They have been challenged right from the start to tell us what their definition is of a White person, what their definition is of a Coloured and of a Bantu, but they refuse to tell us. But at the same time they say, however, that they will have that separation. The position in regard to the Population Registration Act has become very difficult recently, and I think the Minister will agree with me. All these amendments would not have been necessary had it not been for the fact that the population register has been sabotaged, had it not been for those deliberate attempts to evade it. You have those agitators, Sir, who try to ridicule the law and to make it fail. That is why we should hasten and find a definition which will thwart those people. But hon. members opposite must also have a definition for their type of discrimination. Take the case of the schools. The Opposition is in favour of separate schools. How are they going to carry that out without a definition. Recently we had the case of certain agitators who got a number of Coloureds to go from one restaurant to the other in Cape Town in an attempt to gain admission. Then you have people like Alan Paton, and people like R. A. F. Swart, who recently handled a case of that nature. There are people who go out of their way to send children who appear White but who are not White to White schools. That position also obtained in the past, even before this Government came into power. If hon. members opposite were to come into power again, how would they handle the position without a definition? I remember a case in Port Elizabeth in days gone by where the son of a family was sent to a White boys’ school and the daughter to a White girls’ school. The daughter was refused admission to the White school while the boy was accepted. That happened under the United Party Government. There were other cases as well, even more deplorable cases. No, it is not because of this legislation that these so-called “hard-luck cases” exist. They also happened before this Government came into power. It is as a result of that both we and the United Party want separate schools for White and Coloureds, that we want separation. And as long as you have them, there will always be cases like that but as soon as the population register has been completed, those difficulties will be eliminated to a very large extent. During the regime of the United Party there were similar hard-luck cases.

Where? I challenge the hon. member.

I have just mentioned one case. He can talk to the principal of any White school in Salt River or Woodstock and those areas, and he will find that those principals are faced with the problem every year that they have a number of cases where they do not know what to do and where to place them. Ask any school inspector. When I was a member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal…

You were a United Party supporter then.

Yes, I was a United Party supporter, what about it? But fortunately I am no longer a United Party supporter. However, that is the position. The hon. member for Peninsula referred to certain cases. Similar cases repeatedly happened in days gone by with this difference: When those cases happened in the past everybody realized that we were faced with a difficult problem and every responsible person said: Do not make the task of the principal more difficult; do not make the task of the school board more difficult; do not make the task of the unfortunate Coloured family or White family more difficult; let us try to settle the matter amicably, let us try to find some way out and let us try to solve the problem. But when this Government came into power the English Press and hon. members opposite gave great publicity to every case. They did not care how much damage they did to the country, they did not care if they publicized the case of a White family and landed that family in the greatest possible difficulty. Every minor case was exploited for party political purposes. If that hon. member has the few brains which I think he has, he would realize that wherever there was separation that type of case occurred. You had them in the churches, Sir I remember how certain churches admitted Coloureds in those days and others did not, and I remember the trouble which that caused. I do not think it is honest on the part of hon. members to contend that all this has been as a result of this legislation. Not only is that the biggest nonsense in the world, but it is also the most malicious thing to say in the world. All these years, during the past 50 years, we have always had this type of “hard-luck” case in South Africa because of this policy of separation to the same extent to which we have it to-day.

No.

The only member in this House who can talk about this matter is the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) because she does not believe in separation. She condemns it and says it is wrong and that a line should not be drawn. But any member who wants to draw a line, any member who wants to have separate schools and so forth, is being exceedingly unreasonable and malicious when he says that these cases are as a result of this legislation. They are inherent in any system under which there is separation between White and non-White.

This legislation wants separation?

The hon. member asks “Who wants separation?” That is something new. The hon. member does not want separation.

I said this legislation wanted it.

His Leader wants it. Hon. members opposite and the Progressives quarrelled because the latter did not want separation whereas the United Party wanted it. I repeat that all the suffering to which they refer has been there all the time and will always be there as long as you draw a line, because there will always be people on both sides of the line who are very close to it. The problem is what is the best solution. An attempt was made in the principal Act to solve this matter so that everyone will be classified and will have to be classified, whether it be under this system or under the United Party system. The advantage of our system is that within a few years, and with the assistance of this amendment we hope to do so quicker, everybody has been classified and when that has been done there will no longer be any hard-luck cases.

You are an optimist.

That is the position, because as soon as you have completed the registration the confusion will be over. The people will know where they stand. The position is simply this that we would have completed something which we could in any event have had to do within the next 50 or 100 years. There is only one alternative and that is to do away with colour separation. If you want to have colour separation, Sir, as hon. members opposite also want, you have to draw a line, that is unavoidable.

I wish to conclude by saying this: More than 2,000,000 identity cards have been issued. We are proposing this amendment to make short shift of those saboteurs, those agitators who use innocent people in an attempt to ridicule this legislation and to make it fail. Considerably more than 2,000,000 identity cards have already been issued, and as soon as everyone has his card, you will have come to the end of these difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, nobody who thinks about this matter and who is a friend of South Africa will say the things which hon. members opposite have said to-day. Anybody who is a friend of South Africa will not say what my good old friend from Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said namely that all these “hard luck cases” had occurred as a result of this legislation, and that under this legislation the White men in South Africa were cold bloodedly and unfeelingly committing cruelties. He knows that is not the case. He knows it is an attempt to solve this difficult problem.

You are trying very hard to believe what you are saying, but you are not convincing anybody else.

It is only since the Afrikaner came into power that they have started to exploit these things as much as possible. They do not care what damage they do to South Africa as long as they can gain a few votes. The English Press is continually exploiting every minor case to inflame the hatred against the Government, to the detriment of South Africa. They do not act the way the Burger and the then National Party Opposition acted. They remained quiet about those things, they always tried to settle those matters and to solve them behind closed doors, behind the doors of the consistory or whatever it may have been. They did not try to hurt anybody’s feelings. I say that the English Press is responsible for 90 per cent of the hard-luck cases because they are continually giving publicity to those cases. What is the suffering in those cases? The fact that it is made public to the whole world, that they are shouted from the roof tops, that they are broadcast to the whole world. I have often known the Opposition to act irresponsibly but never as much as in this respect where they are sabotaging the White man in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and I say that they are undermining the White man for the sake of a small measure of political benefit. I want to tell them, however, that they will in no way succeed in deriving political benefit from it and that they will not gain the sympathy of the Coloured by doing so either, not will they gain the love of the Bantu. The unfortunate thing is that they are not only destroying themselves. Had they only been destroying themselves nobody would have regretted that, but in the process they are destroying our nation, and that is unforgiveable.

The hon. member who has just sat down towards the end of his speech said that it was since the Afrikaner had been in power in South Africa that South Africa was determined to apply segregation and to keep the people White. He said: “Dit is vanaf die Afrikaner aan die bewind is dat ons apartheid in Suid-Afrika toepas.”

He never said that.

Those were the words of the hon. member, and I have a strange memory, Mr. Speaker…

Hear, hear!

Yes, a strange memory of that hon. member, and I will tell hon. members why. I have a memory of that hon. member standing on platform after platform, saying: “Is dit nie ’n skande dat jy ’n pas moet dra nie? My witvel is my bewys van my blankedom.”

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is discussing the pass laws.

I want to inform the hon. member that this legislation is called the “Population Registration Act” and not the “Paswet”. But in those days the hon. member for Vereeniging called it a “Paswet”. He was the man who said that he did not need a pass to show that he was White, who was proud of his White skin. Now I want to ask him what has happened since 1950 to make him need a pass and a definition in order to classify him as separate from the Coloureds? He needed no classification in those days, but now he is pleading not only for the classification, but he is pleading for a stronger, a more rigid classification; where he required nothing before, now he requires a more rigid classification in order to separate himself from the non-Whites of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member what has happened since 1950? What has he found, Mr. Speaker, in history which makes it necessary for him now to want a test which he did not require ten or 12 years ago?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Bill, and I am now going to give the reasons, the answers to the questions which I have just asked. The reason for this Bill is that the Government suddenly finds itself in such a mess, such an utter shambles because pig-iron became more important then pigment that it had to bring in this Bill. [Laughter.] And they had to call on the hon. member for Vereeniging to try and extricate itself from the mess into which its own impractical policies have landed it. We warned this Government.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say that we warned this Government that a situation would arise with which this Bill deals. This Bill, the “Singh-Song-snooper” Bill does three things. It deals with a Mrs. Singh, with a Mr. Song and with snoopers. This is exactly what we warned the Government would happen if they contined with the policy they were following. And now we are faced with a Bill to tighten up the definition of a White man. The hon. member for Vereeniging was concerned when he said that if he was a Coloured, he would admit it and be proud to admit it. I have no doubts about why he is supporting a change in the regulations, Mr. Speaker. If I had changed my political colours as often as the hon. member, I would not object to the changing of regulations which deal with other changes in the colour classification of any other person because if one is used to political chameleonship, then it matters not to him whether you are going to change the race classification of a person.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now. The hon. member is drifting far away from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this Bill, in terms of Clause 2, makes it possible to change the classification of the race of any person in South Africa. I say too that chameleon policy would not matter to any one who did not have at heart the welfare, the happiness and contentedness or security of all the peoples of South Africa. But once you accept a chameleon policy, a policy that to-day you can be White and to-morrow you can change the colour—once you change the the law by which you classify a person every time you strike a Singh-Song difficulty, then you interfere with the security of every human being.

The hon. member for Vereeniging made the statement that these human tragedies, which were so aptly described by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) were not the result of this Government’s actions but had always been there in South Africa, and he said that was part of South African life. I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to deal with what formed the first half of his speech, his thesis that since the introduction of the principal Act, which we are amending, the decision of society had been the right and just decision and had worked satisfactorily. The Minister spent half his speech establishing the justice with which the original definition had been applied, establishing that society had been the test and that society had determined the colour of a person and that it had worked, and worked correctly. The hon. member says that these things happened before and that there were hardships. I want to ask him if he rejects the decision of society which classified people before the original Act came into force? Before 1950 society dealt with these issues, and I believe dealt with them fairly and justly, as the hon. the Minister said to-night. It is not often that I agree with the hon. the Minister, but I agree with him there. Now that hon. member repudiates his own Minister and says that society failed, that society created hardships and tragedies. I challenge the hon. member to name one case of those generalizations he used. He mentioned the case of a school-child in Port Elizabeth. I challenge the hon. member to substantiate that claim here in this House, to give the date and the circumstances of that case.

I will.

The hon. member was a member of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal which dealt with the education in the Transvaal. Under that hon. member Chinese were accepted and allowed in White schools and are to-day still allowed. The same Government to which the hon. the Minister belongs, who was himself also a member of the Executive Committee, allows the Chinese race into White schools in the Transvaal. They are now at this very moment angling for the membership of one Mr. Ben Burgers whom they say is a very good Nationalist at heart. His children go to school with Chinese in Johannesburg and their propagandists published a pamphlet alleging that was so during the last election. Yet that hon. Minister allowed it. Now under his own party, under his Government, that situation still exists. They are classified as Whites for the purpose of education in the Transvaal. That hon. member now tries to say that it was not the Nationalist Party Government but the United Party that caused hardships. Not the United Party but his own party recognizes the right of people, Chinese in this instance, to come to White schools and to enjoy their education together with his son or daughter if his son or daughter happens to be at that school. He is the hon. member who now comes here and talks of hardships at school. He cannot quote a case. He cannot give one single name because he knows that the names he could quote would not be cases of tragedy or hardship. He can’t quote them because he does not know them, because he is using generalizations in regard to what happened in the past.

That is untrue.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vereeniging says that the hon. member is telling an untruth. Is he allowed to say that?

He was referring to a matter that occurred outside this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging has his remedy when he says that I am telling an untruth. He can name the incidents to which he referred in his speech. I challenge him to name them. I challenge him to give the instances to which he referred. He can give lots of instances since 1950, but I challenge him to give instances which occurred before 1950, to give one single instance in the Transvaal when he was a member of the Executive Committee, dealing with education and the classification of children in Transvaal schools. He was in charge.

We dealt with scores of cases.

He dealt with scores of cases! Now, either in those cases there was an injustice for which that hon. member was responsible, or there was no injustice. He can choose. He was in charge of Education. Now either his Administration created injustices for which he as a member of the Executive was responsible, or he was just and humane, in which case there was no injustice. Let that hon. member decide for himself what the choice is.

You cannot get away with that.

No, I am not getting away with anything at all. It is a simple choice. The hon. member for Vereeniging was in charge of education. Did he or did he not perpetrate injustices in the classification of children in schools.

No, to the best of my knowledge.

Therefore to the best of his knowledge, there were no injustices.

Will the hon. member allow me to put a question to him? Applications came before us asking for children to go to a White school. After investigation it was found that it was impossible to allow them. Even if we were as just as we could be, would these people themselves accept that decision as just? Would there be no hard case in any case?

The hon. member says: If there was a case where a person quite clearly could not be admitted to a White school, and if that fact was accepted, would it be an injustice? No. No, the injustice is when violence is done to the dignity of people by artificial classifications which do not take into account the flexibility, of which the Minister bragged. He said that his administration of the Act had been flexible and that society applied flexibility. That is the issue to which I want to come, the issue of flexibility or inflexibility of definitions. Because the hon. member for Vereeniging who himself handled such cases, says that no injustice was done. If he applied flexibility and the decency and humanity of a civilized person, he would ensure that justice was done in every case. And the Minister brags of the justice which his department applies in respect of these classifications. And now deliberately and consciously in terms of this Bill before us, he is removing the human flexibility from this Bill. He is turning a measure, which to us is impracticable anyway, but which had at least an element of humanity in its administration,—he is turning it now into a rigid, a cast-iron and inflexible definition in which the human element, the humanity and the justice and the decency of a sympathetic Christian South African approach is removed. And those cases on which the hon. member for Vereeniging was able to decide, on which he was able to sit and to judge and to decide in terms of what was his Christian duty, he would now have to regard in terms of a cold, hard definition on paper, a definition which leaves no flexibility, which leaves no room for humanity, for justice or for decency in its decisions. In terms of this amendment, which the hon. the Minister himself admitted was unintelligible as it stood here, there is no option given to the person who must make a decision. Hardship and tragedy? I have a case on my desk at this moment upstairs of of a man whose mother and father both are classified as White. They have White identity cards, with “W” after their number, and their son who is as White as the hon. Minister and myself is classified because of an entry in a birth register as a Coloured.

Why keep it on your desk, why not send it to me?

There is a letter typed, un-signed on my desk. I only received that letter yesterday.

I challenge the hon. member to show that letter.

The hon. member is at liberty to go to my room, 281, and on my desk is a letter addressed to the Minister setting out the case which came to my notice this week.

Why don’t you produce the letter?

I will have the adjournment of the debate and will produce the letter to-morrow morning. I hope the hon. member for Parow will be here, and I hope that he will eat those words, as hon. members opposite have had to eat so many of their words in respect of this law. I have the birth certificate, I have the numbers of both parents and a letter typed to the hon. the Minister, and when this House adjourns I ask the hon. member to come with me to my office.

Bring it to me.

I ask the hon. member to come with me to my office and he will see the letter on my desk placing the facts before the Minister.

My point is that this Act as it exists creates hardships which this amendment is going to make even worse. But now I want to come back to the hon. member for Vereeniging and to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with the issue in his reply. The hon. member for Vereeniging stated that if he was a Coloured he would be proud to admit it. I want to ask him: If he was a Mexican or an Argentinian with Coloured blood, would he admit that and accept the position of a Coloured man in South Africa? He shakes his head. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his classification of a Mexican or an Argentinian would be or a Brazilian or a Cuban—the hon. Minister of Transport can deal with that—who has Coloured blood and comes into South Africa. How will the hon. Minister classify him? I think that is a fair question. Because here is a definition and the hon. the Minister must apply the definition.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) entitled to say “die agb, lid vir Durban (Punt) het gelieg en hy lieg alweer”?

No, Mr. Speaker, I never said that, never.