Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) The House at its rising—
   1. (a) on Tuesday, 2nd March, adjourn until Thursday, 4th March, at 2.15 p.m.; and
   2. (b) on Thursday, 4th March, adjourn until Friday, 5th March, at 2.15 p.m.;
2. (2) if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Prime Minister, that the public interest or public business requires that the House shall meet on a day other than that to which it has been adjourned, Mr. Speaker may give notice accordingly to members, and thereupon the House shall meet on the day and at the time stated in such notice;
3. (3) Government business shall have precedence on Friday, 5th March, after Questions;
4. (4) motions standing in the names of private members for Friday, 5th March, shall have precedence on Friday, 26th March, from 12 o’clock noon; and
5. (5) select committees have leave to sit on days over which the House has adjourned.

Agreed to.

Through the entire Second Reading debate, and also through the entire debate thus far, has run the refrain that by making use of more Bantu labour in our metropolitan areas we can maintain a much higher growth rate. We hear this refrain over and over again; it has been used repeatedly, in virtually all the debates we have thus far had this Session. It is a cry that was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition last year when he asked that we should strive for a growth rate of as much as 10 per cent. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill I said that no one could accuse us of not promoting growth. On the contrary— we have planned, promoted and achieved growth like no other Government of this country has ever done. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Hillbrow came along and asked: Yes, but What about the per capita growth? But I have already given these figures—I think it was during the no-confidence debate. The per capita income in 1954 was R230; last year it was R600. Let me therefore say with emphasis: We do not only speak of growth; we actually plan and promote it. Now the hon. member comes along and says: Yes, but you only have short-term plans, ad hoc plans. But has the Opposition never heard of our five year economic development programme that has been in force since 1964? It is an irrefutable fact that in the past 22 years the National Party Government has planned, promoted and established growth, but definitely not unbridled growth. With unbridled growth we create a cancerous growth that overruns and kills the parent body. We have now reached a stage where we no longer speak of damping, but of consolidation. With a continually increasing curve we run the danger of perhaps creating a cancerous growth that will overrun and kill the parent body. In the short time I have left, I briefly want to point out the dangers lurking in unbridled growth.

No one is in favour of unbridled growth; neither are we.

Well, the hon. member for Hillbrow had another story to tell. He said that all the economists in the country, all the business men who know something about the economy, do not support the Government. That was also a misrepresentation.

I spoke of those with practical business experience.

Correct. Let me now quote from a speech by Dr. Etienne Rossouw, former chairman of Sasol and at present the chairman of F.V.B. He is, after all, a practical business man, someone with experience of the practical business world. This is what he said (translation)—

Further on he says—

Mr. Speaker, this is the present phase in our economy, i.e. a period of consolidation where the pruning shears must be used so that we can subsequently rise to greater heights of growth again, as we have done in the past.

But I said that I wanted to point to some of the terrible dangers of unbridled growth. The first is economic and the second social. Even if we forget about the social aspects and only look at the economic ones. I want to refer to a few voices from the business world which the hon. member for Hillbrow conveniently did not hear. The first to which I want to refer are the voices of our gold mining magnates. The hon. member quoted Mr. Mabin of Assocom and a few other persons, but he conveniently said nothing about the gold mining industry. We all know that unbridled growth, or even just excessively rapid growth, results in a high rate of inflation. If there is one sector in our economy that is very, very sensitive to this high rate of inflation, it is the gold mining industry, and after all the gold mining industry is still responsible for more than 30 per cent of our exports. We must therefore give it our attention. If you look at how the position of gold has weakened over the past 30/40 years, you will see that before the Second World War, in 1935-’36, one ounce of gold purchased 12 bags of wheat. Today one cannot even purchase four bags of wheat with one ounce of gold. In those same years one could purchase two leaguers of good wine with one ounce of gold; today one cannot even purchase a half a leaguer. Can you see how the position of gold has weakened as a result of a high rate of inflation? That is why I say that we must be very, very careful that we do not strive for a too high growth rate.

There is another voice that has never been heard in this debate, Sir, and that is the voice of the retired person who must live on his own income. As a result of the increasing cost of living the State has had to make almost annual adjustments to the incomes of old age pensioners and civil pensioners. But the retired persons, our older people, who must live on their own incomes, receive no assistance. Their voices are not extended here, but that is a section of our population which is experiencing very great difficulties under increasing inflation. That is why it suits us not to strive for unbridled growth, thereby increasing the burden of those people more and more. Sir, I want to mention an example to you. I am thinking of a farmer who retired 20 years ago. He was a reasonably prosperous farmer. From his savings he could ensure himself of an income of R2,000 a year (in those days £1,000). If one now adjusts that R2,000 per year over the past twenty years one finds that the effective buying power of that R2,000 is no more than R1,041 today. His income is not supplemented annually by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the form of higher pensions; he must get by on that. He and his wife are both over the age of 80; doctors’ accounts and chemist accounts have now increased quite a bit and they are really experiencing difficulties. But that voice is not heard here, because we are obsessed with the idol of unbridled growth, unbridled growth that only brings with it inflation and makes things increasingly difficult for those poor people. In passing I just want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will also think of those people when he draws up his Budget, because unfortunately there is no way of assisting them by way of pensions. There is only one way of assisting them, and that is to slightly increase the level at which older people begin to pay tax. Of course I do not want that level to be 60 years, because between 60 and 65 years everyone still has to work. He can set the age level a little higher, but then he must also increase the income level a little; I would say that that man of 70-80 years of age ought not to pay income tax on an income of less than R2,000 per year.

Mr. Speaker, this inflation that is eroding the buying power of money is the result of unbridled growth. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that our policy is a house of cards that must collapse. Sir, if there is one house of cards that will surely collapse, it is the house of cards of unbridled growth based on too much credit. Mr. Speaker, if you want a fine example of this, just look at what happened on the share market in the last half of 1968 and the first half of 1969. There you have an example of a house of cards that collapsed because of unbridled growth. When the hon. the Minister of Finance gave repeated warnings, it was hon. members opposite who said “The man does not know what he is talking about”. At the beginning of 1969 a good business acquaintenance of mine said to me one day: “Can you tell me who Dr. Diederich’s stock exchange adviser is?” I replied: “No, I do not know, but what he has done thus far looks to me like very sound statesmanship.” His reply was: “Oh no, that cannot be, because he is warning people that they will burn their fingers; he is warning them that the stock exchange can collapse; there is no question of that.” But when the collapse of the house of cards did come, the fault was again attributed to him. Mr. Speaker, here you have a fine example of what can happen when one is obsessed by unbridled growth, when one worships the idol of unbridled growth.

I also gave warning that unbridled growth could throttle itself and the economy in which it grows. Where do you have a more striking example of this than specifically in our present situation? The result of a too rapid growth is a shortage of development capital, and the result of that is, of course, an increase in the price of capital. As capital becomes increasingly more expensive, there is only one further result, and that is that investment suffers. That is precisely what we are experiencing today. Because capital has now become too expensive, we have a too low rate of investment. We have reached the stage where the industrialist and the developer must ask themselves: Is further development worth the trouble; does it pay to continue investing? There you have an example of the statement I made to the effect that unbridled growth is like a cancer growth. Its growth kills the parent body.

Mr. Speaker, there are also dangers other than economic ones. There are also the social dangers that we very definitely must guard against. I wonder whether the Opposition has ever heard of the revolution of increasing expectations? That is one of the social dangers that is staring us in the face if we do not now consolidate this growth for once. Because this resolution of increasing expectations, which is today a generally accepted term in economics, very soon becomes a spiralling vortex of increasing expectations. Let us now all keep ourselves from activating this spiralling vortex of increasing expectations amongst our people. It was the hon. member for Parktown who waxed lyrical here yesterday about the fact that surely the worker ought to get a 5 per cent increase in his standard of living annually. Let us beware that we do not fan that revolution of increasing expectations, because thereby we are sowing dragons’ teeth. Let us be very careful that we do not fan it, because we are thereby sowing dragons’ teeth.

But there is another social danger connected with this unbridled growth. Let us just emphasize it once more. If we want social peace and quiet in this country of ours, we must be very careful that we do not activate these increasing expectations; and this does not only apply to our White workers, it applies to an even greater extent to our non-White workers. I now want to ask the Opposition this. If we activate those increasing expectations in them, if we want to allow their unrestricted influx into the industrial sphere of our metropolitan areas, how on earth are we going to satisfy those increasing expectations of theirs? I therefore want to emphasize it. Let us not be obsessed by unbridled growth. Let us not be obsessed by a growth rate of 10 per cent, but let us be careful in planning our growth in such a way that it will continue to be within our capacity. That is why we need a period of consolidation at present, and after that, under the judicious guidance of this Government, we shall go on to maintain a continually higher growth rate in the future.

Since this debate began yesterday afternoon we have gained the impression that Government members who came along here to speak about the Part Appropriation Bill have only come to make politics, and they have no solid arguments with which to justify the measures of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Paarl, who has just resumed his seat, simply began yesterday afternoon by congratulating us on the new partners we have acquired, such as the hon. member for Houghton, sitting here on my left. I never knew that people who accepted the establishment of Bantustans, and the franchise for every man and woman among the non-Whites, were members of the United Party. I thought they all sat there on the Government side. I just want to tell the hon. member that he should not be so quick to ostracize his new found partners. He may need them in the future.

This afternoon the hon. member for Paarl pegged his entire argument on an unbridled growth rate. I now ask, for the sake of reasonableness, whether a growth rate can be more rapid than your labour force and your capital potential allow? Of course it cannot. If you have your labour resources and your capital resources, which are being restricted by the Government’s policy in regard to foreign capital, you can only grow so fast and no faster. What on earth makes him peg his argument on unbridled growth? Who has ever spoken about unbridled growth? Who asked for that? We are speaking of a more rapid growth rate than the one we have at present, but what does the hon. member say? He says that it is now time for us to apply the pruning shears and curb the growth so that it does not go any faster. What does the hon. the Minister say in this connection, and is the member contradicting the hon. the Minister? What is he doing? This is what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech—

Now I cannot understand it. I understand that the hon. member for Paarl is also the chairman of the Government’s finance group. Is the chairman of the finance committee on the Government side? He speaks of applying the pruning shears in connection with our productivity and growth, while the Minister advocates it and says it is just a slow method; it is not quick enough for the immediate future. I do not know then how disparate their utterances are. This brings us back to the old story that has been doing the rounds since the beginning of this session, i.e. that members contradict one another and that they contradict the Ministers in an unprecedented way.

I want to come back to this particular tax that was levied by the Minister. It was mentioned here yesterday by the hon. member for Harrismith. He said that this sales duty is a very fair tax. More than two years ago, when the Minister came along with this sales duty, we spoke of the unfairness of this tax, and I want to state this once more and prove it.

When we applied for the Minister to change it to a purchase duty, a purchase tax instead of a sales tax, we advanced a large number of reasons why it ought not to be called a sales tax. The hon. member for Durban Point went into the matter the other day, but I just want to point out again briefly that this sales tax has a bearing on three points where it is collected; firstly the importer who imports the components of goods he wants to assemble here, or articles he wants to manufacture here, on some items of which tax is levied, while none is levied on others. Then he manufactures his article and gives it to the wholesale trade, adding the tax to a certain portion of the components, the other portion not having carried any tax. I now ask in all reasonableness, since when can the wholesaler, the retailer or the consumer determine what the tax is if this is way it is levied? Now it goes from the wholesaler to the retailer. The wholesaler added the tax which he thought applicable to that portion of the components on which he paid tax. Then he gives it to the retailer, but he surely does not pass on that 25 per cent or 30 per cent. The manufacturer adds on the 25 per cent or 30 per cent for the wholesaler, who in his turn adds another 25 per cent or 30 per cent for the retailer. In other words, if the basic price of 100 has become 130, he levies the tax on the 130 and then he passes it on to the retailer, who in his turn levies the tax on the 160. Sir, this is probably one of the unfairest taxes this country has ever had to carry. Apart from the fact that the additional tax came in the Part Appropriation in the middle of the year, there is still a R43 million increase in postal tariffs, i.e. R90 million that is being taken from the taxpayers pocket here in the middle of the year, and I say that this is surely one of the unfairest taxes that has ever been levied. I told the Minister two years ago that if he buys a packet of cigarettes in New York he will see that the tax is indicated on the packet, or he will hear the ladies who sell them at the hotel informing him that the cigarettes cost 22 cents plus 2 cents tax. We can go to a neighbouring state in Rhodesia and precisely the same is applicable there, insofar that if you walk into a chemist shop and buy an article there, or buy any other article there, they tell you that that is the price and that is the purchase tax, and the same applies when you buy a packet of cigarettes. On whatever you buy there is an indication of what the tax is, and the consumer cannot be exploited because he can determine from time to time what the tax is that is levied and whether he is paying the rightful tax. For the sake of reasonableness I want to ask whether it is possible, under this system of taxation, for the public to determine what tax they are paying. It is surely not possible.

I go further. The R47 million is, of course, an estimated amount on the same turnover of the same commodities that were dealt in last year. How does the hon. the Minister know that he will have R47 million? It could, after all, be much less or much more. I also want to ask whether it really helps to combat inflation. Do the people have less money in their pockets to spend, or are they just going to spend the money they have, but purchase fewer articles? Is it a help to inflation if they purchase fewer articles for the same money? What help is it to inflation if a man has amount X which he can spend according to the salary he earns, and all he does is to refrain from buying some of the articles on which this tax has been placed? The fact remains that this method does not cause the man to spend less. It is just a method causing him to buy less. We are not helping the economy if the man has bought less. What are we busy doing then? I want to say that until such time as this system of taxation is changed to that of a purchase tax instead of a sales tax, we shall have to adhere to the standpoint that it is an unfair tax because the consumer Who is, after all, the man who eventually pays the tax, cannot determine What he is paying. He cannot, under any circumstances, ever determine what he is paying. How is it possible for him ever to do so if there is no indication on the article, or if the salesman does not tell him how much tax he is paying on it.

This method of trying to combat inflation is just like the electric rabbit that is chased by the dogs. Round and round they go, and they will never catch him unless there is a power break. It will not be long before there is a power break for this simple reason: higher sales tax, higher salaries! Higher sales tax, higher salaries! I want to ask in all honesty whether the Minister really thinks that the representations he made here in the House to employers not to pay high salaries in the first place, and in the second place not to entice people away from one another, can be levelled by him at commerce and industry? If a manufacturer wants to carry on with his business and does not have the staff with which to do so, he is going to pay higher salaries in an attempt to get them. Otherwise production will be interrupted and will decrease. What is the hon. the Minister doing by making a mushy appeal here to employers not to entice people away from one another and not to pay them higher salaries? Mr. Speaker, I claim that it is absurd to even expect such a thing from the manufacturers and people in commerce or from any employers, if they must have the labour in order to be able to produce and to trade. If it is now the Government’s policy that no additional non-Whites may enter commerce and industry, what on earth must the employers do? Surely they must consequently entice people away from one another. In other words, the spiral of higher wages and higher taxation continues endlessly. We on this side made very pointed recommendations for the improvement of this situation. One of the most important of these was the one which the hon. member for Paarl ridiculed a moment ago, i.e. that more non-Whites should be used. Then the situation will improve. The hon. the Minister of Planning came along here the other day with an argument that I found strange. He said that if our object is to be a growth rate of 8½ per cent we would have to have an additional 185,000 White labourers (I speak under correction) and 800,000 non-White workers. Have we on this side of the House not always said that if we bring in the Bantu labour in an orderly manner and in co-operation with the trade unions, they would then replace the lower class of labourer, and that these White labourers could then be moved up the scale? These Whites would then be available. In other words, that calculation of 185,000 Whites and 800,000 non-Whites is incorrect because a large number of White workers would then become available. This method has already been applied by the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who let it take place in an orderly way. We on this side of the House simply cannot understand why the Government so consistently and pointedly refuses to pay heed to the idea that the growth rate is dependent upon the labour that we have at our disposal. If the economy does not have sufficient labour the growth rate must decrease. There is nothing to be done about this. Even if we want to maintain the present growth rate the available labour must be increased. We on this side of the House have been accused repeatedly of wanting an unrestricted growth rate and an influx of Bantu to the White areas. This is not so. No reasonable White man would advocate such a thing. Neither would any reasonable employer. It is surely as plain as a pikestaff that the employment of labour must be planned and must take place in an orderly fashion. It must also be done in co-operation with the trade unions and the workers’ unions. That has already been done. How would the hon. the Minister of Transport otherwise have succeeded in employing 16,000 non-Whites in jobs previously done by Whites. Yesterday one of the hon. members on this side of the House also told the Minister of Labour that he should ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs how such a thing could be done, because he had done it. Now it is the same person who says that the uncontrolled entry of non-Whites into the labour market will not take place and that the Government would ensure that it did not. The fact remains that this side of the House has never advocated uncontrolled influx. This side of the House has always advocated that more labour should be made available to industrialists, manufacturers, to commerce and to everyone involved in the employment of labour.

But the hon. member is the person who wants the Bantu to sell his labour to the best market. Does he still adhere to that standpoint?

If I had the time at my disposal to reply to the hon. the Minister’s question, I would do so. I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister, when he speaks again, can tell me how we can maintain a growth rate with a labour shortage. I state that it is impossible to maintain a growth rate if there is insufficient labour.

I should like to devote the rest of the time at my disposal to agriculture, and I also want to come back to the speech the hon. member for Newton Park made yesterday. I want to bring certain matters pointedly to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I am very glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is present, because he made a statement in this House during the no-confidence debate that has a bearing on the wool industry and on wool farmers. It is more specifically in relation to the wool industry and wool farmers, and the area where farmers cannot diversify, that I should like to bring the following to the hon. Minister’s attention. In this country today we have a large area where people cannot diversify. It stretches from Steynsburg to approximately Namaqualand, and from here near the coast into the Southern Free State. There is no way for these farmers to diversify. They cannot farm with anything but sheep. If they do not want to farm with sheep they must get out. Nothing else thrives there, and it is a drought area with a very low rainfall. Throughout the years it has become clear that this is the only kind of farming that can be done in this area. I do not want to call it the merino industry, but the sheep industry. As long as the high interest rates are applied in respect of that industry, these farmers’ overdrafts will simply continue to increase because there is no method whereby they can decrease their debts. As long as the commercial banks say that the overdrafts must be reduced, those people will face bankruptcy in their hundreds. I know what I am talking about. I come from that part of the world. Half the Karoo farms are on the market, and there are simply no buyers. Where would the buyers come from? If a person wants to reduce his overdraft by selling some of his livestock, there is simply no method of doing so. If he wants to sell on the controlled market under the quota system it takes him about four, five or six months to sell a few hundred animals. The quotas have been laid down and he cannot get past them. At the last Woolgrowers’ meeting in Port Elizabeth last week the true situation was sketched. There was talk of people who took 500 hamels with a six-month growth of wool to the open market and were prepared to sell them at R3 apiece. They still could not get buyers, because in the first place the next man is also engaged in a withdrawal scheme and, in the second place, he will not obtain a quota for the marketing of those animals. I do not blame the quota system. We do not have sufficient slaughterhouse facilities. The quotas are therefore also limited. The present position will apply until such time as we have the necessary facilities at our disposal for slaughtering more animals and absorbing more of them in the controlled areas.

I do want to say, however, that it seems strange to us that there is such a long delay with improvements to slaughterhouses. This has no bearing on the hon. the Minister, but relates to the question of what a man, who wants to rehabilitate himself, can do to settle his debts. The slaughterhouse facilities were extended here in the Cape, and what was the result? Instead of 7,500 sheep being slaughtered in one week, 15,000 sheep were slaughtered. However, the price did not consequently decrease and neither did the demand. In other words, the country can absorb it and the consumers want it. However, the fact remains that the farmers simply cannot market their animals. The facilities are not available. Without the necessary facilities, I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all reasonableness how he expects those people to succeed in reducing their overdrafts according to the new instructions of the Reserve Bank to the commercial banks? I do not even speak of cancelling overdrafts. How must they succeed in doing this if they are living on overdrafts all the time? Even more serious is the fact that it is not only the small farmer that is now being affected. He is, of course, also affected, but the person who is today being hit the hardest is the man who in the past has tried to help himself, could help himself and did not make use of the Land Bank or Agricultural Credit facilities, financing himself by means of an overdraft. I am now referring to the middle group and higher group of farmers, the people who made use of the facilities of banks and financial institutions in order to finance themselves. Those people are in a sorry plight today. One hears it far and wide. They are no longer able to go on like this. They no longer have crops on which to depend. They do have a wool clip which will furnish them with an income later in the year. It is a subsidized clip. Thank heavens for that! They cannot get rid of their livestock. They cannot get rid of their lucerne. Not a single bale of fodder has been accepted by the projected fodder bank, for which the hon. the Minister provided capital, notwithstanding the low fodder prices, i.e. R16 per ton. These are the factors contributing to the fact that the people in the sheep and wool industry, particularly in these areas, simply cannot hold their own. I do not want to go as far as the hon. member for Newton Park and say that all the bankruptcies that will result will be on the hon. the Minister’s head. I want to say that if the Government does not deal gently with these individuals who cannot sell either their land, their property or their livestock in order to pay their overdrafts, these people will simply go to the dogs. When I attended an executive meeting in the Karroo a day or so ago I was shocked to hear of the situation prevailing there. The situation is so bad that if you tell a farmer to settle his overdraft he just says they can come and take his property and his small stock. Now I ask hon. members again who would be prepared to do it? Who will buy it from him? We are faced with all these problems in the agricultural industry today. It is not so much that I am pleading for cases where diversification is possible, where a man has a good wheat crop or a good maize crop and then to cap it all is a good sheep farmer, because although he also needs help he does not need it nearly to the extent in which that particular area I mentioned needs it. I now want to make a special plea to the hon. the Minister and also the hon. the Prime Minister who is fortunately in this House today. Since in a previous speech in this House he mentioned that the wool industry as such will have to get special attention, my plea is that this should be done quickly. If it is not done quickly and efficiently those people will not be able to hold their own. We shall then be faced with more bankruptcies than we have ever been faced with in this country, even in the 1932 depression. I say again with emphasis that it will be worse than it was in the 1932 depression, because then methods were applied to try to help the farmers through it. At present agriculture is already faced with conditions unparallelled in this part of the world that I mentioned. I just want to come back to a remark which the hon. member for Harrismith made yesterday. He said that agriculture was not hit by the sales tax. In all reasonableness I want to say that if the price of a man’s products deceases while his production costs increase, as is the case at present in many agricultural industries, and particularly in the wool industry, I wonder why the farmer has not been affected by this sales tax. Does he not also need the same articles the average man needs? This is all the more so when one is reminded that increased oil and petrol prices are in sight. This will again place an additional burden on the farmer’s shoulders.

Is that the Government’s fault?

I am not saying it is the Government’s fault, but I say that we know it is coming.

But you were speaking about it now.

I am not saying it is the Government’s fault, but I am speaking about the burdens the farmer has to bear and I am referring, in addition, to the remark that was made by the hon. member for Harrismith when he said that sales tax does not affect the farmer.

I now just want to conclude with the following. It is a pity that the hon. member for Paarl is not here at the moment, because he made a statement in this House and put an argument to the hon. the Minister of Finance. That argument was also in connection with pensioners. We should very much like to support the argument, but I wonder whether the hon. member for Paarl and hon. members opposite remember that when we moved an amendment last year in terms of which people with a fixed income who are above the age of 65 years are exempted from the loan levy, the National Party voted against it. They voted unanimously against it. Now the hon. member for Paarl comes along and argues that pensioners with fixed incomes should be exempted from the loan levy. This is the kind of conduct we cannot understand. We cannot understand the fact that we failed to get the support of this House when we advocated that persons above a certain age and with fixed incomes should be exempt from the loan levy. Is this merely the basis of a political game whereby one person cannot support another’s motion? Or what kind of basis is it? Today the hon. member comes along with a pious expression on his face and makes a moving plea to the hon. the Minister for people with pensions and fixed incomes to be looked after, and that they should not be so badly affected by this purchase tax. We should like to associate ourselves with that. We do hope that the pleas of this side of the House in respect of pensioners and people with fixed incomes will also gain the sympathy of that side of the House, whatever the methods may be to improve the difficult conditions under which those people are living. We would be pleased if they would not always simply oppose this side of the House in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for East London City, and as usual he again had hold of the wrong end of the stick in places. The hon. member alleged here that the sales duty was affecting the farmer, but then the hon. member came to fuel prices and related them to the sales duty. Now I want to ask the hon. member what the Government can do about it if the international price of crude oil has been raised? The hon. member then made an allegation by implication. He talked about sales duty, and he said that the price of fuel had gone up as a result of that.

Then the hon. member again alleged that the hon. member for Paarl had advocated that pensioners be protected from the sales duty. Did I understand him correctly?

No.

What was he talking about then? The hon. member advocated that we protect the pensioner, that we should combat inflation, because inflation is decreasing the value of their pensions; and that is what the hon. member for Paarl advocated.

I now come to the hon. members’ concern for the wool farmers. I find it strange that the wool farmers have never yet elected one of the members on that side of the House. It is strange that, when that hon. member for East London City should have discussed wool, he discussed politics, and now when he should have discussed politics, he spoke for the wool farmers. That hon. member was rejected by the wool farmers. Now he wants to stand up here as a champion of the wool farmers. Those are the facts of the matter. Hon. members on this side of the House who represent the wool farmers, do so very capably, and they have the full confidence of the wool industry. Before the hon. members for East London City and Newton Park had even thought of any possible prejudice to the farmers as a result of the fixing of the credit ceiling, the agricultural group on this side had already spoken to their Minister, and he had already spoken to the Minister of Finance. The hon. member need not be concerned about that. This side of the House will look after the interests of the wool farmers very capably.

But the hon. member for East London City had something to say here about double-talk. The hon. member made an allegation here. He must now furnish us with a reply, and we will read his Hansard. He said—

Did the hon. member say that?

That is correct.

That is precisely what the hon. member said. Then I want to ask the hon. member to explain to us why the hon. member for Hill-brow said here—

Does the hon. member agree with that allegation? Does he agree that “South Africa can out-perform Japan in the economic field any time?”

In due course, yes.

Oh, in due course. Can the hon. member tell me what length of time he means by “in due course”?

200 years.

Yes, probably 200 years.

Here is another man who agrees with the hon. member for East London City. The only difference is that he and the hon. member for Hillbrow differ completely. The hon. member for Hillbrow was quoting Dr. A. S. Jacobs here. Let us see what Dr. Jacobs says here in Die Volkshandel.

Which Dr. Jacobs?

Dr. A. S. Jacobs. Fortunately this Jacobs is a sensible Jacobs. I quote (translation)—

Not throughout this entire debate, and not since we began with the no-confidence motion has anyone been able to spell out that policy for us in this House. We have seen one thing and it is that the United Party is remaining completely vague as far as that matter is concerned. They talk about growth, and yet no speaker on the Opposite side has yet told us at what rate we should grow. Can the hon. member for Hillbrow tell me that? [Interjections.] No, you are after all the alternative Government. Our economic development programme states that South Africa must grow at a rate of 5½ per cent.

That is a stupid concept …

The hon. member is repudiating our economic development programme, as well as the President of the Reserve Bank. If the hon. member regards it as being stupid, what should the growth rate then be? Can he tell us? At what percentage must South Africa grow? [Interjections.] No, the hon. member is a member of the alternative Government. Can he tell me now at what rate we in South Africa must grow? There you have it, Mr. Speaker—no reply. Now I am accusing the hon. member for Hillbrow of being an irresponsible representative. He is perpetrating a political bluff because he does not want to say how rapidly he thinks South Africa should grow. We, on the other hand, place our cards on the table and say that we must grow at 5.5 per cent. What does the hon. member say it should be?

I say what Dr. Jan Marais says—that 5½ per cent must be regarded as the absolute minimum.

Very well, but what does the hon. member suggest? I want to tell the hon. member that I am not going to believe any of his suggestions in this House before he tells me what he thinks the growth rate in South Africa should be.

What is wrong with the fellow?

What is wrong with the hon. member! If one criticizes another person for what he is doing, you must at least state your alternative. The same applies in politics. Because the hon. member refuses to do so I accuse him of playing a game of political bluff here; he cannot substantiate his statements in economic terms; he cannot do so because his statements are not in accordance with the economic growth, are not in equilibrium with the potential growth capacity of our country. With that I have put an end to the hon. member’s game of bluff in regard to a high growth rate. The hon. member would do well to hold a little further discussion in caucus with the hon. member for East London City. He, at least, went so far as to say that we must take the labour potential and the capital of the country into account. Could he not perhaps advise the hon. member for Hillbrow next to him? You see, Sir. the clever prophet from Hillbrow has failed; he came tumbling down. He came along here with word inflation, with crazy allegations, with pipe dreams, without substantiating a single one of them. I want to challenge him once again to tell me … [Interjections.] His whip is protecting him now. Could the hon. member for East London City perhaps tell me what our growth rate should be?

It will never increase as long as this Government is in power.

But tell me what it should be. Sir, the actions of the United Party have been a game of bluff from beginning to end. They want to create a psychosis among the people, the impression that we can grow more rapidly and that we can have more prosperity. They are creating that impression without saying in what way it can be done and what the consequences are going to be. The hon. member can hold a further caucus discussion on this matter later.

It is a Hill-brew.

Yes, it is a real Hillbrow. There is another member on the opposite side who yesterday with a few words, won undying fame. What he said, is still going to be blazoned across the length and breadth of our country. Yesterday he let the cat out of the bag here. The issue in this debate was that the Government should also lift its restrictions on the employment of more non-Whites in occupations which are traditionally those of Whites; then all our problems will be solved. But what did the hon. member for Maitland say here yesterday? It is a pity the hon. member is not present. Yesterday he said—

Here he let the cat out of the bag. In other words, he will abolish work reservation completely. [Interjections.] There is one who is saying “Yes”, and here is one who is saying “No”. And the hon. member for East London City spoke about double-talk. The hon. member said “If I understand the soul of the White worker correctly …”. This is precisely where their problem lies—they cannot understand the soul of the White worker correctly. But now I come to this yellow booklet of theirs, the goat-fodder pamphlet. On page 7 it is stated—

But yesterday the hon. member for Maitland said that there was no such fear. They said they would protect the White worker by means of the rate for the job. It is stated in passing here in the yellow booklet, on page 8, that “White and non-White, from whose ranks our labour is drawn, must be assured of an improvement in their present standards of living”. And then we come to the actual point. They say they will—

By implication they are saying here that they will protect the White worker for ten years only. Can the hon. member for East London City indicate to us why this yellow booklet states that the Whites are afraid of competition, while the hon. member for Maitland said yesterday that there is no such fear among the White workers? There are quite a number of hon. members here who waxed very eloquent about the question of labour. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Von Brandis whether Anglo-American agrees with them that there is such a general labour shortage in the country. Can the hon. member for Hillbrow tell me? Silence! Can the hon. member for Von Brandis tell me, he who is now holding his hands over his head? He has also been “zipped”. Mr. Speaker, I must assume therefore that the two hon. gentlemen do not want to express their opinion on the attitude of Anglo-American towards the labour shortage in our country. Is there perhaps one of those members who can tell me what the attitude of the Anglo-American Corporation is, which is one of the largest industrial undertakings in the country, in regard to the shortage of labour?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

In the time at my disposal it is impossible for me to go into all the questions in detail which have been raised in the course of this debate and the previous debate. I shall just try therefore to deal with some of the most important matters which have been raised here as well as possible. I must say at the outset that the hon. members of the Opposition, and specifically the hon. members for Parktown and Hillbrow, made a desperate attempt yesterday to try to remedy here what they had bungled in the Second Reading debate. I think hon. members will agree with me that they did not at all succeed in doing so and that they were unable to furnish a reply in any single sphere to the questions which I put to them in my reply to the Second Reading debate. The hon. members read out a few quotations here. They took fright at the quotations I read out here of statements made by economists and others, and they did everything in their power to find quotations from those same economists to support their standpoint. Sir, I can also produce new quotations, and so we can go on until the day after tomorrow. But there is one thing which the hon. members cannot refute. After all their accusations to the effect that this Government was supposedly antigrowth, the hon. members did not produce a single piece of evidence to disprove those words of Mr. Mabin which I quoted here, viz. that the past two decades have been the period of the greatest growth in the economic sphere in South Africa.

You were not Minister of Finance then.

That hon. member does not always know what he is talking about. Over the past decade I have had the privilege of being Minister of Economic Affairs and Minister of Finance, and the past decade, the ’sixties—not because I was Minister of Finance but because this Government was in office—was one of the outstanding decades as far as the economic growth of South Africa was concerned. This is admitted today by friend and foe alike. Those hon. members can produce absolutely nothing to disprove it. They say that we are the damping school. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Parktown, said that they also believe in a temporary damping in order to make that the point of departure for further growth. In other words, they arrived at the standpoint which we adopted here, viz. that we are not damping growth, but that we are damping inflation so that we may have further growth in future. I want to ask the hon. member: If he believes there should be temporary damping, how does he want to damp the growth? Would he apply fiscal and monetary methods? Hon. members of the Opposition also believe in fiscal and monetary methods. In other words, they also believe in the most important measures which we are taking; in other words, they must also believe that, if you apply monetary means, you must curtail credit whenever it is necessary and that you must reduce the volume of money, not so? If you apply fiscal methods, then surely it means that you must increase taxes, not so? It seems to me the hon. members are in full agreement with me that in the damping of inflation, fiscal methods which mean an increase in taxation and monetary methods which mean a reduction of credit, may become necessary. Why do they then differ with us in this debate?

They did not furnish any replies to the following questions either: I alleged here that increased employment did not mean less inflation. Hon. members of the Opposition have not yet been able to furnish a single reply to that allegation, which I am making again now. I said there is a shortage of capital in this country. My hon. friend that said there is no shortage of capital; there is plenty of money—money at 10¼ per cent. Is that what he believes? He said that if we were prepared to pay higher interest rates, we could get a great deal of capital; then there would be plenty of money in the country. The hon. member for Constantia said that the State should undertake an extensive loan programme. I asked him: At what interest rate? And the hon. member gave us to understand: “Any interest rate.” It is the policy of the United Party that the State should take the lead in borrowing money at tremendously high rates of interest, with the resulting consequences for the poor man, for the householder who has a mortgage bond and for the farmer who has a mortgage bond on his farm? Is it their policy that we should combat inflation in this country with high interest rates? That is what the hon. members implied. The hon. member for Constantia stated this very clearly. He said that we should with high interest rates negotiate tremendous loans. He said that firms were paying high interest rates and were finding capital because the money is there, but that one should then be prepared to pay a high interest rate for it.

The hon. member talked about infrastructure and asked why there is a shortage of infrastructure. Sir, is a Government supposed to build a complete infrastructure for the future? Is an infrastructure not built as it becomes necessary and as one is able to afford it? They asked us why we did not tackle the Orange River scheme? Why did the Voortrekkers not build the railway line to Johannesburg; why did those hon. members not tackle the Orange River scheme? If we want to expand the infrastructure and we require large capital amounts, would the hon. members not again level the accusation at me that we wanted to spend money on a tremendous scale? I should like them to tell me this. If I should at some time or other come forward with major schemes to expand the infrastructure, will we not hear from their side again that we are spending too much money?

Hon. members discussed the balance of payments here. They do not want to believe that if a country like South Africa has heavy consumer spending, if it undertakes major developments, its balance of payments must suffer as a result. The hon. member for Hillbrow tried to bypass it here with some sophistry or other, but it remains a fact. If there is heavy consumer spending, if there is heavy capital spending in a country like South Africa, then there is pressure on its balance of payments. You cannot deny that.

The hon. members for Yeoville and Durban North discussed a few other matters. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into that, but I do just want to go into a matter affecting the farmers on whom pressure is being exerted by banks that want them to settle their overdrawn accounts. I can only say that this is a fact; we have heard this complaint. I may just say that it was the agricultural group of the National Party and the Deputy Minister who first brought this matter to my attention in this House. In any case, I knew about it. The fact of the matter is that there is no deviation from the policy of the authorities. In terms of our monetary policy, which my hon. friends say they also accept, it has for more than five years been the policy to place a ceiling on the credit which is supplied by banks. But the policy remains the same. The ceiling is gradually being lifted, as circumstances require, and frequently an extra amount is being given to the farmer. Almost every time the ceiling is lifted, it is requested that banks should give preference to productive credit, and not to credit for consumption or for speculation, and every time emphasis is placed on the interests of the farmers. It has happened that banks have from time to time exceeded this ceiling.

At present the Reserve Bank, which deals with this matter, finds itself in the position that certain banks—I repeat certain banks—have exceeded their credit ceiling tremendously. It is not right that they should do so; something must be done in this connection, because it is not fair to the other banks that they have exceeded their credit ceiling. The Reserve Bank was compelled to ask those particular banks to curtail their credit in order to return to the ceiling—not all the banks but only those particular banks; that is only fair. Those banks are now curtailing credit, and on whom are they cracking down? Unfortunately they are cracking down for the most part on those sectors which are the most sensitive and for which the Government has the most sympathy. It is a pity that this should be the case, but it is a fact. The matter has been brought to my attention. I do not want to elaborate on it any further at the moment.

How do the farmers know that? The farmers do not know that it is the decision of their banks.

That has nothing to do with the farmers.

But the farmers are getting it in the neck today.

I have already taken up this matter with the President of the Reserve Bank, who is the person who is ultimately in charge of this matter, and I can inform hon. members that within a few days, I hope by the end of the week, they can expect a statement from the Reserve Bank.

I now want to come to the matter touched upon here by the hon. member for Simonstad and which has caused a stir, the question of fish and of fishmeal licences. I want to talk in particular about the time in the ’sixties, when I was in office. But first I want to return to the year 1948. I want to say that the policy we followed did not differ in any way from the policy of allocation of the old United Party Government. It is difficult to find an allocation policy. Some people said we should call for tenders for licences, but if one were to call for tenders, the small operator will be very badly off and it would be the big operators who would have everything. We are still following essentially the same policy in regard to the method of allocation as the United Party Government.

But let us for a moment go back to the year 1948. We have been told that we give licences to political pals, but go back to the year 1948 and see who received the crayfish concessions and the fishmeal concessions then, and see how many of them in 1948 were political pals. I do not take this amiss of those companies, but we must place on record that in the year 1948, when we came into power, it was not the friends of the Government who had those concessions. They did well for South Africa, but we on this side did not have a share in that.

I want to return in particular to two matters and they are the allocation of crayfish and fish concessions. Let us see now what happened. Let us first look at the allocation of crayfish concessions. There was a large number of big firms who had crayfish export concessions. By catching crayfish, pressure was brought to bear on us by numerous people in the crayfish industry who also wanted to share in those quotas. They said: Our capital is invested in this, and it is the way we make our living; we are risking our existence by catching this fish and this crayfish; we sell the crayfish at a low price to the exporters; cannot we, too, share in this prosperity? We said that that principle was correct; we considered all the people who were catching crayfish, throughout the country, and we pruned some of the existing crayfish quotas. The hon. member is correct; we did prune some of the quotas, and to those affected we added a further amount of 50,000 crates. We had a quota list drawn up, in a scientific way, by the Council of our experts in the Department and its Fisheries Division, according to merit, and according to that merit assessment we made crayfish allocations to a whole list of people. We did not pick and choose; they came along and we gave crayfish allocations to all of them according to the scientific quotas. What is wrong with that? And let me give hon. members the names of the persons who received the crayfish allocations.

What period was that?

1963. I am talking about crayfish allocations. I shall read out the list of names: A. Jaffe, A. F. Barnard, Bester Smit, Cape Sea Industries, Consolidated Fish Distributors (Pty.) Ltd., Delphi Products (Pty.) Ltd., Diaz Fisheries, Eiland Visserye, Fish Drying Corporation (Pty.) Ltd., Goldville Fish Canners, Good Hope Fisheries (Pty.) Ltd., J. J. van der Westhuizen, J. Mostert, Coloured Development Corporation Limited, Paternoster Fisheries —that is not the Paternoster with which hon. members here are associated; this is a different company, from Walvis Bay— Pharo’s Fisheries, S.A. Marine Foods, S. de Pinto Fisheries, Snoekies Smokeries, Ward’s Fisheries and W. Engelbrecht.

Sir, I did not know any of these people personally. I do not know who they are, but I am giving you the names. I do not know what their political affiliations are, but I wanted to lay a wager that the majority of them are either members of or sympathizers with that side of the House. That is why I say that we allocated the crayfish quotas in the fishing industry on merit.

But the same happened in respect of fishmeal quotas. We consulted with the Fisheries Advisory Council, and the Council said that we could allocate 45 hour-tons of fishmeal. It was subsequently increased to 50 tons, for certain reasons which I shall mention.

Has the hon. the Minister finished with crayfish now?

No, I am not yet finished with crayfish. I am going just as fast as I can. Here we followed the same principle. We went right through the fishing industry and asked what people interested in the fishing industry could be entitled to crayfish and fishmeal licences. We followed the same principle. Hon. members know that a fishmeal company must handle at least 10 tons in order to be economic. We could allocate 45 tons. This would be at the most four or five factories. We had dozens of people who wanted a licence. Not all of them could get a factory. We deemed it best that either one joint company should be established, or that a few companies should be established to deal with these crayfish fishing licences. Three allocations were made. A 15-ton allocation was made for the North West, for all the people in Namaqualand. They became organized around a Boesmandlandse Minerale Ontginningsmaatskappy, in order to develop that area. This is a very laudable aim. A 15-ton allocation was made to them, including 3½ tons of the Owenstones and to someone else in Port Nolloth who worked there. Ten tons were allocated to Paternoster. I was given numerous lists of names of people who were in the fishing industry there and who were interested and took up shares in the company. This was given to them. Twenty-five tons were given to another larger company. As I have already said, our experts revalued each one of the companies in the fishing industry that came into consideration on the basis of their interest. We had a joint company established which would process these twenty-five tons, and in which each one of these people would have a share. I cannot imagine anything fairer than this. Who were the people who received those 25 tons? I shall enumerate them: S. de Pinto Fisheries, Sentinel Fishing Corporation, Good Hope Fisheries, Anchor Fisheries Industries, Cape Reef Fisheries, G. J. E. Kotze, Telstar Fisheries, Shoal Fishing Co., Salvas Fishing Corporation, Diepsee-viskor-porasie, Walker Bay Canners, Christie Dodds, Sabena Visprodukte, Goldville Fish Canners, Coloured Development Corporation, Comet Fish Corporation, Wards Fisheries, Slangkop Fishing Corporation, Chapman’s Peak Fisheries, Duikereilandvisserye, Western Province Trawlers, Snoekies Smokeries, Consolidated Fish Distributors (Pty.) Ltd., Tafelberg Fisheries, Christies Fish Supplies. I do not know a single one of these people. I do not know what their political interests are. If I have to judge from the list the majority of them belong to members on the opposite side of the House.

When were those concessions made?

I am not entirely certain. It was approximately in 1963.

The names differ considerable from those which were given to me yesterday in reply to a question.

I think some of these companies subsequently changed. Some of them were sold by the owners. We have no control over that. They sold out to other people or to other companies. This is the list I received from the Department. As far as crayfish is concerned—and the hon. member mentioned this here—we allocated live crayfish concessions to six people or companies. How did that happen? One day a Mr. Marais—not one of the Marais’ in Parliament—came to the Department and made a suggestion …

That is correct. They just know each other well.

Order! What is the hon. member insinuating by that?

I am insinuating nothing by that. They are very well known to each other.

But what is the insinuation?

Nothing, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

He suggested to the Department that an attempt should be made to export live crayfish. He suggested that there was more money to be made with the export of live crayfish. Crayfish is mainly exported to America. However, there was a market in Europe, and particularly in France, for live crayfish. While only crayfish tails are sold in America at a certain price, the entire crayfish could be sold in Europe at two to three times the price of the tails only. In other words, it would be profitable for South Africa to export the whole crayfish. It would be done on a more limited scale, but would be more profitable than exporting the tails only. The Department then decided to make an allocation to this Mr. Marais of Cape Agar Company to export whole crayfish. This matter became known and other parties also applied for permission to do so. The department then decided to make only six allocations. An unlimited number of allocations could not be made. One has to stop somewhere. The parties who were first in the industry and who put their capital into the industry in order to see how things went with this industry, received certain allocations. There are cries of “Who are they?” here, and again I now want to read out the names of these parties to hon. members. They are:

• Cape Agar Company (Pty.) Ltd.
• Eastern Province Trawling Co. (Pty.) Ltd.
• Live Rock Lobster Corporation (Pty.) Ltd.
• H. P. le Roux
• Lighthouse Fisheries (Pty.) Ltd.
• S.A. Lobster Exporters (Pty.) Ltd.

I do not know any of these people personally. These allocations were issued by the department on the basis of the zeal and interest displayed by these companies in the export of live crayfish, through which we would earn more. There is something else I also want to set straight. These parties did not receive an extra export quota for the crayfish they were allowed to export. They had to approach the quota holders and buy part of the existing quota of those holders at high prices. These companies therefore did no harm to the fishing industry of South Africa. Only the same quantity of crayfish could be exported, but that part which they were able to export as whole crayfish brought in more foreign currency for South Africa, although it was on a more limited scale than the crayfish tails. It was only subsequently, namely in 1970, that the Department offered these people a small quota as well, which is really insignificant in proportion to the total crayfish export quota.

In conclusion I come to the question of fishing boats. I can make a long story of this, but I want to deal with the matter briefly. In the past various people applied for the right to have fishing factory ships. However, all of them wanted to catch fish within South Africa’s territorial Waters. But the Department did not want to allow this. Then the Willem Barendsz appeared on the scene. This ship was used by the Netherlands to catch whales in the Antarctic. The whaling industry ceased to be profitable, and this ship was offered to South Africa. The Dutch Government had a share in this ship. Various people came to the Department with the request to purchase that ship. However, the department was unsympathetic. At a certain juncture the owner of the ship, a certain Mr. De Waal of the Netherlands, came to South Africa and made strong representations to us that this ship be allowed to catch fish beyond our territorial waters. The Dutch ambassador in South Africa, also made strong representations to us at the time. In those days, too, there were numerous factory ships just beyond our territorial waters. South-West was opposed to the presence of such ships. At that juncture I went to the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd. I put the problem to him. I told him that there were people who wanted to sell their ship to us, and that representations had also been made by the Dutch Government. There were those ships which were lying off our coast here. I told him that South-West Africa was opposed to it and asked him what he thought we should do. I asked him to give me some advice, or to give me instructions. Dr. Verwoerd told me that he was enthusiastic about the prospect of such factory ships for South Africa. He said that his view of the future for our fisheries was that South African ships should be able to sail to deep waters and operate far out to sea and acquire scientific knowledge there. This may of course be correct or incorrect. He told me that he thought that more and more countries would in future make use of such highly technically equipped ships and that South Africa should not lag behind. He said that he thought it was necessary for us to make a start and enter the field of factory ships as well. I then told Dr. Verwoerd that South-West was opposed to that. He then said that he would go and talk to South-West. I tried to get the Administrator of South-West to come here. Unfortunately their Legislative Assembly was in session and he informed me that he was unfortunately unable to come, and asked whether I could not go to South-West. Whereupon I went to South-West. I submitted the matter to the Executive Committee there, with the considerations which the hon. the Prime Minister had conveyed to me. They then agreed that factory ships could be allowed, provided they did not enter the territorial waters of South-West Africa, and provided they did not make use of South-West African harbours, unless they were doing so in extreme cases of emergency. For that reason we then gave our consent to that factory ship, subject to these strict conditions, in the hope that they would open up and exploit a completely new field for South Africa as far as fisheries was concerned.

Does the factory ship have the right to make catches within our own territorial waters?

No. We cannot help it that trouble subsequently developed and that they contravened the regulations with their catchers. Nor did anybody foresee that.

Now we are again being accused of having given our “political pals” preferential treatment. I now want to ask that side of the House to whom these shares were allocated, and who owned this ship? I shall ask hon. members who the shareholders were. There was the Silverman group. I may just say in passing that the right was given to this company to catch and to process fish in the open sea, on the condition that it establish a South African company. The South African company consisted of the following, as it had indicated in the original letter which Volkskas wrote to us when it requested the right to transfer a certain amount of money to Holland: The Silverman group Walvisvaart, N.W., i.e. the Dutch company, Atlantic Harvesters Ltd., N.S. Druker and the general public. Now I am asking which of these are the so-called “political pals” to whom we supposedly gave the ship? So far I have been proving that all the concessions, whether they were in regard to crayfish, or in regard to fishmeal or in regard to factory ships, were for the most part made to people who did not, as far as I know, belong to this party. In any case, we were not interested in their political convictions, but hon. members can go and check up on this. I have the figures.

Are you prepared to say something about the additional two factory ships?

Once this ship was operational and everything seemed to be favourable in this sphere and the next difficulty was to acquire additional modern ships equipped for this specific task, ships which were even better equipped than the Willem Barendsz, the Government considered the matter and decided that a further two such fishing ship licences could be allocated. Of course, it is all very well to be wise after the event! These two ships were allocated to the Suid Kunene Company and to the Oven-stone Company, respectively. If we now consider all three these ships, namely the Willem Barendsz, the one allocated to the Suid Kunene Company and the one allocated to the Oven-stone Company, where does the preponderance in regard to “political nepotism” lie today?

Were these two licences issued after consultation with the South-West Africa Administration?

No, because we regarded the matter as having been finalized. We regarded the principle of factory ships in regard to South-West Africa as having been finalized. Precisely the same conditions were imposed on them as on the Willem Barendsz. They were not to enter our territorial waters, nor those of South-West Africa, nor were they allowed to call at South-West African harbours.

Was South-West Africa satisfied?

[Time expired.]

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause appears innocuous enough. It purports to allow the State President to establish legislative assemblies for Bantu areas by proclamation. There is nothing wrong with the principle of giving Bantu rural and urban councils for managing their own affairs. We have stressed time and again that it is fundamental to our policy of race federation. It is fundamental that the Africans must manage their own affairs either in communal councils or legislative assemblies. It does not matter what they are called as long as the principle of allowing them and encouraging them to manage their own affairs is recognized. This clause envisages self government for the reserves, but it ignores the urban areas completely. Our policy is to allow the Africans to manage their own townships in the urban areas which naturally will be after they have received suitable training, and also for a communal council to manage the affairs of the Africans living in the White areas. They should manage their affairs which intimately concern them most. If it is our policy to allow self-management, it may be asked why we are opposed to this clause. I know that the preamble is not under discussion, but it serves as a preface to this clause and this clause may not in fact be read in isolation. In terms of the Minister’s own admission, in the preamble and in the White Paper, this is the first step in the Government’s policy of fulfilment of its ideal of directing reserves to eventual sovereign independence. These sovereign states will be severed completely from the Republic. The United Party cannot countenance, or even appear to approve or tolerate this development. Secondly, the Government sets in motion in clause 1 the first steps, the irrevocable steps of constitutional development for an undefined portion of South Africa to partition from the Republic. This is fragmentation and this is not the traditional policy of our country. I do not intend dealing with the traditional policy or with the present policy of fragmentation. I think we can deal more appropriately with this matter when we discuss the preamble. When we discussed the Transkei Constitution Bill, we knew what we were discussing. In that legislation the districts were defined, and not only the districts, but the portions of the districts which would be affected by the legislation were defined. Here we do not know at all to which areas this clause will apply. The State President can establish a legislative assembly for a Bantu area which has a tribal authority and not only may he establish the area of the tribal authority, but he may modify the area of the tribal authority, before he establishes the legislative assembly. In subsection (2), in fact, he is given power to amend and to alter the boundaries even after the legislative assembly has been established. I say that Parliament, in allowing the State President to do this, is renouncing its right and evading its duties to the people. In fact, it can be said that it is washing its hands of the consequence of the Nationalist Party’s policy. The process set in motion by this clause is not trivial—it is momentous. It is the initiation of new nations, of new states. One man, the Minister, is being given the authority. He holds the destiny of millions in his hands once we have given him this power. The Minister says he is not circumventing Parliament in that he is consulting us by producing this Bill. But he is only consulting us in general terms. In terms of this clause, he will hold the time table. He can decide when to embark on the passage to self-government for a state with the ultimate aim of independence. Admittedly, he will have to come to this Parliament before he can take the final step of granting independence. But he himself says that it will be immoral, once it has been embarked upon to stop this course. Once the first step is taken, according to the Minister, there can be no turning back. He might have some excuse for producing a Bill like this if it solves our race problems. But this clause does not cater for the urban African in any way. It only caters for the Reserves. We are asked to accept a Bill of this nature, to accept this clause, which implements a policy which is no solution to our troubles. This Minister, of his own volition, can take the power to embark on a course which may be ruinous for South Africa. He can press the button without consulting Parliament, the representatives of the people, whose very future and that of their children are at stake once he has set this Bill in motion.

This Bill represents the fragmentation of this country and the establishment of foreign States. It is the most far-reaching constitutional step that any Nationalist Government has taken. In its gravity I place it on the same footing as the Declaration of War in 1939, because the consequences in South Africa can be as disastrous as defeat would have been to South Africa in that War. The Nationalist members sit here with equanimity and allow this Minister to take these powers. What reason does he give for taking these powers? He says that, if he has to proceed in the normal course by coming to Parliament, there will be inordinate delay. The hon. member for Zululand pointed out in the Second Reading debate that the longest delay there could be, would be six months. We submit this is no reason for him to come forward with a measure of this nature. This Minister is taking more and more power unto himself. He is being given more and more powers by the Nationalist Party, by the members sitting opposite. He is becoming a dictator, and no dictator likes Parliaments. He does not like to be fettered by discussions in Parliament and by listening to the opinions of the others. He wants to be able to proceed as he likes without discussions and interference from anyone. We on this side are not prepared to give him the power.

The hon. member for Transkei, who has just resumed his seat, spoke in connection with clause 1. We heard again today the voice of 1953, “Vote for the right to vote again”. We are supposed to be in the process of becoming a dictatorship now.

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

Mr. Chairman, in any case, the position is that the hon. member in this connection spoke about an undefined area of South Africa which we are now prepared to hand over to the Reserves. That area is, in fact, defined. It is quite clearly defined in the relative Act. It is simply a matter of its having to be consolidated here and there.

Where is the “here and there”?

Let the hon. member go and read the 1936 Act; he will then see where the boundaries are.

We do not trust you.

I am very glad the hon. member says he does not trust us in regard to this matter. But let me tell the hon. member that we are at least consistent as far as our policy is concerned and that we are honest as far as the Bantu are concerned. What we promised to do, we will do. What we are doing as far as this clause is concerned, is to carry out our policy in that respect. We will carry out the policy of the National Party, but we are not dismembering South Africa as is being alleged here. Those areas have always been homelands. History has proved this and we are simply confirming history today.

I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can aver, as was done by the hon. member for Aliwal, that we are not dealing with unknown areas but with defined areas. If these are defined areas why then is it necessary for the Minister in this clause to proclaim legislative assemblies in respect of areas which are covered by a Territorial Authority at the present time or “such areas as may be modified by the Minister”? Why must these areas be modified if they are, as the hon. member for Aliwal said, already defined? How must one view a statement that we are dealing with known and defined areas? It is generally accepted by every serious commentator in the field of separate development in its extended form, as we have here, that there must be large-scale consolidation before this concept can be given any meaningful value at all. If that is so, how then can it possibly be said by anyone who has any idea of the subject that we are dealing with areas that are defined? In actual fact it is because of the necessity for consolidation, the final form and import of which are unknown to us at the present moment, that the hon. the Minister is asking for powers to declare these legislative assemblies not only in respect of areas being covered by a Territorial Authority, areas which are known, but also areas which may be modified by the hon. the Minister in the relevant proclamation. That is the very reason for the necessity for modification, because we are dealing with an unknown quantity. This then is one of our principal objections.

The hon. member wants to persuade us to conduct a debate on consolidation. But this clause concerns the political content of an area in respect of which a legislative assembly is going to be established. The hon. member should debate the advantages and disadvantages of that and not consolidation. We on this side of the House will not allow ourselves to be caught, we will not allow ourselves to be forced into a debate on the question of consolidation at this stage.

The same note was adopted by the last two speakers on that side of the House, and I would like to reply to that. But before dealing with that, I want to react to a note adopted by the hon. member for Transkei, although it was muted. He said they were against this Bill and this clause because, inter alia, no provision was being made here for the urban Bantu. That means if I understood him correctly. However, this bill deals with Bantu homelands and the hon. member cannot, therefore, expect us to include in a Bill such as this detailed provisions pertaining to the development and political affairs of the urban Bantu. But the hon. member will do well to look at clause 2. In that clause he will see that permissive provision is made for methods of election pertaining to all citizens of a homeland, i.e. whether they are inside or outside the homelands. This Bill deals with the political aspects of the Bantu peoples, and in this respect we here come to deal with the urban Bantu as well.

But they exercise their rights in the homeland only.

Yes, they are able to exercise their political rights in the homelands through their right to vote. This has been the case for years as far as the Transkei is concerned.

Continuing, the hon. member said that a political system was being established here for undefined areas. I am sorry that the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Zululand put it in this way. In the first place, they should know that, according to the definition, these areas can only be Bantu reserves.

Does it say so in the Bill?

Yes. The hon. member did not read it, of course; he is too occupied with other matters. But the hon. member does not have to read the Bill; he can merely accept my assurance that all this is dealing with, is Bantu reserves. All reserves, all the land belonging to the Bantu today—Trust and tribal land—is known from beacon to beacon. In the second place, in clause 1 (1) of this Bill it is provided that legislative councils may be established for those areas for which territorial authorities exist. These areas were defined when the territorial authorities were established.

Or as modified.

I am coming to that. The hon. member should not anticipate me. When I corner him on point 1 he scurries away to point 2. Legislative boards may be established for areas which constitute the territorial authorities at present, and the area of the territorial authorities is defined in the proclamations in terms of which they have been established.

We do not know at present how these are going to be.

The proclamations in terms of which the various territorial authorities were established, defined their areas and it is in respect of these areas that provision is being made here for legislative councils. I now come to the words “as modified”. Surely, it is quite clear why there should be modifications. After all, the boundaries of the areas may vary. Hon. members opposite are always taking us to task for not consolidating and purchasing land quickly enough. If land has to be purchased, say, in the Ciskei area or in the North Sotho area, surely, such land will also have brought in under the Bantu management, land which was undefined when the relative territorial authority was established. Surely, we have to be able to modify the original proclamation; after all, this is clear. We cannot establish a static legislative council, static as far as territory is concerned. The other day in my reply I told hon. members why it was impossible for everything to be finally consolidated beforehand. I said we had two processes here which were going hand in hand. If the boundaries of the territorial authority are, therefore, altered through land purchased or cut off, we will have to modify the original description thereof. Surely, this is clear.

But this is done without the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, we have been establishing territorial authorities for all these years now by means of proclamations which were not approved here beforehand and of which Parliament took cognizance only afterwards. We are going to do the same now. This is the old pattern. The hon. member now wants to try and make a fuss of it; he will not succeed in doing so. This is an old pattern that territorial authorities are established for territories described in the proclamations and not by this Parliament.

But not for independent states.

We are not dealing with independent states in this Bill. With all due respect, Sir, the hon. member is irrelevant when he talks about independent states.

The hon. member says that the provision in clause 1 is more drastic, more far-reaching, than the declaration of war was in 1939. To my mind this is a most sweeping statement to make. What does clause 1 do? [Interjection.] Sir, surely the hon. member may get up again to speak; why does he not give me an opportunity to go on with my speech? The hon. member should appreciate what is envisaged by clause 1. Clause 1 converts an existing territorial authority into a legislative council and confers more powers on the legislative council than the old territorial authorities had. If the hon. member sees his way clear to compare this position with a declaration of war, then I do not know what the hon. member has in mind as far as a war is concerned; then I think he has had very little experience of that war. I think it is a gross exaggeration to say this. I have, in fact, finished replying to the point raised by the hon. member for Zululand, because he actually spoke about the modification in subclause (1) only.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 5:

We will oppose these batches of clauses. We do not intend talking to all these clauses. Our opposition, as the House will realize, is to the ultimate aim of this Bill and that is why we will show our disfavour by voting against these clauses in batches as they come up, except for the clauses which set the motion in process to eventual independence of the Bantu homelands.

I appreciate the mild opposition.

Clauses put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 10 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 17 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 25 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clause 26:

Sir, in opposing clause 1, we made it clear that our objection was not to the establishment of legislative assemblies or councils for the Africans but because it was the first step on the way to independence. Clause 1 initiated phase one of the progress. Clause 26 is the start of the second phase. It makes provision for a self-governing territory, and once the President by proclamation declares an area to be a self-governing area in terms of clause 26, he then sets it off on the road to independence with all the trappings of an independent state. If we look at clauses 27 and 28, which deal with the question of an anthem and a flag, we see that the territory is then well on the way to becoming a separate state. We opposed the Promotion of Self-government Act when it was introduced by the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. We said at that time that the implication of that Act was to start a Bantu area on the road to independence, and we were opposed to it. Sir, in replying to what I said on Clause 1, the hon. the Minister said that I was exaggerating when I likened the gravity of the step taken in Clause 1 to a declaration of war. But I pointed out that the consequences of taking step 1 and step 26 could be as dangerous and as serious to this country as a defeat would have been in the last war, and I still abide by that. We do not know what the consequences of this are going to be, and we fear that they may be dangerous. We say it is wrong for one man to decide when to take the step and where the step should be taken. We say it should be left to Parliament to decide if that step is necessary. I repeat, Sir, that I was not exaggerating. We do look upon this step as being as serious as a declaration of war.

The Minister tried to deny that we were dealing with undefined portions of the country. I would like him to read clause 26 (1), which says—

It says “as defined from time to time”. This Parliament does not always control which areas will be added to a reserve or not. The Minister suggests that because this Bill only applies to Bantu areas we should know what the areas are. But, Sir, this Minister can add to an area without consulting Parliament. What happened in the case of Mdantsane in East London? We do not know when the Minister may add an area to a Bantu reserve. Admittedly he comes with the proclamation afterwards, after he has proclaimed it …

You knew in the case of Mdantsane.

But we never know from time to time what areas are going to be included in a reserve. Nobody knows what areas are going to be included. The Minister knows that by means of the method of creeping paralysis he can keep on adding on to a scheduled area. What we fear is that he may add to an area without our knowledge, and that is why he provides in this clause, that the boundaries may be altered from time to time. Sir, the question of altering boundaries is a serious one. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to Section 114 of our Republican Constitution which says—

Even Parliament is not allowed to interfere with provincial boundaries unless the provinces petition it to do so. The Minister might remember that when it was suggested by the present Minister of the Interior that East Griqualand should be added on to Natal he was admonished by the Prime Minister. He said. “It is not for you to suggest what territory must be taken from the Cape and added to Natal”.

And subsequently he made him a Minister.

Oh yes, after he had rebuked him. The Prime Minister said that it was for Parliament to decide on a petition to both Houses. But this Minister is now taking power to extend the boundaries of the various Bantu areas, or even to restrict them, without the consent of the provincial councils or Parliament. We say that it is wrong for him to suggest, as he so often does, that the people know where the boundaries of these reserves will be. For all the reasons which I advanced in dealing with clause 1. Sir, we will oppose this clause too. In fact this clause 26 is more serious in its consequences than clause 1.

We naturally take note of the attitude adopted by the Opposition in connection with this clause, as we, in fact, did in the course of the previous stages of our discussions. Sir, since the Opposition is objecting so strongly against this clause now, I should very much like to know from the hon. member whether his party, if it should perhaps come into power one day, would undo the implementation of this Second Chapter where it had been applied. The hon. member can reply simply by shaking or nodding his head. The Opposition should tell us, because they think they are going to come into power any day now.

I shall reply to that.

Very well, the hon member may get up and speak again. I should very much like to know from the hon. member whether his party, if it should perhaps come into power one day as they are hoping will happen soon, would undo a self-governing area which had been established by us in terms of section 26? Would they cancel it or not? I should very much like to know this. I am sorry I do not know the answer to this right now, because then we could have disposed of the argument right here.

Sir, the hon. member raised objections once more to the words “from time to time”. This is the same principle we discussed in connection with clause 2 a moment ago, namely that while the political development of the Bantu areas is proceeding step by step, the consolidation of those areas will also proceed step by step, at the same tempo or slower, depending on the circumstances. For that reason, surely, we have to make provision for an equally gradual process of adjustment of new areas which are added and for the omission of other areas which do not apply any more. [Interjection.] I shall be glad if the hon. member for South Coast will reply to my question a little later; I shall appreciate it. Hon. members should remember that where we use the words “as modified” or “as defined from time to time” we are thinking along two lines. It is not only White land or State-owned land which may be added to a Bantu area and which may necessitate a definition of the boundaries, but it could also be a case of erroneously situated Bantu reserves having to be excised from those Bantu areas, for example, black spots. Strictly speaking, a proper black spot is not quite a Bantu reserve, but I mean an erroneously situated reserve or an isolated small reserve. Small reserves which are erroneously situated, may be excised and in that case they naturally become a White area and then the boundary has to be re-defined because the Bantu Government no longer exercises any power over those former little reserves but they will then fall under the ordinary administration like other White areas in South Africa. For that reason we have to have an elastic system in order to adjust it accordingly from time to time. The hon. member now objects to that, because he says Parliament will not be afforded the opportunity to decide on that. Surely, we have become used to having a statutory controlled process since 1936 according to which State-owned land or White land can be converted into Bantu areas and, secondly, the way in which Bantu reserves may be excised as a whole or in part to become White territories.

†We know the procedure, in terms of the 1936 Act, how White areas or State land can become Bantu reserves and vice versa, how Bantu reserves or part of them can become excised and become White areas. We also know that as in the case of Mdantsane, which the hon. member mentioned here just now, we can even come to Parliament and ask Parliament to approve of new released areas, as we did in 1963 or 1964 with regard to Mdantsane, where we found it necessary to add that area to the then existing Bantu reserve in order to build that town there. It was done by means of an extra released area and we excised another one instead of the new one that came there. That we can also do tomorrow or next year with regard to any other piece of land. In fact, Mdantsane was not the only area which we declared a new released area here in Parliament. In some cases we have to come to Parliament, if it is big stretches of land which we would like to declare new released areas.

What about declaring Soweto a homeland?

I do not know why the hon. member is so obsessed, like the hon. member for Kensington, with Soweto perhaps becoming a released area. In fact, the hon. member for Kensington also wrote a few years ago that Langa could become one in terms of an Act which was then passed here, which was quite impossible. There is only one way to do it.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member should rise when she wants to speak.

Sir, she has the traditional privilege in this House to speak whilst sitting, but I think I can reply to that question. The hon. member should know, and I think she really knows, that a place like Soweto or, for that matter, a place like Langa cannot become a Bantu homeland area unless this Parliament decides to add it as a released area to the list of released areas. That is the only way to do it and that will not be done by this Parliament as long as this party is in power, and that will be for always.

What have you got against Soweto?

When the hon. member for Rosettenville asks what I have against Soweto, it seems to me he wants to make Soweto a homeland area. I have nothing against Soweto as an urban Bantu residential area which is controlled in terms of the Urban Areas Act, but I have everything against Soweto being made a homeland area in terms of the Trust Act. Those hon. members should now tell us whether they want to suggest that we should do things such as these. The hon. member for Transkei referred to the provision in the Constitution of our country as regards provincial boundaries; to me this is not quite clear. I do not know in which way this could be at issue here. The hon. member should know that as far as the control and management of Bantu homeland areas are concerned in terms of all the various Acts we have had up to now, the provincial boundaries are of no great concern to us, because we control them as Bantu units. I cannot see how the argument as regards the provinces could be applicable here, but I should like to get a reply to my question.

I should like to reply. The hon. the Minister asked what our party’s policy would be after he has established a self-governing area and embarked on the constitutional development as set out in Chapter 2. I did not think it would be necessary, but I will start off by telling the Minister again what our policy is with regard to the Bantu reserves. Our policy is to allow the Bantu to manage their own affairs as far as possible in matters which intimately concern them, and we have said that they could develop to provincial status and beyond. [Interjection.] Give me a chance. We have repeated this so often that the Minister must know that is our policy. But we stick by the policy of Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Botha before him that this development of self-government will always be under the control or, as Gen. Hertzog put it, under the umbrella of the Central Parliament. That is our policy. Our leader has made it quite clear. When the Transkei Constitution Bill was passed—and I referred to it again during the Second Reading of this Bill— our leader stated quite definitely that we do not consider ourselves bound to carry out the promise of this Government to the Bantu in regard to the independence of those states. We made it quite clear that we do not consider ourselves bound. In other words, if a Bantu reserve has not yet been given independence under this Government, it will not get its independence under us.

It is not independence that we are discussing here today. It is the question of proclaiming an area a self-governing territory within the Republic, and my question is very plain and clear. Will you undo that area as a self-governing territory proclaimed in terms of this clause, yes or no?

I mentioned earlier in discussing this clause that we oppose the Bill for the Promotion of Self-government. We are opposed to it. The Minister asks whether we will revoke any proclamation which may be passed for a self-governing territory, and I say that this Government has never defined what it means by “self-governing”.

The whole Bill says it.

I am sorry, it does not. The Minister says the whole Bill says it. Let us refer to the Schedule and see what these self-governing states can do. Take section 2 of the schedule dealing with Bantu education. This section 2 of the schedule differs completely from the provisions of the Transkei Constitution about education. The State President by proclamation will say what these so-called self-governing states can do and I am not going to stand up here and answer hypothetical cases. Nobody knows, and that is my complaint against hon. members opposite. They do not know and we do not know what may be contained in that proclamation. It all depends on what is in force when we take over, because our policy is to allow a certain amount of self-government. I have said so. The powers given by the Minister under his proclamation may not be contrary to our policy of allowing them to manage their own affairs up to a certain stage, so we may keep it. But I do not know what provision the State President is going to make in his proclamation and what the position will be when we come into power. And none of those hon. members opposite know. The Minister knows what he intends to do, and he is the only man who knows. I say that if the powers which have been given to them fit into our policy, we will leave the position. We can always alter it to make it fit into what we think should be done, but certainly there will be no doubt about it and they will know that they are not going to get independence.

The situation we have here, is most farcical. The attitude adopted by the hon. member, is really one of “if” and “when” when he says “when this happens one day” and “if we come into power”. He keeps all the doors open. I did not ask him whether he was going to cancel the whole of the proclamation the contents of which are unknown to him at this moment. I asked him quite specifically whether his party was opposed to the fact that the concept of self-governing areas within the Republic as determined here should exist and whether he would cancel the system of the self-governing areas within the Republic, yes or no.

I explained that a moment ago.

No, the hon. member did not. What the hon. member did, was to cast the net far wider than I presented the matter to him. What is the point now? The point is that the hon. member did not reply to the question.

The hon. the Minister does not like his reply.

No, he replied to the question in his own way. But the hon. member evaded the crux of the question. I am now going to tell the hon. member why he evaded it. I am familiar with the position too, After all, the hon. member is not the only one who knows something about this position. The hon. member does not want to say “yes” and he does not want to say “no”. I shall tell hon. members why the hon. member is evading this. The hon. member cannot say today, “no, we shall not cancel the self-governing territory which has been proclaimed”, because then it is ridiculous of him to oppose it here today. Surely, if they are not going to oppose it one day, it can be passed today. For that reason he does not want to say “no”. The hon. member cannot say “yes” either. He cannot say, “yes, we shall undo the self-governing territory”, because then he knows I will ask him whether, when undoing that territory, he will also undo the Transkei, because the Transkei has been a self-governing territory in the Republic for the past seven years. The hon. members opposite wants to take over the government of the country, but he is unable to reply “yes” or “no” to the Bantu nations on a basic matter such as this, on the most vital provision in this Bill. They are a fine lot to want to govern a country.

I really do not understand this Minister. He listened to my address on clause 1 of the Bill when I explained why we were opposing it. I made it quite clear at that stage that we were not opposed to legislative assemblies or whatever they want to call them. What we oppose is the intent of the Government. I said that we must look at the preamble, because we cannot ignore it. I said that it is the preface to the whole Bill. The preamble makes it quite clear why this Bill is being introduced. The preamble says that provision must be made for the development of Bantu nations to self-government and independence. I said we were not going to appear to countenance or even tolerate any move in that direction. That is why we are opposing the whole of this Bill. That is why we are not talking on the clauses. To show our opposition to the plans of the Government, we are voting against each clause.

The Minister refers to the Transkei. He said that, if we get into power and repeal these proclamations, we will have to repeal the Transkei Act. When the Transkei Act was passed I said that it was not necessary to adopt the constitutional method of the Government in applying that Act. We were opposed to the way Dr. Verwoerd did it.

In 1947 Gen. Smuts said that he was going to amend the constitution of the old Bunga. It was not necessary to have an Act of Parliament to amend the Bunga as it was then. He said he was going to give executive power to the Bantu themselves to manage certain of their own affairs. The powers which have been given to the Transkei could have been given to the Bunga and Gen. Smuts indicated that that was what he was going to do. That was the start of our race federation plan. What we would not approve of is the flag and a separate anthem, unless the anthem of the Republic was also respected. But we were definitely opposed to the flag. Otherwise we could have accepted that the Transkei Constitution as something which could have been done under the old Bunga system. The hon. the Minister must not pretend that they have given something new to the Transkei. What was the importance of the Transkei? It was a statement made by Dr. Verwoerd that this was the start of the fragmentation of South Africa. That was the importance of the Transkei Constitution Act. It was not started by Gen. Hertzog as the hon. the Minister says.

Of course it was.

It is interesting to note that Mr. de Wet Nel, when he replied to the discussion on the Transkei Constitution Bill, referred to a speech made by Gen. Hertzog too to justify the fragmentation of the country. But what speech did he refer to? He referred to a speech made in 1925 and not to the speech made on the hon. the Minister’s birthday.

His speech was not made on my birthday. You are wrong again.

I thought it was to celebrate. The speech quoted by Mr. de Wet Nel also did not support the fragmentation of South Africa. It was about separate development. I think I will be ruled out of order if I deal with the question of fragmentation now, but I will do so during the discussion of the preamble.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a point made by the hon. the Minister in reply to the hon. member for Transkei where the hon. the Minister sought to use the powers to purchase under the 1936 legislation additional Bantu land to explain a point made by the hon. member for Transkei about the vagueness of the area to which these powers were to be applied. The hon. the Minister tried to make out that these were old powers of purchase and that there was nothing to be afraid of in that regard. There is all the difference in the world between the use of the obligation to purchase additional land under the 1936 legislation when it is applied to a future independent territory as opposed to it being applied merely to extra land for Native reserves within South Africa.

In the first instance, as it has been throughout our history since that legislation was passed prior to the time when we had this notion of sovereignty in respect of the Bantu areas, it was simply a question of purchasing additional land for the occupation of the Bantu people. All it was was an extended group area. This land was largely found from people who wished to sell to the Government for reasons of their own or from State land. The approach when one is dealing with a potential independent state is entirely different. You do not look to State land and to those White farmers who wish to sell in order to get the land to fulfil the quota. It is not done, because in both cases both those categories, namely State land and willing sellers, do not fit into the plan which the hon. the Minister has for the consolidation of the independent Black states. In most instances the hon. the Minister will be forced to look to unwilling sellers amongst the White farming community in order to get the land to bring about consolidation for a future Black state.

In other words, it will be compulsory purchase against the wishes of the ordinary people as opposed to using State land which does not harm anybody or purchasing from willing sellers when one is dealing with land which will remain part of South Africa. There is a crucial difference between the purchase of additional land under the 1936 legislation when your aim is merely living space for the Bantu people under the South African Government, because it does not matter, on that basis, how fragmented it is. This is quite different from buying land in order to fill in the White gaps between the Black areas for the purpose of consolidation with a view to an ultimate sovereign Black state. This is the crucial difference between the use of that power under the policy of this side of the House, which believes that these areas will remain part of South Africa, and the policy of the hon. the Minister, which is for a different reason altogether.

That is why our policies are incompatible.

I am very glad to hear the Chief Whip say that, because it is diametrically opposed to the argument of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the hon. member for Transkei is not clear to us. As a matter of fact, neither is his problem clear to us, because the hon. member said that self-government would be granted to the reserves “so far as possible”. He also said that powers to govern similar to those of the provinces and “beyond” would be granted them.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that I have allowed this discussion because the hon. the Minister put a question to the hon. member. This, however, does not fall under the clause. The hon. member must come back to the clause and not discuss their policy.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that I think that a reply to the argument advanced against clause 26 can only be given by referring to the argument of the hon. member for Transkei and the argument of the hon. member for Zululand. The question at this stage is, what is the answer to the situation, as anticipated in clause 26 or as anticipated by the hon. the Opposition? In this connection I want to make the point that the two hon. members are, in fact, contradicting each other and, when raising their objections to clause 26, should specifically tell us what they mean by self-government “as far as possible”. They should also tell us exactly what they mean by it when they say that a reserve may have power of government. To my mind the question put by the hon. the Minister is quite relevant, because it has a direct bearing on the solution which this side of the House has for this situation. I do not think we will be able to debate fruitfully unless the Opposition clarifies that point.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, here we have a clause which enables each of the self-governing territories which are to be created as a result of this legislation to be given a flag distinctive of that territory. It is one of the clauses in this Bill which, bearing in mind the stated intention in the Preamble and the stated intention of the hon. the Minister,—that the intention is that these territories will lead to ultimate sovereignty,—we object to because it constitutes some of the trappings of sovereignty. If these territories were to be merely self-governing territories within the Republic in the true sense of that term, that is to say something like a province such as we have in South Africa at the present time, then the granting of a flag to that body would be inappropriate. It is appropriate only in its official designation. It will be a flag which has an official designation only in respect of a territory, in respect of which this legislation is a prelude to sovereignty.

Flags really fall into two categories. You have the flag which is the emblem of a sovereign state or of a ruling house of a sovereign state. The South African flag is the emblem of a sovereign state. It is made up of the flags of a variety of self-governing territories, all of them sovereign. As I say, there is that type of flag, which is the South African flag, as we know it, and also the British flag, the Union Jack. One could also have a state flag, which is in reality the flag of the ruling house of that state. Those are flags appropriate to a sovereign state and inappropriate to a subordinate legislative body.

The provinces do not have flags.

Indeed as my friend here has reminded me. the provinces of South Africa, old established and responsible institutions as they are, do not have distinctive flags, while this clause lays down that the flag of these territories will be flown at all the principal and district offices of the legislative assembly concerned.

The other type of flag which there is, is an unofficial emblem, such as the flag of Wales, which is flown on unofficial occasions like the Welsh eisteddfod. There are also the various flags that one sees at occasions such as the Highland Games in Scotland, where more often than not you have flying as the flag for the occasion the flag of the Highland chieftain in whose area or under whose patronage those Highland Games are held. I think of Braemar, perhaps the most famous, which flies the flag of the Marquis of Aberdeen, who is the local chieftain. The other famous Highland games in Scotland are the Aboyne games, where the flag of the Marquis of Huntly is flown, he being the local chieftain. It is coincidence, perhaps that his wife is visiting South Africa at the present time. But now, these are flags which have a significance. They lend colour to the scene. They have an emotional appeal to the people who are there. But they are entirely unofficial. They have no official status whatever and they convey no notions. They are unrelated to a legislative body and they do not convey in any way the notion that this is an enclave or a power foreign to the government of that state. It is not this type of flag that I have just been describing which is to be attributed to these authorities in terms of clause 27. It is a flag which will ultimately be the flag to denote sovereignty. It is for that reason, principally, that we are opposed to it.

Now, Sir, these flags are to be flown, according to this clause, together with the South African national flag, at the building where the legislative assembly holds its sessions and the principal administrative office and all main district offices of the government of the territory. This brings about an interesting thought. At the present time, in so far as Natal is concerned, with one or two rare exceptions, every district office—that is to say, the office of the administering authority of those reserves, the magistrate or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner—is within the White area of the Republic of South Africa. Are we to have the position, in terms of this legislation, that we are to have flying within the territory of South Africa—not in the Bantu areas—the national flag of a self-governing territory in addition to the flag of the Republic of South Africa? Because if that is the case, then it is an entirely incongruous situation, and if it is not the case, then it means that somehow or other the hon. gentleman has to bring about the state of affairs whereby all the district offices of these native Reserves at present situated in the White areas are to be placed in a Reserve under the jurisdiction of that legislature, and this can be done in only two ways, either the incorporation of the administrative centres, the White towns, into the Native areas, or the re-establishment of those administrative centres with new buildings, new towns and all that that denotes within the Native Reserve. Whichever way one approaches this, it is a ridiculous state of affairs. Sir, I say again that we are against this clause not only because it is inappropriate to provide a flag for a subordinate legislature within one’s own country, but because this is a forerunner and a clear indication that the hon. the Minister is aiming these territories in the direction of sovereign independence.

The hon. member actually made only one point to which I have to reply, and quite an important and interesting point at that, namely the point about the districts. But all the same, I would just like to say something about the hon. member’s first point. The hon. member pointed out that they are opposing the flag clause because the flag would be a sign of independence, of sovereignty, something which they oppose in respect of Bantu homeland areas. We have known for some time that this is their attitude and we can only take note of it. We are poles apart on that point. But I do want to tell the hon. member this: He should realize that seen from our side, since we base our standpoint on the perfectly natural and clearly perceptible reality of multi-nationalism in South Africa, it goes without saying that there can be outward symbols to promote the concept and sense of being a separate people among coherent communities. Language is one of the things which promotes the sense of coherence of people who belong together as one people, and here is one of the symbols, as in the next clause, by means of which we can promote the coherence of people in order that the Zulu may feel they belong together, the Tswana may feel they belong together, and the Venda, etc. For that reason I can tell the hon. member that in the stage in which the Bantu areas now are, the flag actually falls into the second category of the two mentioned by the hon. member, that is, to promote coherence, in terms of our view of multi-national development; that this may lead to ultimate independence is inherent in our policy, and we know that hon. members opposite oppose it.

Possible ultimate independence.

Sir, there is a voice from the spectral world again.

Those are your own words.

What about the Coloured people; are they going to get a flag?

Mr. Chairman. I now come to the hon. member’s second point, where he spoke of the district offices. It is true that in Natal and in certain other parts of our country there are at present district offices in White areas too that administer Bantu areas. This is true, but I think the hon. member knows by now that that position is changing very rapidly. The hon. member will now feel spare if I have to remind him once again of the fact that we inserted a provision into the General Law Amendment Act in this House last year, for which that side voted unanimously without knowing what they were voting for. This was one of the most fundamental segregational provisions to bring about segregation between Bantu and Whites in South Africa, in which we stipulated that separate districts consisting of different sections may be established. That provision was necessary to enable us to do what we are doing now, i.e. to establish separate districts consisting exclusively of Bantu areas and then over against that to have districts which are exclusively White areas. In certain provinces we have already made very great progress with the rearrangement of district areas and the redrawing of district boundaries in order that a Bantu homeland area, a certain group of reserves or one reserve will no longer be situated in a Bantu area as well as in a White district, but that the boundary between the White district and the Bantu district will be on the boundary of the reserve so that the White area will be one district and the Bantu area another, and this will also be carried out in respect of Natal; and then we will be able to establish the offices of the Bantu district within that Bantu district itself. It will not be possible to do this all at once, because you have to erect and furnish offices and you will for the time being still have to have offices in the White areas as well. But this is an entirely temporary phenomenon, because it is now legally possible to establish districts for the Bantu which are Bantu districts only, leaving the White areas of South Africa as White districts only. Consequently that point is already being solved in the process of the adjustment of district boundaries.

I was very interested in the hon. gentleman’s reply to the points I made in regard to the flying of two flags at the district headquarters of a legislative authority. The hon. gentleman said that he would use the power given last year to readjust the boundaries of the magisterial districts to bring about the state of affairs that a magistrate in the Department of Justice looks after the White area and a Native Commissioner in the Department of Bantu Administration looks after the Bantu areas. Sir, that may be, and we were quite aware of the reasons for the legislation when it was passed last year. But it still means that where the existing magisterial headquarters are situated in a White area, which is the case in the great majority of instances, a new headquarters will have to be built in the new Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s area of jurisdiction in the Native Reserve …

I said that.

… to bring about the situation where the headquarters is situated in the Native Reserve because in more cases than one—indeed, in all the cases that I know of—there is only one magisterial building and headquarters in respect of each of the magisterial areas and in respect of each of the areas of the Bantu Commissioner’s court. There is not another building to which the Bantu Affairs authority can shift. It means the building afresh, of an entirely new headquarters in every instance, and it means establishing those headquarters in most instances in areas where there is no town, because in most of these Native Reserves there is only one town; so if that is the hon. the Minister’s intention, then at least we understand it even if we do not approve of it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 28:

Here is another clause which seeks to cloak the embryo tribal states in the trappings of sovereign independence, which we on this side of the House certainly find repugnant. But I want to raise a matter concerning this clause which is of grave concern to us on this side of the House, even though it has clearly been disregarded, and I think with apparent cynicism, by the hon. the Minister and his colleagues in the Government. It is that this section is in conflict with the provisions of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

Clause 27, the clause we have just dealt with—and I must ask the Committee to consider the words carefully—states that there shall be a flag for each self-governing territory, which after acceptance by the Legislative Assembly of the territory shall be flown side by side with the national flag of the Republic. Clause 28 provides— and I am reading from subsection (2)—that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare any literary work recommended in terms of subsection (1) to be the national anthem of the territory referred to in the said proclamation. What is referred to is not just “an” anthem as in the case of the flag, which would have made his clause parallel with the flag clause, but a national anthem which will be “the” national anthem of the territory. The territory at this stage—and the Minister has himself said so already—at the self-governing stage envisaged by clause 28, will still be an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. Now section 6 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act provides that the national anthem of the Republic shall be “Die Stem Van Suid-Afrika”. It is clear that in coming to the House with this Bill the hon. the Minister intended to provide for a difference of approach between the method adopted for the flag of a self-governing territory and that adopted for a territory’s national anthem. He intended to override the Constitution and has set out to do so, I submit, in a particularly arrogant fashion. In fact, the clear-cut provisions of the Constitution are not even mentioned either in this clause or in this Bill as a whole. [Interjection.] I am referring to section 6 of the Constitution. Yet the Minister is overriding it. Is that not clear to the Minister yet? Just nod your head as you wanted the hon. member for Transkei to do.

I will reply to that.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

The most charitable thing one might say, is that the hon. the Minister has been hamhanded, but I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that he has in this clause set out deliberately to flout the provisions of our Constitution and that he has chosen not to make this apparent to this House. This, I might add, betrays more than just a passing disregard for our Constitution, for he has not only set out to override its provisions but also to provide for the continuous overriding of it merely by way of proclamation. What is worse, this Committee and this Parliament are still, I emphasize, being kept in ignorance even in respect of the area over which he proposes to apply this, and nothing that the hon. gentleman has said so far has satisfied us that he himself knows what the boundaries of these self-governing areas are to be. Our objections to the various provisions of this Bill have already been stated by various speakers on this side of the House. One of our objections is against the move to grant the embryo tribal states the beginnings of their independence, and to do it administratively by by-passing this Parliament. This clause, which is designed to allow the recognition of national anthems at the will of the Minister, contains the entire situation in microcosm. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate I put it to the hon. Minister that, as he pushes these homelands towards independence, he will have to ensure that the allegiances of their people progressively wane towards the Republic and that their new loyalties towards their tribal states grow. I stated that this process will have to start long before actual independence comes about. In typical fashion this hon. Minister distorted what I said in my speech; the actual point that I raised has still not been replied to by him. We object to what the hon. Minister is seeking to do through this clause and we object to the way in which he proposes to by-pass both the Constitution and this House in doing so. First, hon. members on that side of the House should realize that the inevitable result of this clause will be that not a single Bantu person in South Africa, as it is today, will recognize our national anthem, “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, as anything but a foreign anthem. In fact, the position of “Die Stem” will be relegated much to the position of “God save the Queen” in the Republic today. In other words, even at the pre-independence stage, “Die Stem” will have been jettisoned in a large part of the Republic, with the official blessing of this Government, by the majority of the people of our country. It will remain, merely, the national anthem of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. In other words, in this way we are going to have a type of anthem apartheid with our national anthem applying and being recognized by a minority of the people in this country.

This formed the basis of the Opposition’s point of view when the Transkei Constitution Bill came before this House in 1963, when provision was made for “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!” to be the official anthem of the Transkei. I submit that the position here is far more serious. The Minister is asking this House to allow him by proclamation to decree that various parts of our country shall have anthems other than our national anthem, while they are still part and parcel of the Republic. What is more, of course, Parliament does not even know the boundaries of these areas. The drawing of these future international boundaries is of course, being reserved for the Minister and the people in his department, who will commit this country to its destiny without this Parliament knowing beforehand when, where and how it is to be done. That, to put it at its lowest, is a course of tactical madness.

This hon. Minister has given us no guidelines to enable us to evaluate what he is seeking to do through this clause. It is well known, of course, that “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!” is claimed not only as the national song of the Xhosas of the Transkei, but also by the Zulus and by the Xhosas of the Ciskei and I dare say by others as well. “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika” is of course a very beautiful and inspiring song, but what we cannot lose sight of, is the fact that this anthem has already become a song of Pan-Africanism in Southern Africa and elsewhere. It is, for example, already the national anthem of a Black state in East Africa. During the debate on the Transkei Constitution Bill the hon. member for Marico told this Committee that the fact that it had been made the national anthem of the Transkei would preclude its use by any other national group inside or outside this country. I wonder how many times the hon. member for Marico has had to swallow those words and how bitter he has found them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that we are making good progress with this Bill, and for that reason I do not want to take up the time of the House for long. I just want to refer briefly to a few points that were dealt with by the hon. member for Kensington.

In regard to this clause the hon. member for Kensington referred to the provisions in our Constitution in which “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” is being recognized. “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” is being recognized as the national anthem of the Republic. In this Bill nothing is being done in the nature of taking any Bantu homeland out of the Republic. The very most that can be done by means of this Bill, is to declare a Bantu area to be a self-governing territory within the Republic. Consequently the position of “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” as the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa and declared to be such in terms of the Constitution, is not being affected. It will only be affected and possible to oust it if an independent state were to be established; that is not the case in this Bill. Furthermore, the comparison drawn between a flag and a national anthem is only useful up to a certain level. As symbols a flag and a national anthem are not quite identical with each other. Pre-eminently a flag is the symbol of a country and a national anthem is the song of a people unlike in the case of a flag, which is a symbol of a country. For instance, it would be possible to find that a country could cope without an official national anthem rather than without an official flag. Therefore, the use of a flag and the use of a national anthem are not an absolutely identical case within the borders of a country. I think the hon. member went a little too far with his comparison of the provisions in respect of the flag as compared to the provisions contained in our Constitution in regard to the flag, and, secondly, the provisions in regard to a national anthem in this Bill as compared to the national anthem of the Republic. That is all I have to say in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister has actually read this Bill. Perhaps he has lost the meaning of words. I would like to read clause 28 to him. It reads as follows—

1. (1) As soon as it is expedient the legislative assembly of a self-governing territory shall submit a recommendation to the State President for a National Anthem for that territory.
2. (2) The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare any literary work recommended in terms of subsection (1) to be the National Anthem of the territory referred to in the said proclamation.

Is this not the clearest language of all? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is making interjections but I cannot hear what he is saying. I want to submit that this is absolutely clear language. I am trying to convey to him, although it seems a little difficult, that this is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, which says that the national anthem of the Republic shall be “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”. Or is this hon. Minister now going to tell us that clause 28 will not apply until one of these homelands gets sovereign independence? Is that the position? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will now care to nod or shake his head?

I will reply to you in audible terms.

This is the simplest question of all. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether clause 28 will apply at the pre-sovereign independence stage, or can he not tell us that? If it is to apply before a homeland gets sovereign independence, clause 28 is clearly in conflict with section 6 of the Constitution. It is as simple as that.

While we are at it, I want to come back to the national anthem of the Transkei. I was saying earlier that “’Nkosi Sikelel’i” is a beautiful song. It is an inspiring song. It is invariably moving to those who hear it. But in the light of the fact that this is a song generally accepted by the Zulus and the Xhosas of the Ciskei, what will the hon. the Minister’s attitude be if the legislative assemblies of the Ciskei—assuming that the Ciskei is not going to be incorporated with the Transkei, which is another thing we do not know—and of Zululand want “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika” as their national anthem? Will the hon. the Minister agree to it? This is the simplest question imaginable. Will the hon. the Minister then lend himself to the type of Pan-Africanism that has given rise to the use of this song far beyond the borders of South Africa? Or, for instance, African nationalism that made it the song of the bus boycott in Johannesburg? Is he going to lend himself to that? I do not think this hon. Minister has the slightest idea of what he is doing. I think he is moving blindfold in the dark. He does not know what he is starting and he does not know how it is going to end.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is free to adopt his haughty attitude in his unreadable newspaper articles, but here he is not going to get anywhere with that attitude. I want to reply first to the last point made by the hon. member, when he referred to “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!” The position with “’nKosie Sikelel’i-Afrika!” as regards one or two Bantu peoples in South Africa, is very much on a par with what the position of “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” used to be in our country for a long time, i.e. that of being an unofficial national anthem. At many places in certain homelands, especially those of the Xhosas and the Zulus, I have come across “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!” as a song which they sing there without the song having received any statutory recognition whatever as a national anthem as it is sung there by them. It is by no means a foregone conclusion, as the hon. member wants to suggest, that all the other Bantu peoples are going to adopt “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!”.

But what would happen if they did so?

The hon. member should keep his mouth shut when he is seated. He objected when I opened mine while he was speaking. The hon. member objected when I wanted to correct him by way of interjection. I have the right to object to that. I am telling him now that he should try to learn manners here.

The Chair is there to see to that.

Yes, the Chair sees to that.

We do not know whether the Xhosas or the Zulus will ask for “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!” to be recognized as their national anthem. It is possible that they will do so, because they already recognize it unofficially. But now the hon. member is suggesting that if it were recognized, we would be realizing a Pan-Africanist aim here. I find it strange that the hon. member has now become afraid of Pan-Africanism. He wrote so much that promoted it, that I am grateful now that he is becoming afraid of it.

Order! The hon. the Minister must come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have finished with that point.

Now, the hon. member said that I had not read this provision in the Bill and that I did not understand this “simple word”, as he put it. But that was an extremely simple observation to make. But I want to tell the hon. member that he did not understand the simple Afrikaans words I used a moment ago.

†Mr. Chairman, I indicated just now that the provisions of clause 28 deal with an anthem for an area …

The anthem!

… the anthem for …

The national anthem.

Who is speaking now, the hon. member sitting over there, or I? Mr. Chairman, that hon. member can get up and make a speech if he did not put his case properly just now.

I just wanted to get it right.

This clause here makes provision for an anthem for a Native people in a self-governing territory. I explained to the hon. member just now, when he did not listen, that a self-governing territory according to this Bill can exist only within the Republic, and the Constitution of the Republic makes provision for a national anthem, “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, for the Republic. In other words, the national anthem of the Republic, in terms of the Republican Constitution, is also still the anthem in this self-governing territory. [Interjections.] It is not necessary to put it in this Bill, because this Bill does not make provision for any type of area other than an area within the Republic. It is very clear for a clear mind, but not for an unclear mind.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that the national anthem for the self-governing territories will be “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, because as he has so rightly said, the self-governing territories will still be part of the Republic of South Africa. What does the clause say? I quote—

That is diametrically opposed to what the hon. the Minister has just said. It is the legislature of the self-governing territory, which is an integral part—to use the Minister’s own words—of the Republic, which is to submit a recommendation regarding its national anthem. What does it go on to say in the second part? I quote—

That is the Republican State President—

The State President can only “declare” in the South African Government Gazette in respect of an area of land which is part of the Republic. We cannot “declare” in our Gazette in respect of a foreign territory. Nothing could be clearer from both parts of this clause. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, we are here empowering a subordinate legislative body within the Republic of South Africa to have a national anthem at the same time as “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, which is also the national anthem of that territory. There is the clearest possible conflict. In addition to the clauses of the Constitution referred to by the hon. member for Kensington, section 6 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act says, in simple terms—and I quote—

Nothing could be clearer than that. The hon. the Minister is misinformed and he has unintentionally, I presumed, misinformed the House on this point. I say this because what is intended and stated in the clearest possible language in clause 28 is that it is the self-governing legislative assembly of a self-governing territory, which is part of the Republic of South Africa, which shall submit a recommendation to the State President for a national anthem. Then the State President shall, if he wishes, proclaim in the Gazette that literary work as the national anthem of the territory concerned. Nothing could be clearer. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, nothing could be clearer than that there is undoubtedly a conflict between this clause and the clear terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear that this Bill does not reflect the Minister’s intention. The hon. the Minister states that he wishes the position to be that the present national anthem of the Republic should continue to be the national anthem for the territories in question. That is his clear intention which he stated here. Our argument is that it is quite clear on the wording that he is displacing the national anthem so far as the territory itself is concerned. The hon. the Minister should know better than anybody else that it is perfectly possible for a subsequent Act to repeal by implication a previous Act. This is what, in effect, this Bill is doing in the clearest language. It is stating quite clearly that that anthem which is recommended and adopted for the purpose shall be the national anthem of the territory. He must therefore explain to us how he has not displaced the national anthem, “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, as the national anthem of the territory by the provisions of this clause.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister another question which he might answer at the same time. If he will look at the previous clause, clause 27, where there is mention of the flag, it is clear that the provision is that the flag shall be flown side by side with the national flag of the Republic.

Do you want them to sing the national anthems together? [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. He made special provision, so as not to confuse the issue, that the two flags should be flown together. Here it provides for the national anthem of the self-governing territory. He says at the same time that that territory must acknowledge the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa. Does he want them sung together? This is a very important matter. It specifically refers to the flag which in addition must be flown with the flag of the Republic, because he does not want to deny the flag of the Republic to that integral portion of the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken, even had his good old friend laughing, i.e. the hon. member for East London City, for it seems to me he wants to suggest that we should now provide in the Act that the two anthems are to be sung together as well, just as the two flags are to be flown side by side.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Zululand, who also spoke here about the position. I think the hon. members for Zululand and Pinelands are merely playing here with words. [Interjections.] Yes, if only the noise would subside, I would show them why. The hon. member should take a look at it. I put it to the hon. member that the reference to “the” national anthem, which is to be found in subsection (2), is merely an indication of “the” anthem to which reference is made in subsection (1). In subsection (1) the provision of “a national anthem” is to be found. In subsection (2) the mention of those words merely constitutes a reference to the first subsection. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only give me a chance to speak to the hon. member for Zululand, I would put something to him.

Perhaps I could help you.

No, the help of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I do not even want as a gift. I just want to remind hon. members opposite, for it is obvious to me that they do not know this, that the Transkei Constitution Act contains words of exactly the same tenor, the only difference being that the name of the anthem is mentioned. It provides that the national anthem of the Transkei shall be “’Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika!”.

That is just as wrong.

Now the hon. member says, “That is just as wrong.” The matter is proved by what has happened over the past seven years. Has “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” never been recognized there as a national anthem? It has been recognized; this is something those hon. members opposite know very well. If I were to go there to open the Transkeian Parliament, “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” would be played. If the State President goes there, it will be played in his honour. When I go there, it is not played in my honour, but because it is a recognized national anthem.

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

The hon. the Minister asked in regard to clause 28 whether this side of the House want two anthems sung together. I am sure that if he should ask his legal advisers they will tell him that the language which he has chosen to use in this clause, read in the context of the Bill as a whole, makes it quite clear that one anthem is displaced. The national anthem of the Republic is displaced by the clear wording of clause 28. The court’s interpretation would be that there is only one national anthem in the territory in question. This is quite clear.

This view is fortified by the language of clause 27. I think it would be as well to dwell upon it for a moment. Clause 27 speaks of “a flag for each self-governing territory” and that it shall be flown “side by side with the national flag of the Republic”. Note: A flag for the territory flown side by side with the national flag of the Republic. Now, when we come to the clause under discussion namely clause 28, there is reference only to “the National Anthem of the territory”. There is no reference whatsoever to the national anthem of the Republic which may be sung together with it or on the same occasion. There is exclusively reference to the “national anthem” of the territory. The hon. the Minister sought to draw some comfort from the wording of clause 28 (1), namely that a recommendation shall be submitted for a national anthem for that territory. But that language does not help him at all. In fact, it makes things only clearer in the absence of anything to suggest that by this clause the intention is not to displace the present national anthem of the Republic as the anthem of the territory. The language in this clause is far clearer than in regard to the Transkei. But it may be that in regard to the Transkei Constitution Act the language does displace the national anthem of the Republic as the national anthem for the Transkei as well. The fact that the hon. the Minister may have been received in the Transkei with the national anthem of the Republic together with the anthem of the Transkei in no way can affect the legal position. If the matter is brought to court, the courts decide on legal principles. It is a basic legal principle that clear language in a subsequent law can repeal a provision in an earlier law. I would have thought that the language of clauses 27 and 28 make it quite clear that the intention of the legislature is that for the territory in question it shall obtain a national anthem and thereby displace the national anthem of the Republic.

We are told by the hon. the Minister that this is not what he wants. We assume that he is maintaining that. If that is his attitude, he should make his intention clear and amend this clause so as to bring it in accordance with his intention.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister has a very careful look at this clause. I do so in all seriousness because I think it could lead to a great deal of embarrassment. I have no doubt in my own mind that if you have a self-governing territory as part of the Republic, which is a conceivable thought, you must at least not have any trappings which will conflict with the overall authority, namely the Republic, the country of which this territory forms an integral part, or which could lead to what could be most embarrassing situations. One must bear in mind what the hon. the Minister said, namely that when he goes to a function there, he hears the national anthem sung, and that he then hears another song, which he has described as something traditional to the people of the Transkei and the Zulu people, and which in the Republic itself over many years has virtually been elevated to the plane of a hymn. It has very beautiful music; it is usually very beautifully performed by a choir. It is something which does lend a tremendous amount of dignity, from a cultural point of view, to functions which the Bantu people hold in the townships near our large cities. I say that it is not right that any confusion should exist in a matter of this nature. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can deny the fact that there cannot be two national anthems for one group of people, no matter what form of government or authority they have. It is a most incongruous situation to find two anthems …

Order! I wish to call upon the hon. member for Jeppes to advance new arguments. That argument has been used over and over already.

In deference to your ruling, Sir, all I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister is that I think it is right that he should avoid confusion in the matter. That is an important aspect because the hon. the Minister has not explained to us satisfactorily what he really means. He has referred to another statute, but that statute cannot be criticized at this stage. In the interests of the people the hon. the Minister feels he is assisting and whom he is trying to elevate to some form of authority, he should clarify the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry for having to enter into an altercation with my hon. neighbour once again, but unfortunately I cannot choose my neighbours. In that respect I am like Langenhoven, the famous author. I have trouble with the neighbours all the time. Sir, the Minister said that whenever the President or whenever he himself paid a visit to the Transkei, “Die Stem” was in fact played. Surely, this has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional and the legal position obtaining there. After all, we play “God Save the Queen” whenever a British rugby team plays rugby here. It is merely good manners to do so. It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional position. In fact, I should imagine that if the Queen of England were to pay us a visit here, we should also play “God Save the Queen” for her. This is something which is done out of good manners. But what does the Bill say in effect? This clause is divided into two subsections, subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) is the preceding clause and provides what they can do, and reference is made in it to “a national anthem”. But subsection (2), which is obviously the operative part, provides that once that national anthem has been proposed or declared to be such, it does in fact become “the national anthem”, and for that reason it is to the exclusion of “Die Stem” and by implication it affects the National Anthem clause in our Constitution; that is why I should like to say that the particular argument used by the hon. the Minister cannot hold water, for the operative part is definitely subsection (2). To my mind this is an extremely poor way to treat our national anthem, i.e. the fact that it may be changed and excluded simply by proclamation. I think that in this clause our national anthem has not been treated with the necessary respect.

The hon. member who has just spoken, is just as confused here as he apparently is in his constituency. He says he did not choose his neighbour, but he did, Sir. I had been the member for the neighbouring constituency for many, many years before he came along; he crawled into it afterwards. His arguments here are just as out of line. The hon. member achieved great success in his constituency because he did not make any speeches there during the election. He will achieve more success here, too, if he will also refrain from making any speeches here during these five years.

The hon. member for Jeppes, who used to be in Florida—I do not know whether this one is also going to land in Jeppes in due course—mentioned one point that was new, for the other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Pinelands, who also spoke here, really did nothing but repeat points to which I had replied before business was suspended. But the hon. member for Jeppes did at least mention one little point; it is only a minor point, but I have risen to reply to it. He referred to the confusion which could be created by this wording, and there are quite a number of head-nodding minions who agree. Sir, I cannot see what confusion these words may create. Sir, for seven years the Transkei has been furnishing us with proof to the effect that these words need not create any confusion, because exactly the same wording was used in the Transkei Constitution Act.

That does not mean that it is correct.

No, it proves only one thing to the hon. member for East London City, i.e. that it has worked satisfactorily and that it has not created any confusion, as is feared by the hon. member. There is no statutory provision whatsoever which prescribes how the national anthem is to be used, where it is to be used and when it is to be sung, because those things are determined by the practice over the years, by the custom …

There are only two official national anthems.

… and the customs have ensured a satisfactory course of events in the Transkei, and that will also be the case here.

I should have liked to ask the hon. the Minister a question, but he would probably have told me to make a speech. Therefore, I shall make a speech instead. I should just like to obtain clarity from the hon. the Minister on one fact, i.e. whether it is the intention, the clear intention of the hon. the Minister, that the national anthem of South Africa should also receive recognition in the territory of that particular Bantu Council. Is that the intention of the hon. the Minister; does he want it that way or does he not care whether or not the national anthem of South Africa receives recognition there? This is a cardinal question, for if the hon. the Minister tells me that he does not care … [Interjection.] No, but the hon. the Minister is sitting still; he does not say “yes” or “no”.

I do not speak with my head, but with my tongue.

With all due respect. Sir, next time the hon. the Minister speaks, he should stand in front of a mirror, and then he will see what aids, apart from his tongue, he uses in talking.

Have you tried it?

Yes, I know how I speak. If the hon. the Minister tells me that he does not want any recognition of the national anthem of South Africa, then I shall object, but that is a separate matter. If the hon. the Minister tells me that he does want the national anthem of South Africa to be recognised …

Order! The hon. member is now repeating not only the arguments of other hon. members, but also his own.

If the hon. the Minister tells me that he wants recognition, I say that the clause does not say that to this Committee. Sir, let me put the matter this way, in comparison with the Constitution of South Africa; then it will read as follows: The national anthem of South Africa shall, in terms of the Constitution of South Africa, receive recognition in the whole of South Africa, except in the area covered by this particular clause. The hon. the Minister can now tell me that I am wrong constitutionally; then I shall say that I am not wrong, for the hon. the Minister should not forget that this Bill is essentially no different from the Constitution of South Africa; both of them are just ordinary laws, and to the extent to which this Bill deals with an area, to that extent it excludes the recognition of the national anthem of South Africa.

Order! That is precisely the argument which the hon. member for Pinelands used.

I am now asking the hon. the Minister precisely what he wants.

Sir, when I tell the hon. member that I do not talk with my head, but with my tongue, then he should realize this, for he has been in this House long enough. Furthermore, he was a member here before and he was also in the Other Place. He should realize that when I make an interjection while I am seated, I do not address the Chair, as all of us sometimes do in contravention of the Rules, but when I have to reply officially, I have to rise and present my case properly. If the hon. member had been here before business was suspended …

I was.

… and if he had read the Bill properly …

I did.

… and if the hon. member duly and properly applied the intelligence he has, and if the hon. member would now listen to what I am going to say in repetition of what I said before, I want to tell the hon. member, in reply to his question, that he need not present to us a lot of hypotheses here. In other words, he need not set up skittles merely to knock them down himself. Before business was suspended I very explicitly stated—the hon. member should read what is said in this Bill—that this Bill made provision for a national anthem for that particular territory; in terms of our Constitution “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” is the national anthem for the Republic …

The only national anthem?

… and in this Bill it is stated explicitly that we are making provision here for these territories up to the highest stage of development as territories within the Republic. In other words, the Constitution provides that “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” shall be the national anthem of the Republic. But “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, intact, is in addition still a national anthem of those territories which are being dealt with in this Bill. Therefore, the hon. member need not ask me whether I recognize it or whether I do not want to recognize it. The constitutional position is that “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” is the recognized national anthem also for the Bantu areas in South Africa, which may, in terms of this Bill, become self-governing territories within the Republic. That is very clear.

Order! Just before calling upon the hon. member for Maitland to speak, I want to warn hon. members not to indulge in repetition. A lengthy debate has been conducted on this clause, and hon. members have lately been repeating arguments all the time. I will tolerate no further repetition.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is the last person who should lecture to me as regards sitting still. He is the person who this very afternoon …

Speak to the clause.

I just want to say with all due respect that the hon. the Minister teaches us a lesson without learning that lesson himself. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister for having told me what he did here; now we know where he stands, but I want to tell him now that this clause is wrong.

Now that we know what the hon. the Minister means, i.e. that there will in fact be two national anthems, I should like to ask him to explain to us, in the light of the history of South Africa, and especially in the light of the amount of discord which, according to the standpoint of the Nationalist Party, prevailed in this country while South Africa had two national anthems, how he reconciles these things with this step which is now going to be forced upon the proposed independent or semi-independent states.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and P. C. Roux.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman, and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clauses Twenty-nine to Thirty-six put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, T. Langley, P. C. Roux and H. D. K. van der Merwe.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Clauses Thirty-seven to Forty put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, T. Langley, P. C. Roux and H. D. K. van der Merwe.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clauses accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Preamble:

Mr. Chairman, it is a noteworthy fact that in discussing this most important Bill tonight, the most momentous bit of legislation, as I have said earlier, which the Nationalist Government has ever introduced, there are only 68 Nationalist members of Parliament here to support this measure. That is indicative of the reluctance …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this preamble.

I am confining myself to the preamble.

I am sorry, the hon. member is not.

I am referring to the response of the country to the nature of this Bill.

That is a Third Reading speech. The hon. member is not referring to the preamble of this Bill.

Anyhow, I have made the point that the ordinary Nationalist member does not support the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

For the information of the Government members who have not read this Bill, I should like to read the preamble. It reads as follows:

If amended as I have moved, the preamble will read:

The first words amended are the description of the Bantu. In the preamble they are referred to as Bantu nations. In my amendment they are referred to as Bantu population groups. We on this side of the House do not approve of the word “Bantu nations” in this context. The Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act is referred to in this Bill which we are now considering, because the second phase of this Bill proposes to make the Bantu areas self-governing areas. I should like to refer hon. members to the preamble to the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act. There the Bantu are described as follows:

That was the description given in 1959 when the concept of Bantu self-government was brought forward by Dr. Verwoerd. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister Why he has now changed the description to “Bantu nations”. Why did the hon. the Minister not abide by the description given in the Bantu Self-government Act?

Then I move on to the second leg of my amendment, i.e. to delete the word “independence” and to substitute therefor “self-government within the Republic of South Africa”. In considering the preamble the most important words in the preamble are “the development to independence”. The hon. the Minister, in reply to me earlier while we were discussing one of the other clauses, said that this Bill does not give independence and that it only goes as far as self-government. That is why I say we have to read the Bill with the preamble. If the Minister will refer to his White Paper he will see that the White Paper says the following in its introduction, and I quote:

It is quite clear from the White Paper that the words used in the preamble are meaningful, because that is what is intended by this Bill. We have to take note of what the Government itself says in this White Paper. When we consider what is meant by independence, we will realize that it means one thing. It means that for a nation to become independent and for an area to become independent, it must be cut off from the rest of the Republic. There must be this fragmentation of the Republic. The Minister dealt with this in his reply to the Second Reading debate, when we referred to the preamble and the words used therein. He said that this is nothing new. He almost suggested that the idea of the fragmentation of the Republic was traditional. In the first instance he referred us to a speech which was made by Gen. Hertzog in 1913.

On the Minister’s birthday.

No, the speech was not made on his birthday. Genl. Botha kicked Genl. Hertzog out of his Cabinet on the Minister’s birthday. In the same year, however, Genl. Hertzog made this speech. But when the Transkei Constitution Bill was discussed in this House we quoted from a speech made by Genl. Hertzog in 1913, the very same year referred to by the hon. the Minister. This is what he said, and I quote—

*Yes, that is what he proposed. He did not propose separate development, and by that I mean separate from the Union, but as a part of the Union under the Union Government. The words he used in 1936 were “under the umbrella of the Union Government”.

†Reference was also made to Genl. Botha. I want to read what Genl. Botha as Prime Minister said on the 16th May, 1913, in this very House. I quote—

There the first Prime Minister of the Union said in this House what he proposed for the Africans, the Bantu or the “Naturellen”. Then we have Genl. Hertzog talking in a similar vein in 1913. We are adamant, and I want this Minister or any other Nationalist Member of Parliament to get up and prove the contrary, that until Dr. Verwoerd came forward with the idea of fragmentation of the Republic, no other statesman proposed that method or system. I would like to remind hon. members again, although they have heard it so often, that when Dr. Verwoerd proposed this fragmentation, he made it quite clear that this was not what they wanted, but that this course had been forced upon him from outside. So I say that this policy of fragmentation is not one which is traditional to this country and not one which we can support. The hon. the Minister has indicated that if this fragmentation comes about by proclamation it will be of Bantu areas, the boundaries of which we know at present or which we will know at that time. In the first place I have indicated that our main objection to this Bill is that it puts the Bantu areas on the way to independence in terms of the Preamble. We are opposed to that.

In the second place, although independence is not granted in this Bill, it provides the road to independence. The Minister said that once this step has been taken, there is no return. It is irrevocable, because it would be immoral to go back on that path. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in entering this Committee Stage and in supporting the hon. member in his amendment, I feel that one must clarify certain points. Firstly, there are two principles involved that we are discussing now—the principle of sovereign independence, as stated in the preamble to the Bill, and the principle, as stated in the amendment, of self-government within the Republic of South Africa. I believe that in discussing these matters, one has to deal with the consequences and the implications of these two separate principles. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the hon. member for Germiston to enter the debate, because he made an offer during the Second Reading debate, to the Opposition that, if the word “independence” was removed, we could have a very high level of debate. Perhaps he could even be persuaded to vote with us later this evening.

The Minister has told us that this Bill is necessary. He says that it is necessary that he should be enabled to advance these territories to self-government and independence, and the Preamble confirms this, I say to the Minister, no matter how confused he gets about the meanings of the words “possible” and “probable”, necessity is a very strange thing. It has been described as the plea for every infringement of every human right, as the argument of tyrants and as the creed of slaves. This is what the word “necessity” has been described as in the past. The Minister, in replying to me during the Second Reading debate, when I raised the question of the consequences of independence, in particular with reference to the labour force in this country, said that I had used an ugly expression when I referred to the lasting peace and stability of the labour force in the Republic of South Africa. He insinuated that we on this side of the House wished only to use the Bantu as a labour force. Now what is the truth? I ask hon. members to ask themselves what is the truth. I would say that the truth, when faced squarely, is very often an unpalatable and a very ugly thing. The undeniable truth is that this side of the House has repeatedly advanced the argument of the full use of our labour force and of bringing these people up to a stable middle class by an ordered advance, as well as to bring them to elements of self-government within their own areas. The truth is that the vast mass of our unskilled labour force today consists of Bantu. The truth is that, no matter how much the Minister of Labour may protest, these people will ever increasingly be taken up into the semiskilled and skilled spheres of our economy. They will be taken up firstly in the border industries.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the preamble of this Bill.

I am confining myself to the consequences of independence, Sir. These are the truths.

Get yourself another attorney.

I would advise the hon. member to relearn his law. Then he might possibly realize what we were talking about earlier this evening about another clause. When you couple these truths with the principle of border industries and self-government, you have a truth and a potential reality which is ugly in the extreme. For how long does he think these independent nations which he proposes to create will be happy to send their labour force over the border each day?

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has hung the cloak of a creator of nations around his shoulders, without taking into account the dangers and the logical consequences involved. He and others are trying to circumvent this labour problem which will arise with independence. Mr. Chairman, I notice that you are looking in my direction again.

I am glad the hon. member has a guilty conscience.

It is my sincere opinion that these matters are the consequences of the attainment of independence. We on this side of the House are in favour of the peaceful progress and development of our Bantu areas, of the Bantu in the industries …

Order! The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech now. I appeal to him to return to the preamble of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I bow to your ruling. I believe that self-government within the Republic of South Africa and under the umbrella of this Parliament is the only thing for the peaceful co-existence of the peoples of South Africa. I believe this is the only road we can take and that any other road that smells or looks like independence for a duplicity or multiplicity of states within the Republic of South Africa is a dangerous one to us and to our people.

May I talk about another consequence of independence, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member must now confine himself to the preamble.

Mr. Chairman. I am confining myself to the preamble. One has to think of what happens when a country becomes independent. When a country becomes independent it has representation in the United Nations …

Order! Those are principles which can be discussed at the Second and Third readings, but not at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I must abide by your ruling. I do feel that one must consider what independence means. May I talk about the meaning of independence. The meaning of independence, according to this Bill, is that a country will have its own Prime Minister, its own Cabinet, its own flag and its own national anthem. These are the trappings of independence. They are part and parcel of independence. When independence entails the use of an anthem which overrules, in accordance with the law which we are making today, “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, it becomes totally and wholly unacceptable to this side of the House. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something with reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, and also with reference to what other speakers opposite have said. I am sorry the hon. member who moved the amendment has not yet enabled me to obtain his amendment in visible form. I expected to receive it from him. I hope I have written it down correctly. According to what I have here, the hon. member moved that the words “Bantu nations to self-government and independence” be substituted by the words “the Bantu population groups to self-government within the Republic of South Africa”. The hon. member moved an amendment and did not say half a word to explain his amendment. I think these are very strange parliamentary methods too. He did not even leave it to the hon. member for Albany to explain his amendment. That hon. member struggled to walk on both sides of the track. It seems to me they themselves have no ideas as to how they should explain their amendment. I can understand why not, because in his amendment the hon. member contradicted his own explanation which he used in his speech, when he spoke about the words which I have used in the Bill. The hon. member referred me to existing Acts, which refer to “Bantu peoples”, but in his own amendment he does not use “Bantu peoples”. He uses “population groups”.

Yes, I said that.

Yes, the hon. member read out those words, but did not explain them. Let us look at the Act to which the hon. member referred. I take it he referred to the Act of 1959.

Yes.

Yes, it was Act No. 46 of 1959. The following words are contained in it: “Whereas the Bantu peoples of the Union …”. The Afrikaans version reads as follows: “… die Bantoebevolking van die Unie …”.

Perfectly correct.

Yes, this is in fact the clear point. This Act of 1959 divided the Bantu population of the Union, the “Bantu peoples”, into national units. The word “volkseenhede” is used in it. In English it is “national units”. The Act divided the population into the existing units, the national units. The Act divided the “peoples” into “national units”. These were the correct words to use, namely “peoples” for “bevolking”. However, we are much farther than that now. That was eleven years ago. We now have the national units. Why must we still talk on the basis of the “peoples”? For that reason we have already started admitting what the reality is in the case of South-West Africa. The Act of 1959 helped us to pave the way towards recognizing the national units as units, as they are, namely peoples or nations. In Afrikaans we use the word “volk” and the hon. member ought to know that while we have the two easy words “volk” and “nasie” in Afrikaans, we do not have the same two equivalents in English. In fact, in Afrikaans we use the words “volk” and “nasie” in almost the same context. They have virtually the same meaning. Thus there is a very clear explanation for the development in terminology that has taken place. What I find extremely strange is the fact that the hon. member himself does not use the words which he took from the Act and cast in my teeth, namely “Bantu peoples”. He goes further back than 1959. I do not know whether hon. members opposite, who always take such delight in words such as “verkramp”, now want me to say that that hon. member is “verkramp”. In actual fact I think he is politically bigoted, because he still refers to “population groups” in his amendment. I therefore want to examine his amendment somewhat more closely. I shall refer to the English text, because the hon. member read out his amendment in English only. According to the hon. member’s amendment, the preamble should read as follows: “Whereas it is desirable that further provision be made for the development of the Bantu population groups to self-government within the Republic …” As far as I know, there is no definition in any Act of ours of the concept “Bantu population groups”. If he had used the new term of 1959, namely “national units”, it would still have been a defined word as far as our Bantu administration and our Bantu terminology is concerned. But he used a completely undefined term, “Bantu population groups”. It does not even mean ethnic groups. For example, the Bantu working on the mines can be one group; the Bantu working on the farms can be another group; the Bantu in the towns can be another group.

The witchdoctors.

Yes. The hon. member here is helping me and I am grateful for it; it can perhaps be all the witchdoctors together in one group.

Now you are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. I am showing the hon. member the folly of his own logic. He uses completely undefined words, and then he is what the hon. member for Zululand called him today, “a learned friend” of the hon. member for Zululand. I am sorry, Sir, but the hon. member really did not have sufficient time to consider his amendment. I think it is an extremely ill-considered amendment. If the hon. member had used the existing legal concepts, one could have argued with him, but what is a “population group”? How does the hon. member want the measure applied to “Bantu population groups”? To what “groups”? What people must be grouped together? In one town you group the witchdoctors together, in another town the mineworkers, and in another all the domestic servants. How do you group them together? Sir, I think the lawyers on that side, who are now consulting one another behind his back, should have helped the hon. member before the time and should not help him out of his predicament now.

You are talking nonsense now.

I am not talking nonsense. The hon. member is becoming very cross now became I am pointing out the foolishness of his amendment to him. It is an absolutely meaningless, confusing thing. Before the suspension of business this evening, the hon. member for Jeppes spoke about confusion. If confusion has ever been earned, it is being caused by the floundering of the hon. member in his use of an undefined term such as “Bantu population groups”, which can group together a different group of persons from one reserve to the next. No, that amendment of the hon. member brings us nowhere at all. With the amendment moved by them hon. members opposite have also shown their utter incapability of being honest with the public of South Africa, but more than that, of being honest with the public of the Bantu peoples in South Africa. They do not want to be honest with them. Sir, we have openly and frankly admitted that the implication of our policy is that it can end in independence, and we have stated this in the preamble; we have said so openly. We are not evading this, as hon. members so often suggest.

“Possible” independence.

But hon. members opposite want to lead the White public of South Africa up the garden path; they want to present a falsehood to them, namely that the political development of the Bantu people can simply end somewhere in the sand, like the Malopo, which, as people maintain, ends somewhere in the sand. The political development of a people—even if you call them “a population group”—cannot simply end like that.

The Coloured people as well?

The hon. member may not discuss the Coloured people here. The hon. member must talk about the Coloured people when it is relevant; it is not relevant here now. I talk about the Coloured people when it is relevant and I shall again talk about them if I must, but my work in this Parliament this evening is to talk specifically about the Bantu, and the hon. member may shoot off his mouth and talk about them if he likes, but not in such a hurricane-like way as he did the other day. [Interjection.] The hon. member must listen now; I am talking to him.

No, he is paying attention to the hon. member for Durban North now.

He knows that the hon. member for Durban North must help him out of his difficulties now. Sir, the hon. member could have been honest with the public of South Africa and with the Bantu peoples by stating to them in the preamble what he wants to state there, but now the public and the Bantu nations are being told this is only for “population groups” to develop within the Republic of South Africa. Now, with the words “within the Republic of South Africa” the hon. member says nothing. It is no more than what is already contained in the Bill. But I resent it and we all resent it that hon. members opposite do not want to be honest with the public by telling them that they admit what the outcome of their political policy will be. Their political policy of race federation is to have the Bantu represented here by an insignificant little representation. They do not want to admit that it will not remain at that; it will not remain at that. With that I have finished with this point, Sir, because it is rather off the point.

Order! I had just intended telling the hon. the Minister that.

I want to contrast the honesty which we have displayed in our preamble—and now I must choose my words carefully—with the falsity towards the public of South Africa, White and Black, on the part of the Opposition.

Why then did you use the word “possible”?

Because “possible” has never meant “impossible”.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the words “people” and “nation” I just want to say that it should be conceded that for the concept of what we call a “volk” or a “nasie” in Afrikaans, the English word “nation” is a better word than the words “people” or “peoples”. This is why we are using it. It is a matter of taste and choice. A few moments ago I referred to the word “groups”, and I just want to add this: the word “group” in no single respect implies national units, because, as I have said, the criterion of what a group is can vary from place to place and from one group of persons to the next. We acknowledge the Bantu groupings on the basis of their nationhood in the making, on the basis of their national units, and it is highly reprehensible that the United Party do not do so too, they who suggest that in terms of their race federation policy they will give them a sort of communal councils and a sort of provincial status.

The hon. member for Transkei again referred to Gen. Hertzog, to the so-called fragmentation of South Africa. He now combined two matters, namely geographical and political fragmentation, but that does not matter to me. The words of Gen. Hertzog in 1913 very clearly related to the question of geographical fragmentation. Incidentally, a few moments ago the hon. member read out the Dutch words of Gen. Hertzog here in a stammering way, and the other day hon. members on the other side, colleagues of his, took it amiss of us that we read out Dutch words here.

You did so too.

Yes, we read them out too.

And much better too.

I am saying this just in passing. I just want to say to the hon. member that he should not read Dutch words to us if his own members take it amiss of us that we do so. I do not take it amiss of anyone if he reads Dutch words to us.

Who took it amiss of you?

A colleague of that hon. member on the other side.

Who was he?

I do not have my notes here now; I have thrown them away; it was in the previous debate.

It is not true.

It is true. [Interjections.] I say it is true.

“I say so and therefore it is true! ”

That sanctimonious member for Durban North may rise and speak in a moment; he need not sit there waving his arms. In the previous debate it was said from the other side that it was not necessary for us to go back to Dutch quotations. I say there is nothing wrong with it.

Who said so?

You did.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.] There is nothing wrong with a Dutch quotation except that the Opposition takes it amiss of us if we read out something in Dutch.

They do not understand it.

Sir, the hon. member referred to Gen. Hertzog and tried to focus a great deal of attention on what Gen. Hertzog had said in 1913 about how the Bantu acted under the Union Government; it is perfectly correct, he did say that. They always acted in that way under the Union Government and the Bantu peoples are still acting in that way under the Republican Government. But what did Gen. Hertzog say subsequently?

When?

I shall tell the hon. member. At a gathering of Natives in Pretoria in 1925, Gen. Hertzog himself said, as reported in Die Burger of 4th December, 1925 …

What little book is that?

Gen. Hertzog said, inter alia, the following; and the hon. member should listen now. Gen. Hertzog spoke about the political development of the Bantu in these words, which I am going to read to the hon. member. He said (translation)—

In other words, the only restrictions there should be for the Natives in their own areas are the restriction which any national community imposes on itself. He continued—

Is this not the outlining of our policy? [Interjections.] Listen now. The hon. members need not get the jitters. They must just listen—

[Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member says everything is right, but if we carry it out, all of it is wrong.

Tell us what the Nationalist Party’s programme of principles states.

The National Party’s programme of principles is a precise continuation of that. The hon. members opposite must understand what I said the other day as well, namely that what Gen. Hertzog said in those days forms the basis of our policy today and need not be repudiated in any respect whatsoever.

Did Gen. Hertzog ever mention the independence of the Bantu?

Those were not concepts which were current at that time, but Gen. Hertzog expressed the essence of independence in those words which I read out a moment ago. Sir, I am sorry, but with the loudest sounds I can produce I still cannot make it audible to those hon. members. They do not want to listen to me and so they shout me down.

It is somewhat surprising to find the hon. the Minister dealing so jocularly with a matter which is of the most fundamental importance to the future political development in this country, a matter about which all the hon. members opposite seem to be quite amused, a bill in regard to which they are voluntarily abandoning their rights as members of Parliament not only to decide but to debate these matters, and they sit there as they do. [Interjections.] Where are the hon. gentlemen who are not taking part in this debate? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that when he says something it is true. The Minister’s speeches are like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. He says that when he uses, a word it means just that and no more, regardless of what the word in fact means. Let me say this to the hon. gentleman. He quotes what Gen. Hertzog said in 1925. [Interjection.] Never mind; you are defending your policy here now. The Minister quotes what he said in 1925, four decades ago. It is a matter of monumental unimportance what he said four decades ago.

But you started it.

The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they have forgotten that we live in the year of Our Lord 1971. Since the Hertzogs and the Smuts’s and the Bothas of this world we have had a Dr. Verwoerd.

And the Mitchells.

Yes, and you will still have a lot of them! And Dr. Verwoerd changed the whole conception of what was traditional and what was considered to be our way of life.

And after that we won three elections.

But what has happened since then? The hon. the Minister called the member for Transkei a verkrampte. He must be out of his mind.

I said more than that.

Yes, but if that is his definition of a verkrampte and the difference between verkramptes and verligtes, it is divided between realists and those who are in orbit, like that hon. gentleman. All these words we hear about “volkere” and “bevolking”—and then he talks about groups. Sir, what are the group areas mentioned in the Group Areas Act that was passed by this Government? Does that not talk about groups, the Indian group and the Coloured group, and the Malay group and the Griqua group and the Bushman group and all the other groups in South-West Africa? If we are going to get into semantic arguments, then we will get nowhere.

Then the hon. member says it does not apply to the Bantu, but take the Transkei as the model. The Transkei is a group for what? What is in the Transkei? There are Xhosas and Tembus and Fingoes and Pondos, etc. What nation is that? Then the Minister says he has always conceded that the possible end of the road is independence, and then he says “possible” does not mean “impossible”. Well, I suppose “impossible” does not mean “possible”. What are we talking about? The point the hon. gentleman still has not answered when he says things like this is the point raised by the hon. member for Zululand in the Second Reading. The Minister did not reply to it. He chose other things to reply to, but he did not reply to what the hon. member for Zululand then said, namely that if it is not possible, if it does not happen, then what formula have you got? What other formula is there but the one we suggest? Will the Minister perhaps try and answer that on this occasion?

But the Minister here talks about independence. When he replied to the Second Reading he said that he had been asked a question by the hon. member for Houghton, and the question was whether these powers excluded now from self-governing Bantu territories would be given to them when they became independent. It may have been a silly question, but one can excuse anyone in the labyrinth of the maze of this sort of Malice in Blunderland legislation we deal with for asking a silly question. But, by Jove, if a silly question produces a silly answer, then this was the most ridiculous answer that I have ever heard, if we are talking about independence. What did he say? He said it will all depend. Now this is the sort of power that the independent countries are going to get. “It will all depend on the agreement entered into between us and a particular Bantu authority at the time when independence may be considered.” Now what sort of independence is this? Is it a sort of conditional independence? What are we talking about? What sort of independence is this? Once it is independence, how can you then say that you have a treaty with them when you gave them independence and they have now become sovereign independent people, but your agreement with them is that they shall be not independent in the sovereign sense and they will obey some sort of treaty? What happens if they break the treaty? What are you going to do then? Will you send your army in? It was suggested by hon. gentlemen on that side during the last election that they would send the army in. We use ridiculous, nonsensical words without any meaning at all. One thing is clear, namely that this Government has not got a policy which can deal with the real issues that face us. What are the real issues that face us? If you last long enough to even try to deal with them, then tell me what will we have in our White country? We will have a greater majority of Bantu in that White area than there is now, and we will have it forever. Then the hon. Minister tells me he can deal with them. But when citizens of some place are given independence, how do you deal with them then? If one talks about a nation, and what this Preamble says is that a nation is going to get independence, by a nation I presume is meant a nation as the hon. Minister has defined it and not just a geographic area. When that nation and all its members have independence, then I would like the hon. Minister to tell me what he is going to do with Soweto, which has one million Bantu? When it is stated, as in this Preamble, that it is desirable to give these nations independence, let us then not look at the philosophical thought of the intellectual nationalist who like to escape from the world they live in, but let us rather look at the world we live in. The hon. Minister must tell me what will be done with the 1 million people that live in Soweto. The hon. Minister can’t now, but then still less could he afford to allow them to live in the conditions in which they do live. If one has people living permanently as these people are permanent—the hon. Minister can tell me that they are not permanent— then they must be given the same stake in law and order and security as every other person living in that area has. He must allow them to own their homes in that area. He must allow them to have the same stake in that area as I have said everybody else has, and to have an economic opportunity not only for themselves, but also for those that come after them. If one does not do that and one has an economic recession, that is where the trouble is going to begin and it will be worse if those people are, in fact, foreign citizens. [Time expired.]

Order! Just before I call upon the hon. member for Durban Central to speak, I wish to point out that I now have allowed members of both sides to go somewhat further than this preamble. I want to appeal to hon. members who are going to take part in the debate that they should confine themselves to this preamble only. I am not prepared to allow the entire concept of the independence of Bantu homelands to be discussed here.

In connection with what the hon. the Minister read from Die Burger, I again want to refer him to page 50 of Prof. Rhoodie’s book Apartheid and Racial Partnership. There one finds the quotation—and I find this strange—of the same congress in Pretoria in 1925, and there Gen. Hertzog expressed himself as follows—

This is what is quoted here. The preamble deals with the matter of independence. I understand that the hon. the Minister quoted from Die Burger, but apparently Prof. Rhoodie had more details in this connection.

Secondly, in support of the amendment, it is more practical to speak of the concept of “population groups” than to speak of the Bantu nations. If one confines oneself to ethnic nations, the end result may be that one would find that in many areas, such as the Transkei and Zululand, one does not find Xhosa or Zulu only. If, for example, a Xhosa marries a Zulu, the price he may have to pay may be that his franchise and political rights may be taken away from him. If, however, they are grouped according to population groups, something like that will never happen. But if the grouping is done on ethnic lines, which the concept “nation” does make necessary, surely this could eventually lead to such a stage.

I want to make a third point as well. The hon. the Minister thought fit to reply to what I said earlier on in connection with quotations from High Dutch. I did not say that I took it amiss of any member if he quoted something in High Dutch. What I did say was that I took amiss of hon. members opposite that until that stage we had heard nothing but history lessons from them. That was what I meant.

Mr. Chairman, the Preamble to this Bill says that “whereas it is desirable that further provision be made for the development of Bantu nations to self-government and independence” and I want to join issue with the hon. the Minister on the question to whom he claims it is “desirable”. On the evidence of what we have seen in this House tonight he cannot safely claim that on that side of the House there are 68 members who can be said to think it desirable. I think even that figure might be suspect because the hon. member for Germiston had a few other ideas …

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to say that the figure handed in by the Whips is suspect?

Order! The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington said the figure of 68 that was counted, was suspect. In saying that he cast a reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that perhaps we should look twice even at that figure in assessing whether the hon. the Minister can fairly claim that he has the support of all 68 members.

Why does the hon. member run away from his own words? The hon. member said the figure of 68 was suspect. This is the figure that was announced by you. Is the hon. member entitled to cast that reflection on the Chair and on the Whips who did the counting?

The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

Why I say that the hon. the Minister might seriously doubt whether he can in fact count on the support of every one of the 68 members is that the hon. member for Germiston, for example, seemed to have some doubts about whether the word “independence” should stay in. If my recollection is correct he said that after a briefing from this hon. Minister’s deputy. The hon. the Deputy Minister went over especially to brief him on what he thought was going to be a full point.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this preamble now.

I am. I am challenging the hon. the Minister’s contention that this is desirable. The hon. the Minister was invited during the course of the Second Reading debate to tell us what led him to believe that this was a desirable development. Here I need hardly remind this Committee that this is a most serious piece of legislation with far-reaching implications for the Republic. This hon. Minister apparently based his claim for the desirability of this legislation, in the words of this preamble, on some contentions which he has made to this House. The hon. the Minister said: “Die Regering het ’n mandaat van die hele Suid-Afrika gekry by ’n algemene verkiesing om hierdie beleid toe te pas”. I wonder if that hon. gentleman can seriously tell us that his party ever put it pertinently to the electorate of South Africa in a general election that they were setting out to do what this Preamble says? On that basis I challenge Whether it is desirable.

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to discuss the principles which have been discussed during the Second Reading debate. The hon. member must confine himself to the details of this preamble.

Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I am attempting to do. The hon. the Minister is claiming in this Preamble that it is “desirable” that further provision be made …

Order! That is quite correct, but that has been accepted at the Second Reading. The desirability of this legislation has already been accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the hon. member for Transkei has moved an amendment which suggests that it is desirable to do something entirely different, namely that provision not be made for the development of Bantu nations to self-government and independence. It is on that basis that I am addressing you.

Order! The hon. member may only discuss the details of this preamble and the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, nowhere else in the Bill does the word “independence” appear except in the preamble. The words, if I may say so, are that it is desirable for independence to take place. If those words have any meaning, my submission is that the hon. member for Kensington should be able to discuss the meaning of those words. If that is not so, my submission is that one should not ever be able to talk during the Committee Stage.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the details of this preamble.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. However, I propose to address you on the words “whereas it is desirable”. My contention is that the hon. the Minister cannot possibly justify the inclusion of these words read in context with the final two words, namely “and independence.” He has not established this at any stage. He certainly cannot claim that he is justified in including this in the preamble. To that extent I am supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this hon. Minister says that he has received a mandate for this move as outlined in the preamble. I claim that nowhere and at no time has it been put pertinently to the electorate, as claimed by him, that he has such a mandate. Neither has that hon. gentleman convinced us that even in his own political party he can find …

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the principles that have already been accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am challenging this hon. Minister’s right to say …

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I think this House will agree that the word “independence” appears in the preamble …

Where does the word “independence” appear? [Interjections.] It talks about self-governing territories; not independent states. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me that the hon. the Minister of Transport, the hon. the Leader of this House, does not know that the word “independence” appears in the preamble to this Bill. It disturbs me, particularly when I see the way in which the opposite side is acting when such an important matter is under discussion.

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

Mr. Chairman, since all of us have now ascertained that the word “independence” does appear in the preamble, and since all of us are convinced that the word “independence” is of the utmost importance in this specific Bill …

And since we have been discussing it for a week.

… and since we have been discussing it for a week and some people still do not know it, I think it is a matter of the utmost gravity this evening that we should obtain clarity as to the meaning of this constitutional term, i.e. “independence”. Now I should like to seek clarity from a particular source. The first source to which I refer, is the constitutional meaning of the word. It can mean one thing and one thing only; independence read in a Constitution can only mean sovereign independence. This is the highest degree of political freedom any state can enjoy. It means sovereign independence in the language of any debater and any hon. member. Now I should like to know whether this is the light in which the hon. the Minister, too, sees it. In seeking sources for trying to ascertain what the hon. the Minister is trying to do, one may also consult his own party’s programme of principles. I am now trying to ascertain the meaning of the word. In the programme of principles of his own party it is stated explicitly that the Bantu should remain a permanent part of the population of South Africa and should be under the guardianship of the Whites. Here I am quoting from the latest programme of principles. It was published in 1961 and the hon. member for Rissik acquainted this House with this programme of principles. Is this the meaning which the hon. the Minister attaches to it? No, to me it does not seem as though he does. He told me this evening that I should not tell him how to speak. He was telling us throughout the afternoon to shake our heads to indicate whether we agreed or disagreed with what he was saying. At that time he was being very clever, but at the moment he is as silent as the proverbial grave.

You are too big for your boots.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I should like to know whether the entire question of the word “independence”, which hon. members are now trying to discuss here in the Committee Stage, is not, in fact, the actual principle involved in this legislation. Does that not mean that all this talking is in vain? [Interjections.] If not, I should like to refer to Standing Order No. 57.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in that case you should allow me to tell the hon. the Minister of Police that the last thing he should tell me is that I am too big for my boots.

You are a pipsqueak.

Why do you not get up and talk?

Mr. Chairman, may an hon. member refer to another hon. member as a pipsqueak?

The hon. member may proceed.

That hon. Minister is rude.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should leave the hon. the Minister at that.

Order!

I shall not address you in the way you are addressing the Minister. I can assure you of that.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point must withdraw the word “rude”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

Lionel old boy, you are a pipsqueak too.

You are a pip without a squeak.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development treats us in this House like a lot of schoolchildren, and he sees himself as the teacher. I want to ask him, with great respect, to lay down his teacher’s cloak for a change.

The hon. member should discuss the preamble now.

I now come to the next point. I am still seeking clarity. I now come to the speech which the hon. the Minister made at the Second Reading.

Order! The principles of this Bill were discussed at the Second Reading, and I am not going to allow another debate on those principles to be conducted now.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I just want to quote one single sentence which can throw light on the meaning of the word “independence”. It reads as follows—

“It will depend upon agreement.” In other words, here the hon. the Minister is stating very clearly that this will be a conditional independence. It will depend upon the conditions on which they will agree.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, Standing Order No. 57 expressly provides—

Has the principle of independence, as embodied in this preamble, not already been approved at the Second Reading?

The Chair is perfectly able to determine what may be discussed and what may not be discussed. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. It seems to me this is a conditional independence and not a constitutional independence, i.e. sovereignty.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. member not to repeat himself so often.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to read one more sentence. The hon. the Minister said—

The question of independence is not a matter on which we have to decide today. We are Parliament, and if we are not to decide on the expression “independence” today, when will we have another opportunity? This matter is being taken out of the hands of this House. We shall not have another opportunity. Today is the last opportunity we have. Since this is so, it is important to us. I want to ask the hon. the Minister once again, as I have already done, with great respect, to tell us without beating about the bush, not that it may lead to independence, as he did this evening, but that it will lead to independence. Otherwise this expression in the preamble to this Bill makes a complete farce of his policy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this question of the boundaries for a moment or two. The hon. the Minister, in speaking about the clause in the Bill which deals with it …

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to discuss those principles that have already been discussed and accepted at the Second Reading.

I am not discussing the principles. I am dealing with the question now of independence. If I may address you on the subject, in that clause the Minister said that at this stage the boundaries are not in dispute. He said that those boundaries had been fixed. They are the released areas and the scheduled areas.

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion on that point now, not at this stage. We are only dealing with the preamble now, which reads—

That is so. It is that independence that I am concerned with.

It has nothing to do with boundaries.

With due respect, independence has a lot to do with boundaries. You cannot have an independent state without boundaries.

I am not going to allow a general discussion about independence.

About independence? But that is what the Bill is about, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, are you saying that you are not going to allow discussion on independence with this Preamble in front of us?

Order! I am not going to allow hon. members to repeat arguments that could have been raised during the Second Reading debate and to discuss the principles.

I am not repeating any arguments.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I am not going to repeat an argument. You do not know what I am going to say. You have not heard me. How do you know that I am repeating an argument?

On a point of order, Sir, would you not allow the hon. member to begin to develop his theme on this question of independence so that you will then perhaps be in a better position to decide whether or not what he is going to say has already been said.

Order! I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, the preamble provides for the development of the Bantu nations to self-government and independence. I have moved an amendment that the words “the Bantu population groups to self-government within the Republic” be substituted for the words after “of” in line 2. The term “Bantu nations” means that there must be more than one area which is going to become independent because it is used in the plural. Surely the hon. member for South Coast is entitled to discuss where these Bantu nations are going to become independent.

But not the boundaries. I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, if, as I understand your ruling, one is allowed to discuss the desirability …

No, the hon. member …

May I just finish my point of order, Sir? If one is entitled to discuss the desirability of independence, then in my submission it is inevitable that that discussion must include the places that are to be independent and that of necessity includes the boundaries of those places.

No, my ruling is that hon. members may discuss the details of this preamble and not the principle that has already been accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, would you give us your guidance and indicate to us what details about independence can be discussed?

I put the preamble.

Sir, on this question of independence to which the Minister has committed himself, may I say that in my province which I want to deal with at the moment, there are something over 100 separate independent areas …

Where?

… which are inhabited at the present time by people of Zulu stock and are therefore presumably, and as far as I know officially at the present time, looked upon as part of the Zulu people. They are the people who will be claiming independence or on whom independence can be conferred by the Minister in due course without returning to this House. That is the position in respect of the Bantu living in those 100-plus areas in which they are residing at the present time. Sir, you have said that I may not discuss the areas in which they are living nor the boundaries but I want to put this to you: What kind of proposal is this that is laid down in the preamble here that in a small province like Natal we can have over 100 separate areas, the one isolated from the other, separated entirely across the whole length and breadth of the province, which are to get independence …

Order! The hon. member could have discussed that under clause 26.

With respect, Sir, I could not discuss it under clause 26. That is precisely my difficulty. There is not a clause in this Bill where the question of independence was raised. That is my difficulty and that is why I did not raise it under clause 26.

The hon. member could have raised that in the Second-Reading debate where the general principles of this Bill were discussed.

This is not a principle; this is the application of the principle; it is what flows from the acceptance of the principle.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Yes, Sir; the principle is independence and that principle as accepted at the Second Reading applies to a 100-plus areas in Natal.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Is your ruling that I may not proceed? I am elaborating on the consequences of the preamble which says …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

What is your ruling, Sir?

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair.

What is your ruling?

My ruling is that the hon. member may not discuss the principles of this Bill now; he may only discuss the details.

I am discussing the consequences which flow from the provision that independence will be given in the course of time to these Bantu people or groups, as the case may be. It is the consequences that I am discussing. Sir, I accept your ruling and I will not infringe it. I will not go into the principles. I will now deal with the consequences which flow from the granting of independence to the Bantu in terms of the preamble to this particular Bill. Let me repeat, Sir: The consequences are that we are going to have this fragmented area right throughout Natal, forecast for the first time in the history of South Africa by Dr. Verwoerd.

Order! The hon. member may discuss the consequences at the Second Reading or the Third Reading, but not in the Committee Stage.

Surely, Sir, I am entitled to discuss the consequences of a principle that has been accepted; that is a ruling.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may only discuss the details.

That is a detail, Sir; it is a detail of independence as applied to my province …

Order! I wish to call upon the hon. member now to abide by my ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, I moved an amendment to this clause. The principle was discussed at the Second Reading, and it was accepted that there would be independence. Now we want to go into details as to where independence is to be given, and that is why I moved an amendment to the effect that self-government could be given within the Republic. The word “independence” suggests that it will be outside the Republic. Now, Sir, my amendment has been accepted as being in order. We should surely now be allowed to discuss where this independence is going to be, whether the self-government is going to be within the Republic or outside the Republic.

Order! I have given my ruling.

I wish to raise a point of order and should like your ruling on it. The preamble is not part of the Bill in the sense that it will not become part of the Act if this Bill becomes law. The principle of the Bill is contained in the Long Title and if this measure were to become law, the preamble would not be part of the Act itself. We are merely discussing whether we should have certain words in here which have nothing to do with the principle. I should like to have your ruling on that.

The preamble is only a statement of what the Bill seeks to achieve.

May I address you further on that? Is the principle not contained in the Long Title? The hon. the Leader of the House himself said that there was no question of independence in this Bill. He looked at the Long Title. The preamble is unimportant. In those circumstances I do submit that the wording of the preamble—and this is all we are involved with—is unrelated to the provisions of the Bill because it has no meaning once this measure becomes an Act. We are merely discussing the words that should be in here. The hon. member for Transkei suggested the insertion of certain words and the hon. member for South Coast is now suggesting why it is undesirable to have these words in the preamble.

Order! This is the Committee Stage. During the Committee Stage only the details of either the preamble or a clause may be discussed, but not the principle. I have now given my ruling.

I now want to make it quite clear that I am speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei. As the hon. member indicated the amendment has been accepted as being in order. I am now speaking to the details of that amendment. Where these Bantu groups will reside and where they will be when they acquire independence, which is forecast in this preamble, is an issue in so far as my own province is concerned. In terms of the amendment of the hon. member which I am supporting, over 100 separate areas will get what my hon. friend has suggested should not be independence but a form of self-government, which falls short of independence. It will take place in all those areas which the hon. the Minister has glibly forecast. Dr. Verwoerd for the first time in our history referred to “fragmentation”. This hon. Minister now glibly forecasts that this is going to be welded into one nation. He says that there is going to be no difficulty about it. That we repudiate, hence the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei. That hon. member said quite clearly how far we are prepared to go on this side of the House. We are not prepared to go as far as independence, which is forecast in the preamble to the Bill.

The hon. member is now trying to evade my ruling.

I am dealing with the points which are of the utmost importance to us, not only to members on this side of the House, but I hope for the whole of Parliament. It is a matter of the utmost importance for the whole of South Africa. We are supposed to be handing over this power to the hon. the Minister here in the preamble. There is not a clause in the Bill which refers to independence. In that respect the hon. the Minister of Transport was correct. That has been our difficulty. Now that this matter is before us by way of the preamble, I have to debate as best I can while at the same time remaining within your ruling. The only way I can do that is to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei. It is by supporting that amendment that I am able to make the speech which I am making. I am entirely in support of that amendment, while at the same time I am not repeating what any other member has said nor what I myself have said at any time during the debate on this particular Bill. I want to repeat that this is the farcical position we get to if we follow the Government’s proposals in this particular matter. We will find ourselves in an utterly stupid, farcical and lunatic position eventually if we follow the advice and the Bill presented to us by the hon. the Minister. The only way out of the dilemma now for the hon. the Minister and the country is to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the hon. the Opposition is trying to waste the time of the House tonight.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far with that, because it is a reflection on the Chair.

The hon. the Opposition is trying with clever stories and glib talk to make a farce of this entire House of Assembly.

Order! The hon. member must use new arguments. I cannot allow this loose talk about this subject to continue.

Mr. Chairman, they have been talking about the word “independence” all night. They are making a farce of democracy in this House with clever talk tonight.

I support the amendment, Sir. I feel that it is the prerogative of every member of the Opposition not only to support the amendment, but to tell the country that we are completely against fragmentation of South Africa through the creation of independent states in this country. The amendment asks for the elimination of the word “independence” and talks about self-government in the Republic of South Africa. That is a very important amendment, one on which every member certainly has the right, if he is in any way limited with regard to the field which he may traverse, to rise in this House to support it and to show his opposition to what the words as printed in the Bill indicate. Those are the details with which we are concerned.

No, that is the principle.

In order to avoid speaking contrary to your ruling, Sir, may I just conclude on the note that the Opposition is supporting the amendment to oppose the inclusion of the words “and independence” and all that it contains for the people of South Africa. This is a fact of which they are completely unaware. If I may say so, the public are deluded by the words “self-government”. The word “independence” goes very much further than that. The reason for the amendment is that we want to disassociate ourselves from the particular wording “and independence”.

Mr. Chairman, there were certain arguments raised by this side. [Interjections.]

Yes, you are fragmenting the country and you call it a … [Interjections.]

The hon. Minister in answering my amendment, referred to the words I used, namely the “Bantu groups” or “population groups”. He said that this was not a satisfactory description, because groups could mean anything. Then he became facetious and suggested that groups could be groups of witch-doctors or any type of group. He knows very well, or should know, that in this context “Bantu groups” or “population groups” when referring to self-governing areas can only mean a group living in a certain area. I should like to ask him what he would call the Bantu nation in the Transkei. As my friend, the hon. member for Durban North, has mentioned—and the Minister has not replied to him yet— in the Transkei we have Tembus, Pondos, Gcalekas and all sorts of tribes, or nations as the hon. the Minister would call them. Each of those nations does not have its own legislative assembly …

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member continue to repeat arguments? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, may an hon. member speak more than three times on the same point in a Committee Stage?

No, an hon. member may not do so. The hon. member for Transkei may proceed.

That side of the House is fast asleep. They do not know what is happening. That hon. member does not realize that I have only spoken once in the discussion on this preamble. He does not know what is happening in the House, like the hon. the leader of the House who does not know that we are discussing independence. Why does the hon. member for Waterkloof not get up and talk on this preamble? Why does no Nationalist member get up and talk?

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

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will get up and reply. Will he tell me what better description can one have …

That has nothing to do with …

You pipsqueak! Keep quiet. I only talk to senior ministers and not to junior ministers. What better description can one have for the Legislative Assembly in the Transkei and for the people whom that Legislative Assembly serves than the Bantu population group in that area? They do not belong to one nation. Are all the Xhosas now going to be one nation? That will then mean that the Ciskei will then be brought into the picture as well. It is not proposed that the Ciskei will form part of the Transkei. I know that certain movements are necessary in the Transkei, but surely the hon. the Minister does not intend that. I want to ask him why he takes such exception to this description of population groups. Why did he then not leave the words “Bantu people”? He knows that we do not accept that they are all different nations. How did he expect the United Party to accept the English word “Bantu nation” in the preamble? I submit that our choice of the words “Bantu population group” is the best term to be used in this context.

I now want to come back to what Gen. Hertzog said. The hon. the Minister admits that Gen. Hertzog never used the word “onafhanklikheid” and never spoke of the independence of the Bantustans. The Minister said that at that time it was not under consideration. I want to say that the reason why he did not speak in those terms and why he spoke in 1936 in the way he did and also in 1913 was because nobody had ever considered that these different Bantu areas would ever become independent. My amendment says that they must get self-government within the Republic. The hon. the Minister has not yet said whether he is going to accept my amendment or not. Listening to hon. members on the other side I think he will have to accept my amendment. It is time that the hon. the Minister tells us what he is going to do about it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your strict rulings. I want to tell the hon. member for Transkei, in order to help him from his state of confusion, a state in which he lands himself so easily, that I shall, of course, not accept his amendment. After all, this is very evident from what I said earlier. Actually this is the only constructive answer I can give to what the hon. member has just said. The hon. member has just done another egg dance regarding his “groups” in the Transkei and has once again appealed to the hon. member for Durban North. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that I paid close attention to what he was saying a few minutes ago when he was criticizing me about the way I dealt with the words “population groups”, as used by the hon. member for Transkei in his amendment. The hon. member for Durban North, in order to play the fool with me, asked why I had objected to the word “group”, seeing that we ourselves had something like the Group Areas Act and consequently I could not have any objection to it. But for a lawyer to advance an argument like that! What a faux pas! The Group Areas Act groups all the Bantu in South Africa together in one group and not in a number of groups.

Hm!

Yes, now the hon. member says: “Hm”; this is the kind of language he can speak. It is extremely unparliamentary, but it is still stupid. Now the hon. member is waking up after I have refreshed his memory and have stimulated his ability to think. The Group Areas Act is not relevant here. It will be of no avail whatsoever to the hon. member for Transkei to drag it into his argument. The hon. member for Transkei spoke of “Bantu groups”. He cannot resort to the Group Areas Act to save his argument, because the Group Areas Act regards all the Bantu in South Africa as one group. To give us to understand that the Pondo and the Tembu, etc., are groups, and to refer to the Group Areas Act in the same breath, as the hon. member for Durban North did, is equally stupid. The Group Areas Act, as I have said, does not even divide the Bantu group into sub-groups, as it does in fact do with the Coloured group. The Coloured group is divided into subgroups by the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Hon. members should kindly listen to what I want to say. The other day the hon. member for Durban North was described by his own colleagues as an illustrious lawyer who even is an external examiner. I think the hon. member requires internal study in law.

The hon. member for Durban North also made disparaging reference to agreements because I had said in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Houghton on clause 4 and the matters mentioned therein, that that would depend upon the agreement entered into at the time when independence might be discussed. The hon. member for Maitland also put a question to me in this regard. The hon. member wanted to know what kind of independence we were dealing with. He said it was a conditional independence because I had spoken of such an agreement. The fact that the hon. member for Durban North knows little about these group areas matters disgraces him. But the fact that the hon. member for Maitland knows little about how a country becomes independent, I cannot impute to him as being a disgrace. But I can, in fact, impute it to ignorance. What independent country in the wide world has ever become independent without prior agreement; does that constitute conditional independence?

What about Rhodesia.

But surely Rhodesia has not become independent in terms of Britain’s point of view.

Order! Now the hon. the Minister, too, is discussing matters outside the ambit of this preamble.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am being led astray by hon. members on the opposite side of this House. The hon. member should realize that independence can only be achieved after negotiation. These negotiations result in the agreement concerning the form of independence, what it embraces and all other details in that regard. This is very clear.

I should also like to remind the hon. member for Durban Central that he need not have any problem with regard to the ethnic grouping together of people in national units, as we call them in contradistinction to groups, as the hon. member for Transkei calls them. The Citizenship Act was placed on the Statute Book in the meantime, and has helped to bring clarity in so far as there might have been uncertainty in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has repeatedly advanced arguments why we should support the development of the so-called Bantu nations to self-government and independence. In advancing his arguments about development to independence, he has sought to rely upon the wisdom of the past in this matter. I want to deal with two examples of wisdom from the past which conflict entirely with the advice which the hon. the Minister now gives to us and which indeed, I submit, show that the wisdom of the past says that South Africa should not move one inch further upon this road to sovereign independence.

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion on that matter because those are the principles of this Bill and not the details. I also ruled the hon. the Minister out of order when he advanced those arguments.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the question whether we should leave the question of independence in the preamble, is an important one. I am advancing an argument why this House should not be persuaded to accept this, bearing in mind the wisdom of the past.

As long as the hon. member does not discuss the principle.

First of all, I want to call as a witness the late Dr. Verwoerd, when the late Dr. Verwoerd spoke on this whole question of movement to independence.

Order! Independence is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the difficulty we have with this particular preamble, is that unlike most Bills, the preamble to this Bill contains the question of independence which is mentioned nowhere else in the Bill. That is what makes this Preamble so different from that of any other Bill. It is different in this respect that whereas elsewhere in the Bill the concept of independence cannot be gone into in any detail, the only place where it can be gone into in detail …

Order! The hon. member could have discussed those principles at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely elaborating on a point of order. I am not planning to make a speech now on the merits of this Bill. The point of order which I make is that it is surely permitted …

Order! The hon. member is repeating the point of order which has been taken by the hon. member for Durban North.

No, Sir. If one cannot discuss the question of independence in its detail …

The hon. member may discuss it in its detail, but not the principle.

Mr. Chairman, that means it may be discussed in its detail?

Mr. Chairman, I shall move on to a question of greater detail. I would like to advance the arguments on detail which appear from the writings and attitude of the late President Kruger.

Order! The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling.

No, Mr. Chairman. There are detailed arguments in this, the sum total of which might arrive at the question of independence, but which, when they are taken separately, are details when seen from the aspect of independence.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. I shall now proceed to put the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the matter of detail, what is meant by the word “independence”. Apparently we cannot discuss what the word means and whether it means a degree of independence. Furthermore, we are not allowed to discuss the areas which can become independent, and what we do not know is what may be discussed.

Order! I am not here to lecture the hon. member on the rules of this House. I am here to give a ruling.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but we do not understand your ruling properly.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, with respect, you ruled that the hon. member could discuss detail. That was the detail of independence. He was speaking in favour of an amendment which moves the deletion of that word. To get the position clear in regard to the detail of independence, he said he wanted to quote from a certain document he has here in front of him. Now, Mr. Chairman, you have not heard that detail or what he is going to say about the detail. You have ruled him out of order and you have told him to sit down. Mr. Chairman, how can you say he is not discussing detail when you have not heard a word of what he wanted to say? With respect, Sir, I must put it to you, in all fairness, that you have not heard a word from the hon. member on the detail of independence. No sooner did he start to quote than you ruled him out of order and told him to sit down. I think that is pretty unfair, and that you should give him an opportunity to state some of the detail. If then you then rule he is out of order, that is for you to say. Surely, without hearing a word of what he has to say about the detail, it is unfair to rule him out of order.

I have given my ruling.

Sir, on a point of order, is that hon. member allowed to cast the reflection on the Chair that you are unfair? I think it is most uncalled for.

I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the House has lost his temper. It is very unfortunate that that has happened.

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

I am casting no reflection whatsoever on the Chair.

Order!

Sir, I want to say, with due respect and submission, that I am putting a point to you in regard to the speech which has just been commenced by the hon. member for Pinelands.

The Chairman said he could go on.

I am sorry, Sir; I did not hear you say the hon. member could proceed. Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I want to quote an extract from the book Paul Kruger word President.

But that goes back to a time prior to the rinderpest!

Yes, but I suggest it bears a great deal on the question which this House is attempting to decide. I would like to give the proper context, and I will read the passage I have here in full. The writer says—

I quote again—

Order! The hon. member is out of order. If the hon. member wants to continue on those lines, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, one of the details of independence is going to be the agreement which is going to be reached between the country giving independence and the country receiving it. In this regard the details are perhaps more unusual than they would be in respect of the details, or the ways that the hon. the Minister mentioned, of granting independence, for example, to some of the Black states in Africa, to the north of us, by Great Britain. Here we are going to give independence not just to a country with a geographic border and a geographic content. We are here going to have to give independence to, as the preamble says, “Bantu nations”. The details which will be involved in doing this, are going to be quite different from the details which are going to be required for granting independence in the matters which the hon. the Minister has mentioned. We would like to know some of the details which are going to accompany it. The only example we have at the moment …

Order! The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling now.

No, Sir. May I seek your guidance?

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. He is trying to evade my ruling now.

Sir, may I ask your guidance? Did I understand your ruling to be that we may discuss the details of independence?

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member is trying to evade it now.

No, Sir.

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Yes, I am, Sir, but I would like to have your guidance in this regard.

The guidance to you is to sit down.

Order! The hon. member must sit down.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot hear the hon. member.

On a point of order, Sir …

This is a convenient time for reporting progress and for asking leave to sit again.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.