I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition to oppose a motion to introduce a Bill is a rare action, but I do not think it is necessary for us to apologize for this action on this occasion because we are dealing with a very special case, an extraordinary case. Our Leader, who is unavoidably absent to-day for reasons known to the House, opposed the introduction of a similar measure which still appears on the Order Paper as Item No. 14 and which was introduced in this House some time ago. His reason for doing so was that we of the Opposition regarded opposition to this measure necessary at every stage to show the country that we are dealing not with an ordinary measure of Bantu administration but indeed with a revolutionary measure, a measure which threatens to undermine the Republic of South Africa in its very being, which threatens to change the appearance and the nature of our Republic, if it is implemented and if what must inevitably follow upon it does ultimately follow. We can indeed say that this Bill marks the parting of the ways and symbolizes what is irreconcilable in the attitudes of the Government and of the Opposition. We know more about this Bill than the Opposition usually does at this stage, because a measure almost identical to it has been considered by the Transkeian Territorial Authority and we have been told that Parliament would be asked to consider that measure in the spirit of considering home-made bread for the Transkei. We have had a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament where the hon. the Prime Minister in the various discussions told us a great deal about the proposed Transkei Bill and of the plan of which this proposed Transkei Bill is merely a part. We now know enough to be able to tell you, Sir, and the House that our opposition to this Bill and all that it is part of is implacable, while this is the beginning of a process the end of which must mean also the end of South Africa as we know it, and while this is also the beginning of a gigantic act of self-delusion on the part of my hon. friends opposite. The title of this Bill refers not only to people in the Transkei but to people related to the Bantu in the Transkei. In the motion before us now we are reminded by the hon. the Minister that the independence referred to in this measure can only apply to those Xhosas, those Transkeian people, who live inside the territory, and that for the hundreds of thousands outside who are related to the Bantu in the Transkei there will be no freedom; there will only be the fiction, a fiction which will be used by the Government to still and allay its conscience while continuing the practice of unjustifiable baasskap against those people of the Transkei who do not live in the Transkei. There is no solution offered for them in the plan of which this Bill is a part. It can only serve to make of the White people of this country a nation of hypocrites hiding behind a delusion. This Bill also will be opposed by us at every stage because it is part of a pattern; it is part of the reshaping of the Republic of South Africa, which must eventually offer happy hunting grounds, breeding places, for Communism and for Pan-African Nationalism. I need not go into that, Sir, we shall hear more about this as the discussion proceeds, but it is one of the reasons which makes it impossible for the Government and the Opposition even to begin to find one another on the grounds of a policy enshrined in this measure. We shall resist this Bill wherever possible; we shall resist it to the utmost as far as the Rules of this House allow us to do so. I want to repeat, on the authority and at the request of my Leader, what he said during the Joint Sitting, and that is that we of the Opposition want it to be known that in no way can we be committed to the promises and undertakings contained in a measure like this. In no way can we he bound by that. When the time comes when we have the power to do it, we shall undo the mischief that is being done in this measure. We shall undo this foolish Act as we shall undo every other act of folly committed in the name of a Bantustan policy for South Africa. Sir, this measure is being introduced here to-day, and the people concerned have not been properly consulted. We on the Opposition side are getting cries and appeals for help and assistance; cries from the White people in that area that we should express their views, and from the non-Whites, from the Bantu themselves in the Transkei and in the Republic of South Africa.

For all those reasons I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) it is the first step towards the fragmentation of the Republic into separate independent States;
2. (b) it is being introduced at a time when the commission appointed to safeguard the rights of the Whites in the Transkei has not reported; and
3. (c) important groups of the Bantu population in the Transkei and certain Bantu related to the Bantu in the Transkei have not been adequately consulted.

I second. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said that we in the United Party are opposing this Bill merely because we are opposed to constitutional development for the Bantu. That, of course, is quite untrue. What we are opposed to is the particular type of constitutional development envisaged by this Government. As my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has pointed out, the development proposed by the Government differs fundamentally from the development which we propose.

I wish to deal more particularly with the second and the third leg of the amendment, the first of which objects to this measure being introduced into this House before the recommendation and the report of the Heckroodt Commission has been tabled. The Heckroodt Commission, as you know, Sir, was appointed by the Government to inquire into the position of the White people in the Transkei. With regard to the Heckroodt Commission I wish to emphasize that the future well-being of the White people and the Coloureds in the Transkei cannot be divorced from the constitutional development proposed for the Bantu. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said that the Commission was not irrevocably bound to the Constitution of the Transkei. He says that the Government has received good co-operation from most of the Europeans and that they did not ask that this Constitution should not be proceeded with until such time as the Commission has reported, and because of that, the Minister said on an earlier occasion we could not now ask that this measure be held over until the Commission has reported. All I can say is that the Whites in the Transkei never expected a Bill of this nature to be proceeded with until their position had been made clear. They were given to understand through the members of the Heckroodt Commission that their position would always be protected. One member of the Commission in fact told them at a public meeting of the Commission that he had never known any legislation to be passed by a South African Government which did not protect the rights of the White people and therefore they had nothing to worry about.

They were also given to understand, through the recommendations of the recess committee appointed by the Territorial Authority that they would be looked after, and that recommendation was referred to by the Deputy Minister in this House when this matter was discussed on an earlier occasion. The White people have been greatly shocked to find that nowhere in the proposed Bill is any protection at all given to them; But, even worse, they find that the rural traders are now going to be subject to the jurisdiction of a new authority, and although they may not originally have demanded that the Commission should report to this House before a Bill of this nature was introduced, I say that they are doing so now in no uncertain manner. Especially did they do so on Friday at a representative meeting held in Umtata. Sir, they accepted the bona fides of the Prime Minister and of the Government and they accepted the assurances that they would be looked after and now they feel that they have been let down. It is possible that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development misunderstood the position. The Prime Minister must have sent his Minister of Information up to the Transkei to find out what the position was, because we find that on 28 September last year, after having visited the Transkei, he made a statement to the Despatch, in which he said—

Sir, I do not know how many mistakes this Minister of Information has to make or how many times he has to be misinformed before he gets the sack.

The Prime Minister has assured the White people that they will be looked after but what they demand is that they be looked after in this Bill which is now before the House. The Europeans and the Coloureds were never consulted on this measure. Not even the liaison committee which was established at the request of the Prime Minister, has been consulted by the Government. Not only were the Coloureds and the Whites not consulted but neither were the Bantu consulted. Admittedly the chiefs and headmen, the members of the Territorial Authority were consulted, but the masses of the people have not been consulted in any way and judging by the debate in the Territorial Authority I would say that even the chiefs and headmen were simply told what was going to happen, and that they did not ask that certain things be inserted in the Bill. As to those living outside the Transkei, who are going to be affected by this Bill, they were not consulted at all. We know that Chief George Matanzima paid a visit to Cape Town. According to the Press it was a very hurried one. Sir, we asked the Deputy Minister what Bantu outside the Transkei had been consulted and he refused to tell us and he said that it was not his fault if the Opposition did not know. I want to ask him or the Minister now to tell us what Bantu were consulted outside the Transkei except for this visit by George Matanzima. Did anybody go to Port Elizabeth or to the Rand? Sir, Chief Kaiser Matanzima had this to say when the question was raised at the first sitting in May when the recommendations of the committee were approved. He was asked then by Chief Tutor Ndamase, the Crown Prince in Pondoland, not of Tembuland, what the position was in this regard. He raised the question of consultation with the Bantu living in the towns. He wanted to know what had happened about the evidence which was given by those few who had been invited up to Umtata by the chiefs—not people who represented the Bantu in the towns, but people selected by the chiefs and invited to come to Umtata. He wanted to know whether the Authority was not going to be given a report as to what their evidence was. Chief Kaiser Matanzima replied that the matter had been discussed and he went on to say—

I say that even on the admission of Chief Kaiser Matanzima there was no consultation with the Bantu living outside the area. I have had two letters from bodies of Tembus living in the Western Province. The first was a copy of a letter sent to the Minister himself in January when the representatives of the Tembus there asked the Minister to meet Chief Sabata. Well, we now know that he did meet Chief Sabata but we do not know what happened at that meeting. The Minister said that the interview was quite successful. Chief Sabata denies that. I have now had a subsequent letter dated 1 March; this is also a copy of a letter that was sent to the Minister, and in this letter he is asked to meet a deputation of Tembus living in the Cape Peninsula in Cape Town. I want to ask the Minister to tell us whether he has met these people and what the result of the meeting was. There was absolutely no chance for the Bantu, apart from the members of the Territorial Authority, to get to know the contents of this Bill and to discuss it at all. A Bill was delivered to them a week before the Territorial Authorities met, and the Secretary for Bantu Affairs, Mr. Young, had this to say about Certain leakages before the Territorial Authority met. He said.

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) need not worry about the Whites in the Transkei at all. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development have given the assurance that the Whites will be looked after and I want to assure the hon, member for Transkeian Territories that he need not have any sleepless nights over them. He comes along and suggests that the Heckroodt Commission was a prerequisite to the Transkeian plan. Even those people who spoke about an inquiry did not make that a prerequisite to the Transkeian plan. It is very clearly not a prerequisite to the Transkeian plan, it is a result of the Transkeian plan.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says that “This marks the parting of the ways”; this is the parting of the ways. I agree wholeheartedly with him. Not only is this the parting of the ways between them and the National Party, it is also the parting of the ways between them and the White people of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you why this is the parting of the ways. Because we, the people of South Africa, are not prepared to follow the United Party on the road which throughout Africa has led to the downfall of the White man. As long as they want to take us along that road I can assure him that this parting of the ways is much more inexorable than he thinks. He says that they will oppose this measure at every stage to the extent the Rules of this House will allow it. If they feel as strongly as that over this matter I want to say this: They will oppose this measure and we shall push it through with complete conviction and by availing ourselves of every Rule of this House. Where is the dissatisfaction in the country? We remember very minor incidents when they succeeded in getting thousands of people together to register their protest. Why do they not do that to-day? Why do they not go to the platteland and protest there? Why do they not start a protest against the Government throughout the country? Because they cannot get the people together. Let them try to organize' protest meetings against this Transkeian plan. If they do not offer enough meat at the barbecue they will not get 100 people to attend it.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, for which the Minister is now asking leave to. introduce, is probably the most important: Bill in the history of this country. The Opposition may differ from it but they cannot dissociate themselves from it. To refuse leave to introduce this Bill is pure childishness. Why are they refusing leave to introduce? The granting of leave to introduce does not bind them to any, principle. I thought that the hon. the member for Yeoville would particularly have welcomed the opportunity of discussing this Bill and that he would not have made any attempt to quash this Bill because he was the person who during the Joint Sitting, when his Leader moved an instruction which was rejected by the hon. the Prime Minister, accused the Prime Minister of having missed a golden opportunity of stating policy against policy, of stating point against point. Mr. Speaker, enabling legislation in respect of such a confined subject as a language does not afford the opportunity of stating policy against policy. This measure affords the opportunity of stating policy against policy. The hon. member is not prepared, however, to state point against point and policy against policy, hence this attempt to quash this measure. They are re-fusing leave to introduce because they are not anxious to discuss this Bill. But they will not get away from it, because we shall once and for all in this debate dissect the two policies of the two parties as never before in the his-tory of this country. Mr. Speaker, why do they refuse leave to introduce? In the first place because there is a deep-seated difference of opinion within their own ranks about this Bill, because there is a deep-seated difference of opinion within their own ranks over this question of the granting of self-government to the Transkei. Some of their members say straight out that they are in favour of a form of self-government in the Transkei, and there are others like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who says that he is completely against any form of self-government in the Transkei. I want to read what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said during the first-reading debate on the previous Bill. He said this—

Just after, the hon. member for South Coast got up and said—

And he says that while his Leader favours the principle of self-government. Mr. Speaker, when do you oppose leave to introduce a Bill? You refuse leave to introduce a Bill when you are completely and in principle against that Bill. I say to the hon. member for Yeoville that if his federation plan means anything, if it is not only a big joke, if it is not simply a big piece of hypocrisy, then he is not against the principle of this Bill because this Bill does nothing more than to give a limited measure of self-government. What does the hon. member want? Does he want a lesser measure of self-government for the Transkei than that which is provided for in this Bill or does he want a greater measure of self-government for the Transkei? That is the question they have to answer. They are completely wrong; they are entirely barking up the wrong tree because in principle, that is if their federation plan means anything, they are not against this Bill. They are in principle against another Bill which will have to come in 5,10, 15,20 or 50 years but they are not against this measure which makes provision for a measure of self-government. What is their main reason for refusing leave to introduce this Bill? Because it is supposed to be part of a plan to dismantle the Republic of South Africa and because, as the hon. member for South Coast said when he opposed leave to introduce a previous Bill, we will not be able to halt the pace of development; and as the Leader of the Opposition said, because we would not be able to control the time table (tydtafel).

The “tydrooster ”.

What is the difference? Why will we not be able to control it? If there is one country that can control it then it is the Republic of South Africa. But I want to lay this charge against them: If they contend that as a result of this measure we will be unable to control the time table, then according to their own argument they have already sold the White man in South Africa because I repeat that if their federation plan means anything and if they were in power to-day they would probably have come forward with a similar Bill. But they want much more; not only do they want to give a form of self-government to the Transkei, but they want to give that same Transkei a representative in this Parliament and if the hon. member for Yeoville has his way, it will be a Black representative. [Time limit.]

In replying to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I would not like to anticipate my second-reading speech. Indeed, I do not intend replying to what he said. This side of the House is firmly opposed to this Bill because we know that this self-government of which the Government talks is just the second last step to independence. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister know as well as I do that when one gives self-government to an area that is just the last step before independence, before sovereignty or, as the Prime Minister called it, domination (baasskap). In other words, this Bill, for the introduction of which leave is being asked, is nothing less than the first step towards sovereignty—the sovereignty of an area which is part of the Republic of South Africa and an integral part of the Republic. It is not only an area which is under our control, it is not a colony; it is part of the South Africa for which our forefathers fought and made sacrifices and which we are now going to give away, and here we are now taking the first step in that direction. Does the Government expect us to betray our forefathers? Never. That is the basis of our objection to this Bill, but that is not all. We also object to it because the eventual effect of this Bill will be that our eastern border will be exposed to the Orient and vulnerable to interference in our internal affairs. This measure will also give the Transkei the right eventually to appeal to UN if it is not satisfied with our Government or with the manner in which they are treated. And what are we doing to the West? We give the Transkei the opportunity to enter into an agreement with another Black state which would like to have access to the sea, viz. Basutoland.

What are you afraid of?

My hon. friend asks what I am afraid of. I know what his standpoint is, namely that there will be a neutral area. That is for him to decide at this stage, but what assurance has he that this neutral area will still exist in ten or 20 years’ time, and that it will not be changed in the meantime, not by us but by the actions of those states which he is now establishing?

But my hon. friends go further. What are they doing to the Whites in the Transkei, as we have now heard from the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes)? They are leaving them in the lurch. They are leaving these Whites to the mercy of the Transkeian Government.

That is not true.

In the same way that England left the Whites in Kenya to the mercy of Kenyatta and of the Mau-Mau, the Whites of the Transkei are now being left to the mercy of the Transkeian Government. I think it is a shame that Afrikaners who ought to know better should abandon their fellow Whites to the mercy of the Transkeian Government. No, my hon. friends cannot expect this side of the House to be satisfied with that. Under no circumstances will we support a Bill which brings that about.

Furthermore, Sir, this Bill will also grant self-government to people “related ”—as it says now—to the Transkei. In other words, the principle is being laid down here that as these areas receive self-government, first the Transkei and then the others, their subjects who live in the so-called White areas will also receive that measure of self-government. In other words, we will eventually reach the stage where there are more foreigners, strangers, in the White areas than Whites or Republican citizens. What chaos will result where we have a state the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of which are citizens of other states! This Government will be responsible not only for the destruction of the Whites but also of White civilization in South Africa. It is for these reasons that this side of the House will not support this Bill under any circumstances. We will oppose it with all our strength to the bitter end.

I readily concede that the introduction of this Bill is an historic occasion. It is an occasion of the greatest importance. I want to say immediately that the introduction of this Bill means only one thing, namely to give effect to the promise of the White man in South Africa during the past years, particularly since Union.

Who made those promises?

I challenge anybody of that side of the House to deny that. I have said previously that there has not been a Prime Minister who has sat in this House who did not make this promise to the Bantu of South Africa. We are now fulfilling that promise. I want to say this immediately to the hon. member, namely that if there is one thing which I definitely refuse to make myself guilty of then it is to betray the word of honour of the White man. I definitely refuse to do that. If there is one thing against which we should guard carefully then it is not to bring the prestige and the esteem of the White man in South Africa into discredit.

What about the Coloureds?

I am coming to that. I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has said, namely that there is a radical difference. The first radical difference is to aim at one thing and that is to create a happy and peaceful future not only for the White man in South Africa but for all racial groups in South Africa. And that is what the United Party is not doing. On the contrary, they are deliberately following the road which other states in Africa have followed. There is no doubt about that.

The accusation has been levelled against us in the first instance that we did not consult the Bantu. I do not want to say a great deal about that. I only want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that there are very few issues on which the Bantu have been consulted to the extent to which they have been on this issue of the Transkei. I shall deal with that at a later stage; I do not want to take up the time of the House now. The further accusation has been levelled against us that we were leaving the Whites in the Transkei in the lurch. I only want to say this: If there is one person who is doing a disservice to the Whites in the Transkei then it is the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He is the person who is chasing the White people out of the Transkei. With those kind of methods in which he uses those few Whites simply for political gain, simply to bolster his insolvent party, he is doing those people the greatest disservice possible, because with those methods he is engendering a feeling of hatred between White and non-White in the Transkei. The signs are already there. I do not think it is right on the part of a responsible Member of Parliament to want to use that small number of Whites who perhaps do not have a great deal of political experience, to serve the petty purposes of his own party. I say that he will be the person who will be leaving those Whites in the Transkei in the lurch. Let me say this: We have the word of honour of the Government towards those Whites. I was personally present when the Prime Minister met them;

I spoke to them myself. They need not be afraid. How often must I repeat that no promise was given that the Heckroodt Commission should first submit its report. They know that as well as I do. It is simply unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to request that of me now. And that is being encouraged by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He was the person who told them that they should now demand that from the Government.

When did I do that?

You did do so and that report will shortly be published; it is nearly ready. The hon. member need not be afraid. However, I want to state this very clearly here to-day: There are certain traders in the Transkei who lend themselves to those kinds of methods. Once I have a say there they must not expect any assistance from me. [Interjections.] Surely we can expect a certain measure of reasonableness from them. I want to say this to-day, fully conscious of my responsibility, that the majority of the traders in the Transkei are prepared to trust us.

What about the Civic Association?

I pay no attention to the Civic Association. They are nothing else than a plaything in the hands of the hon. member. He tells them what to do.

The accusation was also levelled against us that we were leaving the Coloureds in the Transkei in the lurch. That too I reject with the contempt it deserves. I personally met those Coloureds as well, and I gave them the assurance that they need not be worried. I went further and I asked the Heckroodt Commission to investigate their position as well and to report on their position.

When do we get it?

They are, therefore, not being left in the lurch.

They have already been left in the lurch.

We are told that we are playing the same game which England played towards the people in Kenya. [Interjections.] I challenge hon. members opposite to ask anybody from Kenya in my presence whether we are playing a similar game in the Transkei as the one which England played towards them. They will simply say it is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely untrue. How can they accuse us of that? It is untrue. I say it is extremely unfair towards the people of the Transkei. It is extremely unreasonable to want to place your own people on the altar because of your own political insolvency. That is the game which the United Party is playing.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this is a serious matter to us; it is a matter of sincere and holy conviction. That is why we have no choice but to carry on with this Bill.

I must say that I am frankly amazed at the statement we have just heard from the hon. the Minister. Subject to whatever instructions he is getting from the hon. the Prime Minister, he is the man who is responsible for the position in which the White people of the Transkei are to-day and the position in which that whole country is to-day vis-a-vis this fragmentation policy which this Government is adopting. He comes here and he talks about promises which have been given to the Bantu by past Prime Ministers and so forth. Who has been making those promises? He is the Minister who goes among the Bantu and refers to his fellow White South Africans as wolves who are seeking to devour them. [Interjections.] A Minister who goes among the Bantu and tells them that among his co-White colleagues are the wolves who are chasing them has no right to come here and to talk about past promises. Let us get this quite clear, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not: My Leader’s promise that we are not going to be bound by the promises goes much further than that. We will not be bound by the promises of this Government nor by. its legislation nor by its policy. We will not have part or parcel ip anything that it is doing to establish self-governing States here in the Republic of South Africa.

You will march.

Oh, my hon. friend with his little trap phrases! Let me ask him a question with his march, march, march: Hon. members opposite recently were so wrapped up in the idea of protecting the language rights of the Bantu—speaker after speaker from the Minister downwards—why do they not protect the real rights of the White people in the Transkei? What are they going to do to protect those rights? They are protecting the language rights of the Bantu; what about the property rights and the lives of the White people in the Transkei? I for one. Sir, am going to speak plainly about this. The hon. the Minister of Justice, in dealing with a tragic happening in the Transkei recently, said the other day that the Government was going to take all the necessary steps to protect the lives of innocent people. How can he protect the lives of people who are dead? We know perfectly well what is happening in the Transkei to-day and what is going to happen. One of Chief Kaiser Matanzima’s Indunas had his throat cut the other day. He is dead; who protected him? How can the Minister of Justice protect him? And so it will go on, Sir, under this Bill. Who is raising this trouble as far as the Transkei tribesmen are concerned? The hon. the Minister and the Government. Not a single responsible member of the Bantu people in the Transkei has asked for self-government; not a single body; not a single group; not a single individual. Who put the idea into their head that they could get self-government? This Government did. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs. They are the people who put that idea into the heads of the Bantu, Sir, that they could get self-government; they are the people who have led them along the path of believing that they were going to have independent sovereign states.

That is not true.

The hon. Minister comes along to-day and he talks about the White storekeepers. The Minister wants the White storekeepers to stay in the Transkei to bolster up the economy. He wants to keep them there. Does he deny it? No, he cannot deny it. He knows what will happen if the 650 White storekeepers got out of the Transkei to-morrow, if they can find buyers. He talks about what the people from Kenya will have to say. How many people from Kenya will go and buy some of those trading stations in the Transkei? [Interjections.] He says many. Can he tell us the name of one? Can the hon. the Minister mention the name of one person from Kenya who will go and buy a trading station in the Transkei? He knows perfectly well, Sir, that if those Transkei traders could get out by selling their trading stations to Bantu persons the whole economy of the Transkei would crash. He knows it. He wants the White traders to stay there. He wants them to be the White rivets in the Black yoke which he is fastening round the necks of those White people. Without those White rivets what will happen to the economy? The thing will crash completely. He knows that he is putting himself and the Government completely at the dispensation of Kaizer Matanzima. They cannot quarrel with Kaizer to-day, Sir. The Prime Minister cannot meet Kaizer Matanzima head-on in a clash to-day. Kaizer Matanzima already has the whip hand and he will have it as long as he remains alive, which will not be for long and the Minister knows it. [Interjections.] I wonder how many of them will take out an insurance policy on Kaizer Matanzima’s life to-day?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is too short. In regard to this Bill, both in regard to the Bantu in the Transkei and those outside in our towns—the 1,500,000 inside and the 2,500,000 outside—they know nothing about this Bill, Sir. They know nothing about its contents. A group of the Bantu people had it explained to them by the Government through the mouth of the Government’s own special advocates, for their policy. Official pressure has been exerted on them to accept what the Government has made for them. What a mockery to suggest that this comes from the hearts of the people of the Transkei, the Bantu.

You know that is not true.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, they do not understand the system of government. Nowhere in the whole of the Republic has there been a more law-abiding, decent group of people than the Bantu in the Transkei ever since the annexation. And what tumult has the Government thrown them in to-day by coming along with a Bill like this which they do not understand, where they cannot possibly be viable as a community? The Government is apparently holding the whip hand and the purse-strings. They are going to keep the Bantu people in the Transkei serving their purposes, their will, holding them in check. Mr. Speaker, there is not * a single nation in Africa amongst the emerging nations that will concern itself one iota with whether it is economically viable or not; once they have had their eyes fixed on independence, all other considerations go by the board. We need only look to what is taking place to-day in the Federation. The question of economic viability will never stand in the way of the Bantu people once they have their eyes fixed on independence. And who fixed their eyes here for them? The Minister. He told them “julle sal baas wees in jul eie gebied ”. The hon. the Minister started that; Now this unready, unprepared, uneducated, in terms of political science, in terms of economics, people, are being steered more rapidly by the hon. the Minister than probably in any other country in Africa to independence. He talks about the Congo having been given independence before it was ready. Mr. Speaker, in heaven’s name is the Transkei ready for this kind of departure? The people who have to take over do not understand the barest beginnings of what is being done here to-day. This is being thrust upon them. The Minister has not had consultations with any of these people. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has spoken about consultations in the big urban centres. We have those people in their thousands and their tens of thousands here in Cape Town. People come and speak to me about what is happening in their own homeland. We have the trouble in the Transkei to-day; we have this Bill coming before us while Proclamation No. 400 is still in operation in the Transkei. We are having this Bill while police are combing the hills and valleys around Bashee; when we have all the trouble in connection with a murder of that henchman of Chief Matanzima. This is the atmosphere in which this Bill is being introduced by the Government. At a time when gatherings are barred under Proclamation 400 the Minister comes forward with this Bill.

What price did the White people pay for their freedom? [Time limit.]

Sir, anybody who takes the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) seriously must be out of his mind. We know how he tried to incited rebellion on the Republican issue; how he tried to create an atmosphere—

Order! The hon. Minister cannot say that.

Then I withdraw that, Sir. What he did say was: “Get ready to march And now listen to the hon. member this afternoon—a responsible member. He referred to the henchman of Matanzima who had his throat cut and then he said that Chief Matanzima would be the next one; Matanzima will be the next one whose life will be in danger. Is that creating the right climate? In any case, Sir, I say all this is a stunt. It is a drama which he is trying to work up. To try to object to a Bill at this stage is a stunt. I want to read from the United Party speeches themselves. Listen to this—

This was the first-reading stage—

He goes on to say this—

That is the Leader of the United Party. I am quoting from a speech by Mr. Strauss as reported in Hansard in 1953. They adopted a reasonable approach at this stage to this measure. [Interjections.] Yes, I voted for it; I voted with Mr. Strauss against the Opposition and the Opposition consisted of the Labour Party and the Federal Party, and Mrs. Ballinger who was then Native Representative in this House. Listen to this—

This is Mr. Strauss speaking on the first reading stage of a Bill in which two amendments were moved, and in which he said that there was no justification to raise matters such as those which have been raised here.

Which Bill was that?

The South African Act Amendment Bill. It was a very important Bill which they fought at the second reading stage and all along after that. At that stage there was a reasonable parliamentary approach. Mr. Speaker, listen to it because it is very important—

That was what he said but still he did not oppose its introduction—

[Interjections.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has had ample opportunity of stating his case. He should give the hon. Minister an opportunity to do likewise. That also applies to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp).

I know why they will not give me the opportunity. They will not give me the opportunity because I am telling them the truth. This was the procedure which their former Leader adopted and which they supported. There were two amendments and as I say it was put to the vote and the United Party voted with the Government. Amongst those names I see T. G. Hughes. He voted with the Government. I also see Mr. Douglas Mitchell’s and Mr. Marais Steyn’s names. They voted for the principle that when a Bill is introduced the principle of audi alteram partem applies and the right should be given to introduce the Bill.

What does that mean?

Hear the other side. That was the principle which their Leader put forward. At that stage the first reading of the South Africa Act Amendment Bill was before them. It had already been introduced previously so it was well-known to everybody. But this is the stunt politics of the Opposition. I realize that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is only concerned with one thing. He does not mind what amount of trouble he causes all over South Africa. All he plans is to get a few traders’ votes in the Transkei. That is all that interest him.

Who?

That hon. member. His whole object and the object of that side of the House is to try to create unrest and suspicion, to upset the country. I think the language of the hon. member for South Coast when he said that Matanzima had not very long to live, was scandalous. I think it was a scandalous thing to have said. I think if any man made that sort of statement in any country he should be ashamed of himself. This hon. member has a habit of making outrageous statements on every occasion. He thinks he can get away with it. He thinks he can make these statements because he has been brought up in a certain tradition, what he says goes. What he does is the right behaviour. Well that does not cut any ice with me. I know the hon. member for South Coast only too well.

On the conclusion of the period of one hour allotted for the debate on the motion for leave to introduce the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 161.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Fronetnan, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grob-ler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labu-schagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion accordingly agreed to.

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development thereupon brought up the Transkei Constitution Bill [A.B. 42—’63].

Bill read a first time.

When the House adjourned last night I was pointing out that as far as consultation with Coloured teachers was concerned, the hon. the Minister had placed an accomplished fact before the teachers because he already knew at that stage what he had to do and wanted to do in terms of Nationalist Party policy and because the Coloured teachers also already knew what he wanted to do and would do. I feel therefore that the consultation which the hon. the Minister had with the Coloured teachers should perhaps be seen in another light. I think that more or less the same thing can be said in respect of the financial implications of this measure. Undoubtedly the implications are of the greatest importance for the Cape which will be affected to a large extent thereby, and hon. members opposite quite correctly did their best to try and show that if Coloured education was transferred the Cape would be relieved of a burden, and for that reason the Bill should be supported. I feel, however, that that is the last argument that they can use from the much discussed and widely quoted Schumann Report, because in that Report it is very clearly stated on page 135—I think that at one stage there was some doubt about the matter—

In other words, it does not help to tell us that the Cape may save a little as a result of the transfer. Indeed, I believe that as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned it will make little difference to him whether the difference is a few million rand either way. The fact is that the hon. the Minister is there to implement the policy of the Nationalist Party and I do not think that the financial implications will carry any weight with him at all. In any case, I do not think that this specific policy of the Nationalist Party of transferring Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs was inspired by the financial burden on the Cape. That is why I say that this Bill must be seen against the background of Nationalist Party policy, a policy which requires a distinctive development for each of the four race groups in South Africa, development according to the nature of each group. And when we come to education, which is so bound up with the character and the mind of the people, then it becomes of the most vital importance to ascertain the nature of the Coloured and whether there is such a thing as distinctiveness as far as he is concerned

But before dealing with this aspect I want to refer briefly to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) who told us in no uncertain fashion what the policy of the Nationalist Party was. He said that the arguments of the Opposition no longer count; the Coloured has already been placed on a new road to a new future. At that moment I felt like asking the hon. member: “On a new road to where?” Sometimes I think it is a road to nowhere. But it is not my intention to take this particular aspect any further. He went on to tell us that during all the years of United Party Government we had done nothing for the Coloured. Ours was an inglorious past. In contrast to this, in his view, we have the splendid years of Nationalist Party Government. I do not want to argue with him regarding the merits of these two statements, but I want to put the matter to the hon. member in this way: If we have a party political test of strength in a Coloured constituency, the hon. member knows that the Nationalist Party candidate will not be returned to this House. I do not want to contend that the candidate will lose his deposit and I am not using that argument in a petty political sense, but I use it because I feel that the hon. member should give a little more thought to this matter: Why is this so? Why, in spite of all the years of famous achievements, in spite of or notwithstanding their socio-economic upliftment, will the Coloured reject the Nationalist candidate if he casts his vote?

Those United Party stories are nice to believe.

Does the hon. member want to suggest that the Coloureds are so gullible? Does the hon. member think so little of the Coloured teachers as to suggest that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong? If that is the view of the hon. member in regard to the mentality of the Coloured, it may perhaps give us rather a different background against which to view this measure. To my mind the cardinal question is: Why? And I think if we can find out why, in spite of all the measures for their upliftment, the Coloured will still reject the Nationalist Party, we may perhaps arrive at the answer why this Bill which is before the House is wrong.

I want to quote to you from a work by Adam Small entitled “Die Eerste Steen” (The First Stone)—a very short quotation. Adam Small, who is a Coloured, is connected with the University College of the Western Cape. He is an educated person, an Afrikaans writer, a Coloured who speaks the language which is in-born in the Coloureds, a person Who knows the Coloureds. At one stage I thought: Here we have a person who may perhaps be the Jan F. Cilliers of the Coloureds, the Totius, the Louis Leipoldt of the Coloured people, and I want to quote briefly from page 70 [translation]—

And which the Nationalist Party with its famous achievements appreciates so fully—

Does this not perhaps bring us closer to the reason why there are Coloured, educated Coloureds, who feel that this Bill is wrong? I want to make a further brief quotation from page 66 because we are dealing here with the question of education. Adam Small states [translation]—

That is a question which the hon. member for Moorreesburg asked. He said that he did not feel satisfied with what the Coloured was doing for his own people. Adam Small says here that the question is sometimes asked almost with malicious satisfaction: “What have you done for your own people?” He goes on to say [translation]—

I want to ask: Does Adam Small not perhaps have the answer here? He says that notwithstanding the bread and butter politics, the Coloured who speaks our language which is inborn in the Coloured, feels hurt and humiliated and feels that he is a stepchild of South Africa because the one thing that he wants is not given him—and it is not given to him in this Bill either. He wants in the first place to be recognized as a person and in the second place as a South African. We do not recognize him in that way. In the first place he is recognized as “Coloured ”. He does not want to be a White man. He just wants to be a South African, a fellow human-being, and Adam Small says that this is the recognition which we do not give him.

May I take an example from this debate to try and illustrate the point that I want to make? We have had a discussion about the finances of the Cape. We have approached this matter on a racial basis but surely it is an economic and financial matter? What are the facts? We are saddled with increasing expenditure, expenditure which is increasing rapidly in respect of education. It is an unfortunate fact that a large section of our population is poor, and it so happens that a large section of the people who are poor is Coloured. Because they are poor they cannot pay their proportionate share of taxation, and so we find ourselves in the position of wanting to give them particular privileges but of not being able to do so because we have no money. What is the solution? We ask the Central Government for a subsidy. That is on the economic side. But what do we do? We approach the whole matter on a racial basis. We do not mention the fact that there are also Whites who are poor and who cannot pay taxes. We speak only of the Coloured. The whole discussion is directed at the Coloured; the Coloured is singled out as a Coloured and in that way we hurt him because he wants to be accepted as a fellow South African.

The attitude of the Nationalist Party and of the Government is: “But the Coloured ought to be proud to be a Coloured.” Are we being realistic in saying this when there is so much prejudice in South Africa in regard to colour? Moreover, have we ever thought that the Coloured may perhaps be prouder of being a fellow South African? Have we ever thought about this when we say that he should be proud of being a Coloured.

And in connection with education we had the position—it also had its shortcomings but to my mind it was a satisfactory position— where the Coloured and the White man were educated together as fellow South Africans. We did have separate schools for Coloureds and Whites …

Why?

Sir, there are separate schools for Afrikaans-speaking children and English-speaking children. Surely that is the policy of the Nationalist Party? But the fact remains that education was given under a provincial education umbrella, one umbrella for both the Coloured and the White. Although they were in separate schools, it did not at all affect the important principle about which the Coloured feels very strongly. What are we doing now? We are removing him from under that umbrella and we now have two umbrellas, one for the Coloureds and one for the Whites. We have another Bill before us here which sets the Coloured apart as a Coloured in order to make a specific law for him. And every time, we do this, I believe that we are further, alienating the Coloureds. In the words of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), every time we do this we are adding a brick to a wall which is slowly but surely rising between White and Coloured. Why? Because the. Government believes in this policy of distinctive development, a policy which in my humble, opinion rests on a misapprehension, a misconception as far as the Coloureds are concerned. The question arises in my mind—and this is a question which I want to deal with because it is very important in that education and character and thought go together— whether the Coloured does have his own nature; whether he does have a distinctive character. I want to read to you what a person who knows something about the matter has to say. Do not say that it is I who say this because I am no authority in this sphere, but I have here a booklet written by the Rev. D. P. Botha entitled “The Rise of Our Third Estate” (Opkoms van Ons Derdere Stand), a booklet the foreword to which was written by no less a person that N. G. van Wyk Louw, a man who is certainly not known to be a Liberal or an inciter or a supporter of the United Party. What does he say about this booklet? He says that it is a booklet which he read with tears in his eyes, a booklet in which things are said which he as an Afrikaner would have said long ago were it not for the fact that specific circumstances prevented him from saying them. What does the writer say on page 163? He says [translation]—

Why does he say this? He says it because he contends that the Coloured has no distinctive character. The Coloured does not have a nature different from that of the White man, except as far as his skin is concerned. If we educate the Coloured even under a differentiated system of education, we are going to hurt the Coloured; we are going to alienate him from the White man, and the White man who needs this age-old ally of his dare not do that. I want to quote a little more of what he has to say [translation]—

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does he want to educate the White child and the Coloured child in the same classroom?

I do not want to answer the question of the hon. member. Can hon. members see what the hon. member is driving at by asking that question? There we see the statement which is made here: Biological assimilation, intermingling. Mr. Speaker, no matter how we may consider the matter, all those hon. members have in mind is “interbreeding” (verbastering). One can stand up here and be as honest as one wants to, but no matter what one may do, one is suspected of being in favour of biological assimilation. That is really something which is not worthy of hon. members on the other side. But I would prefer to leave that aspect of the matter and tell the hon. member what the Rev. Botha has to say, because I think there is a great deal of truth in what he says. He says [translation]—

He asks these questions and he says [translation]—

He proves conclusively, in my view, that when we speak of the Coloureds as a group with a distinctive character, an individual national character, and as a result of this want to educate them on a separate basis, that we are doing something which is wrong because these people certainly have no distinctive nature. They certainly have no distinctive future except the future of us all. And I think that it was also the Rev. Botha who said that no matter how we consider this question, the Coloured will share the lot of the White man, and we cannot place him on a separate road unless we want to alienate him from ourselves finally and forever, and quite possibly, too, at the expense of the Whites.

What new road?

Is it a separate road if we have separate control over education?

I say that if the Rev. Botha is correct and if the Coloureds have our way of life and our nature, if they have our way of thinking, then I believe that it will be wrong for us to sever by means of this Bill, one of the most important links which the Coloureds have always had with the White people, the link of thought. I believe then that this Bill will become the law by means of which we will eventually alienate the Coloureds from ourselves forever. I feel that there are few factors which are so important formatively as far as the thought and the nature of man is concerned, than education, and it would be a tragedy to my mind if by means of this Bill—which somebody contended would enable us to give the Coloured back his education—we were to alienate the Coloured from ourselves. I do not think that the Government wants this to happen. I also believe that the Government does not want to hurt the Coloured nor to humiliate him, but when I hear what Adam Small has to say and I listen to what Rev. D. Botha has to say, then I think that it is possible for this to happen. I believe that the Government does not want to alienate the Coloured; it wants to retain him as a friend. But then I must add that it appears to me that there can be no surer way of alienating the Coloured than by means of this type of legislation with its differentiated form of education.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow has a great deal of substance. 1 just want to refer to his last point—the question of alienation. I want to say that even if his other three points are completely wrong, if we can only prove to this House that this Bill may possibly lead to alienation, then I think that the hon. Minister will have to think twice before he takes this step. I am speaking only of the possibilities. I want to ask that no matter what we do, we must no longer consider the Coloureds as a people with a distinctive character and nature. If we do so, we will alienate these people for ever. I do not think that the hon. the Minister wants this to happen and I do not think that there is a single person on this side who wants to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker if anything became very clear this afternoon, it was that when the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) spoke, he showed that the United Party really wanted to become the champions of integration in South Africa. The hon. member said the Coloureds were not peculiar to themselves, but while he said that I want to refer him to the colour policy of the United Party, one of those sixpenny pamphlets which they issued at one time and in which they say this—

That shows you, Sir, that in the days when they were a little more national-minded than they are to-day, when they were not as liberal-minded as they are to-day, they believed that the Coloured people were peculiar to themselves. Let us cast our minds back and trace the origin of the Coloured people.

There are five components which can be mentioned from whom they have descended. The first is the Hottentots, secondly there are the Bushmen; and thirdly the slaves, then a few drops of White blood and subsequently Bantu blood. The Coloured people have developed from those five component parts and they are not peculiar to those groups. It is not in the least peculiar to the White or the Native as such. How can the hon. member say that they have nothing peculiar to their own ranks?

I want to respond to one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), but before doing so I just want to say that this Bill which is before the House to-day poses this question: Must Coloured education be transferred to the Central Government or must it remain under the provinces? Up to the present stage those hon. members have not made out a case for it that it should remain with the provinces. Their arguments amount to this: That it will deteriorate if it were placed under the Government, but that is really a complaint against he Coloured teachers. Why will the education of the Coloureds deteriorate if it is transferred to the Central Government administratively only? The schools and the teachers will remain precisely the same and the education which they will receive will in no way differ from that which they receive to-day. All the arguments which they have advanced, therefore, are nothing but fallacious arguments; there is no sense in them.

If we want to go into the matter, we have to consider the pros and cons, the arguments for and against it that Coloured education should be transferred to the Central Government. Various parties are concerned in this. The first is the Provincial Councils, the Coloureds themselves, and then I want to mention the National Party and the United Party. As far as the power of the Provincial Councils is concerned, that power of theirs is not being curtailed in any way. The old South Africa Act states very clearly in Section 85 (3) that Provincial Councils have the right to pass ordinances concerning the following classes of subjects, namely education, excluding secondary education, for five years and, thereafter, until Parliament determines otherwise. That was stated very clearly at the time, and Section 84 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states very clearly that, notwithstanding the provisions of that Act, a provincial council can pass ordinances concerning education, excluding secondary education and Bantu education, until Parliament determines otherwise. It is once again stated very clearly here that the Central Government can pass legislation concerning education and that the power of provincial councils is not curtailed in any way. As is being done to-day in the case of Coloured education, Indian education will be taken away in future and placed under the Central Government, viz. when the Department of Indian Education is independent and has developed sufficiently to take over Indian education. No powers are being restricted or curtailed in any way here.

As far as the Coloureds themselves are concerned, the hon. the Minister has given us a very clear picture, and it also became very clear when the Prime Minister addressed the Union Coloured Council in 1961 that the Coloureds themselves were anxious that their education should be co-ordinated and joined together under one department. [Quorum.] To come back, Sir, the United Party does not want to believe that the Coloureds themselves are concerned in this. All the speeches which these hon. members have so far made in this debate have been for the benefit of the world outside, of UNO. All the speeches, one after the other, were made simply to make an impression upon the Press and the world outside; they showed no interest in the weal and woe of the Coloureds. That is very clear from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as reported in the Burger of 4 March where he said—

That shows us, Sir, that they are only interested in the Coloureds to the extent that they can remain in contact with the world outside; they are not interested in the welfare of the Coloureds as such.

As far as the National Party is concerned, we have one policy, and that is to do the best for every national group in South Africa. We have four groups of which the Coloureds form one group, and our attitude is very clear. As far as the education of the Coloured people is concerned, we want to give them only what is the best. The United Party on the contrary, if they are serious, if they want to tell us that they want a race federation, does not accept it, they reject it, while they have the chance, because this legislation fits into their race federation plan. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said very clearly that they wanted a race federation in which the races would be represented. Where the Coloureds are now brought together as a separate group under Coloured Affairs; why is the United Party against that? If their race federation comes into existence at a later stage, the Coloureds will already be linked together under one department, and their race federation policy can then be applied. But they do not know what their own race federation plan is and what it entails. The time is long overdue that they issue another sixpenny pamphlet.

Order! That is not relevant.

My plea is this: let us give to the Coloureds what is their due. Do not let us delay this legislation any longer. No arguments have been advanced by their side why we should not do so. But I want to plead for two other things, and one is under Clauses 30 and 31, namely the Education Board for Coloureds. If this legislation is applied, I want to ask the Minister to use his influence and to ensure that when this Education Board is established the education and training of the Coloureds will be properly looked after. We must ensure that they are taught patriotism under their syllabus. Their characters must be built; they must develop national pride and self-respect. That should be nurtured from the cradle. They must love that which is their own, and they must know and realize that they are a group peculiar to itself. They should be given Christian national education and when I plead for Christian national education I do not think the United Party will attack me because that is also their policy; and I want to quote from their programme of principles. The very first point in their Constitution is this—

That is why I ask that we should have Christian national education, Christian in the correct meaning and national in the right meaning as far as the education of the Coloureds is concerned. Secondly, I wish to plead that when this national group, the Coloureds, have reached maturity, we shall use this educational policy to attract the Coloured people back to the south, to their own area from which they come. We have the following figures to-day: There are 1,314, 392 Coloureds in the Cape Province. In the Transvaal there are 105,217 and 25,525 in the Free State and 43,093 in Natal, if we want to look beyond this legislation, if we look at the future, we realize that in the future those three northern provinces will be faced with a problem which we have to try to solve to-day already; it is a problem which can very easily be solved as we go along, if we would only realize that if we could get the Coloureds to emigrate from the north to the south, we will not have a greater problem in the north than we have there to-day. In 1936 the population of the three northern provinces amounted to only 86,153, but to-day it amounts to 173,875. That means that in 24 years it has increased by 87,727. If those Coloured people were kept in the south at that time by the creation of employment and the provision of educational facilities, there would not have been as many Coloureds in the north as there are to-day. I want to put forward this suggestion that where we are going to provide facilities for the training and education of the Coloureds, we should say that for the next ten years those facilities will still be provided in the north but after that their education and universities will only be available to them in the south. By doing that we will slowly attract the Coloureds back to the Cape Province. We have approximately 117,000 Natives west and south of a line drawn from Caledon, Worcester, Ceres, Tulbagh and Malmesbury. These Natives will be removed at a later stage; they will gradually return to their homelands and the Coloureds will then be able to return to their original homeland, the Cape Province, where they will be absorbed by their own people.

That will be the day!

The Coloureds are not assimilable in the north. He cannot as yet be taken up in the north as in the south and there is not such a great number of Coloureds. If there are hon. members who contend that those Coloureds should not return to the south they should advance the reason why those Coloureds will not be welcomed by members of their own race.

Are you talking on behalf of your party?

It is an idea which I am putting forward for the future. When we have the position, as the hon. member for Drakensberg said, that it is scandalous to plead for it that the Coloureds should do the. work which the Bantu are doing to-day, I think it is a disgrace that speeches should be made alleging that it is a disgrace to work. It is a disgrace when you call work a disgrace. I want to know from that hon. member why she cannot do the same work which a non-White does? Why should she have a non-White servant when she can do her own housework? She eats her food off a plate and is it a disgrace to wash that plate? The hon. member for Yeoville said that when all the Bantu in the Western Cape have been transferred to their homelands, we will all die of hunger. Those hon. members are the people who do not want to work, they are the people who are too lazy to work and who will die, but if they want to die they must simply die. We will not shed a tear. I want to plead for it that in future we give to the Coloureds what we claim for ourselves. This Education Act will be properly applied and in future the Coloureds will be grateful for the fact that a National Party was ever in power who looked after their interests and who did not exploit them as the Opposition did. This reminds me greatly of what happened in America with the emancipation of the slaves. In the South they said to the Negro; “You are a slave, God bless you,” but in the North they said: “You are free, God damn you.” That is precisely what this Opposition is doing. As long as they can exploit the Coloureds they will say to them what was said in the south, but the day when they can no longer exploit them they will say “God damn you ”.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) has covered a very wide field in this debate and it is not my intention to follow him because I am quite certain that if I did so my remarks would not be entirely relevant to the subject under discussion. There is one matter, however, Which the hon. member touched upon and which ought to be mentioned. He quoted from a United Party publication setting out our policy in respect of social segregation, etc., but in the United Party’s policy in respect of the Coloureds we have never stated that we stand for a policy of social and residential segregation from the Coloureds. The United Party’s policy is simply that in the administrative sphere and in the political sphere, the traditional position of the Coloured will be retained, a policy which has been advocated not only by us but was also advocated by a person like General Hertzog.

But the hon. member then went on to say that he wished to submit for our consideration the idea that the Government should consider the advisability of seeing to it that there is no increase in the number of Coloureds who are in the Transvaal at the moment, and that if possible they should return to their real home in the south in the course of time. That is one of the things for which the United Party has always pleaded, that there should be no constant meddling with those things to which the Coloureds have become accustomed, Whether it be their way of life or their education, but now the hon. member for Sunnyside comes along with a new idea again and proposes that those people should be transferred from the Transvaal to the south. However, I shall come back to that later on.

This legislation is praised as the new dispensation which is being introduced for the Coloured. A promising and fine future is held out for him if only he is prepared to have his education placed under the Government; he is also told that he will never be able to develop unless he develops separately, on his own traditional lines, and that he will never be able to reach the highest rung, particularly in the sphere of education, unless he does it on a basis of separatism. What hon. members on the other side are actually saying to us is that this legislation is simply giving effect to their old policy of parallel education for the Coloureds. In addition to that the impression is created that unless the control of education for Coloureds and Whites is separated, it is actually tantamount to integration. The impression that hon. members try to create is that because we refuse to take away education from the provinces, we really want integration with the Coloured. The hon. member for Prieska (M. Stander) has also said that if the United Party comes into power it will march along the road to Little Rocks. Listening to the speeches which have been made so far in this debate, one is surprised that some enthusiast or other on the Nationalist Party benches has not come along with that statement before. If we expected that they would not say it, then we on this side were over-optimistic, because when this type of thing is discussed the argument is always advanced sooner or later that the United Party wants to integrate those people. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) has argued that if we accept this legislation it can be a further factor promoting racial peace between White and Coloured. I want to ask hon. members on the other side since when Coloured education has been a source of racial unrest between White and Coloured. There was only one time when it was a source of unrest, and that was when hon. members like the hon. member for Malmesbury, the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Moorreesburg went from platform to platform quoting figures to the people to show how many more Coloured children were at school and that that was why the Coloureds should be placed on a separate voters’ roll. That was the only time when it was a source of unrest. Or do hon. members opposite adopt this attitude simply because the White man in the Cape Province bears the heaviest burden in respect of Coloured education? We do not deny the fact that the Cape Province bears the heaviest burden, but the money for Coloured education must nevertheless be found. The Schumann Report says that in the year 1970-1 we will need R48,000,000 for Coloured education in South Africa. The Central Government will then have to bear that burden and the money will also have to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. But the position will then be that the taxpayers of the Transvaal, which has the smallest number of Coloureds but which certainly makes the greatest contribution to the Treasury, will be dissatisfied. We have already heard from the hon. member for Sunnyside that the number of Coloureds in the Transvaal should not be increased but that they should come back to the south. If therefore the burden is placed on a greater number of taxpayers, greater dissatisfaction will be created amongst those people. You will be gladdening the heart of the Cape taxpayer but in that process you will be creating dissatisfaction in the other provinces. I want to quote from page 109, paragraph 125, of the Schumann Report—

In other words, the position would remain just the same. You would gladden the heart of the Cape taxpayers but you would get greater dissatisfaction in the other provinces. I do not want to be unpatriotic at all towards my own province, but the Cape members on the other side are only thinking of their own province and not of the extra cost to the Republic as a whole. I want to come back to the report at page 118 (Afrikaans text). What do we find there when we look at the additional expenditure that this transfer will entail? Under C, which deals with the additional cost to the Department of Coloured Affairs it is stated very specifically in paragraph 138 that a departmental committee was appointed by the Department of Coloured Affairs in 1960. Its main recommendations are summarized in this report. Let me read out from paragraph 139 what this will involve, what extra staff will have to be appointed: one Director of Coloured Education, one Deputy Director of Coloured Education, one Chief Inspector of Schools and 24 Inspectors, one Chief Medical Inspector of Schools and four Medical Inspectors, one Secretary and 17 Administrative Officers, 47 Clerical Assistants and 27 Women Clerks and Assistants and 16 Organizers of Special Subjects. Then secondly it is suggested that the staff of the Department of Coloured Affairs, Public Works and Education, Arts and Science and of the Controller and Auditor General be augmented by the appointment of one Deputy Secretary, one Assistant Professional Officer, two Architects, five Clerical Assistants, 21 Clerical Assistants and Women Staff. It is estimated that this will entail an additional expenditure of £223,000. Later on he changed this figure again and stated that it would amount to an additional £322,000 per annum, and after the Secretary for Coloured Affairs had once again gone into the matter, he stated in his report that it would not be £322,000, but £406,000 extra per annum if this transfer was carried into effect. When one reads through this report from, say, page 118 to 123 (Afrikaans text), one sees what enormous extra expenditure the transfer of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs will entail for the Republic. I want to repeat that hon. members of the Cape Province on the other side are thinking of themselves, but they are overlooking the additional expenditure that this will entail for the Republic of South Africa.

Where does the extra expenditure come from?

I have just read it out to the hon. member. I have told the House how many additional officers will have to be appointed. But that is not all. In paragraph 147 we read the following—

We know how many Coloured teachers there are in the Cape Province. Their contributions to this pension fund can therefore not be insignificant. It will cost the Republic of South Africa a tremendous sum of money to pay out the Provincial Administration for this type of thing. Then hon. members opposite still say that this step will lead to a saving, with the result that the Cape Province will need to spend less on Coloured education! Mr. Speaker, we know that this is our quarrel in the Cape Province. We are man enough to cope with that problem. All we asked for in the past was that the Government should realize that in this respect the Cape Province has an additional problem, a greater problem than any other province, and therefore we should also receive more sympathy. In the final result the Minister of Finance is a man who lives in the Cape Province, and surely blood is thicker than water. Therefore, if he had been willing to treat us with the necessary sympathy, it would not have been necessary for the hon. the Minister to introduce this Bill. If there is any substance in the argument that Coloured education costs the Cape Province too much, then this Government ought to prove to us that the taxpayer in the Cape Province will have to pay less in taxation in future, and then they ought to guarantee it before the public will be prepared to believe that there is any substance in this argument of theirs. But they cannot tell us that the Cape Province will now need to spend less. They should also not forget that if Coloured education is taken away from their province, a large portion of our subsidy will also be taken away.

What about the other half?

The hon. member asks what about the other half which we will save. It is quite correct that we will save the other half, but will the hon. member give me the assurance that the taxpayer in the Cape Province will have to pay less in taxation if that happens? If the hon. member can give me the assurance, then there is some substance in their arguments. What is the position to-day? The Cape Province derives its revenue from personal tax, from provincial tax. and a certain percentage of the companies tax which is granted to the province, and by means of the subsidy paid by the Central Government. But what do we find in respect of the Coloured? The Coloured will then be paying for a service rendered to the White child, because the Coloured also pays these taxes. The more well-to-do Coloureds pay the same taxes as we do, and they will be paying for services rendered to the White child, because White education will still be in the hands of the Cape Province, but the Coloured taxpayer will then be paying for the education of the White child in the Cape, for a service the White child receives but which his own child is unable to receive. If hon. members opposite are correct when they speak about the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, then why are they concerned? Because if they are correct, the amounts paid by the Coloureds in taxation will become increasingly greater; they will pay an increasingly greater amount in taxation. It is quite clear to me that the Coloureds’ standard of living is improving increasingly and that they will be able to pay more in taxation. Why are those hon. members then concerned that the Coloured will not be able adequately to assist in paying for this service which is rendered to his child and to him?

One point has become very clear to me in this debate and that is that additional expenditure is unavoidable, whether Coloured education is transferred or not. We White people in this House and in the country are prepared to make those sacrifices; we at least have unanimity in that regard in this House. But the argument is that if the Government pays for a service it must also control that service. But what is the position in regard to the provinces? Except for Natal, the Government in any case controls the Provincial Administrations. It appoints its own Administrator. A year or so ago we passed legislation here in terms of which the majority party in a province can appoint its own Executive Committee. Therefore, in fact, the Government has full control over the provinces, except for Natal. Why hon. members now want the Government to have a greater degree of control I simply cannot understand, because the Government already has full control in three of the four provinces. Mr. Speaker, why is this step necessary? I can see only one reason for it, and that is that this hon. Minister has a Department which in fact should not be a Department. It is unnecessary because of the close links binding the Coloureds to the Whites. The weal and woe of the Coloured cannot be separated from that of the White man, but in order to give the Minister’s Department a right of existence and to keep it busy, Coloured education must now also be taken over by that Department. But what are we really doing in this process of taking over Coloured education? I allege that it is really a slap in the face for the provinces. In fact, it is a motion of no confidence in the Provincial Administrations. Coloured education, which hitherto has been their prerogative, is now being taken away from them, and in respect of educational matters, particularly in the Cape, we are now taking away a tremendous proportion of the services they render, services of which the provinces were very proud. As the result of this step it seems to me that the future of our provincial authorities hangs increasingly in the balance. The powers of the provinces are being diminished to such an extent that the abolition of our Provincial Councils will one of these days be a fait accompli. Our provincial education departments, due to the principle of decentralization, have an extraordinary close contact with the Coloured child. I am not saying that the Department of Coloured Affairs has no contact. This Department has been in existence for a few years only. I know that they have built up contacts with the Coloureds, but the contacts of the Cape Education Department with the Coloured child go back to the time of Union in 1910 and even before that date. They had the closest contact with the Coloured child. And what will we find now? We will find that the control of Coloured education will be centralized in Pretoria, with the consequent loss of closer contact with the problem. Surely that is what we want. We want closer contact with the Coloured and particularly with the Coloured child and his education in order to understand him better. That is what we had here in the Cape. Coloured education was controlled from Wale Street, but if this Bill is passed that control will be exercised from Pretoria and there will be less contact with the Coloured and his child than in the past.

The provinces are fast losing their powers. The disintegration of our provincial government is taking place at an increasing rate. This Bill affords further proof of it. The Provincial Education Department of the Cape Province regards this step as an affront to its honour. They handled a purely Cape Province problem excellently. I also believe that the Cape Education Department rendered an excellent service to South Africa in the sphere of race relations, and the value of that service is almost inestimable because those officials were always in close contact with the Coloured community. The Coloureds were not dissatisfied with the old system. On the contrary, what do we find to-day? If one talks to any Coloured educationist of note, he will admit that the provincial education departments have supplied a great need because they know that their own people are not yet able to do those things which the Minister alleges that they will be able to do in the course of time. They are just not in a position to-day to accept that task. That is why we had the position that the inspectors in the Cape, when they visited the schools, did not visit White schools only, but also Coloured schools. Just talk to the principals of those Coloured schools and they will all tell you that that is the ideal position. They were satisfied with it, and they received the greatest measure of sympathy from those White inspectors. We know that this is one of the ways in which our province saved an appreciable sum of money, because there was no duplication of services, because the inspectors did not visit the White schools alone but also the Coloured schools. I say that if it is now the policy to appoint Coloured inspectors in terms of this Bill, that step will for a long time still be viewed with suspicion by the teaching staff and Coloured educationists. In order to give effect to an ideological policy, a special section must now be established for Coloured education. It is so often said: “Look at the provincial education departments; what is there for the Coloureds? It is only a section, and what do they really do? How far can the Coloureds progress under that department?” The hon. the Minister’s own Bill, in Clause 2, only provides for an education section in his Department, so it remains the same as it was under the Provincial Administration. As far as I can see there is no difference and there is no reason why the Coloured was unable fully to express himself in this Coloured education section we had of our own Provincial Administration. We shall now have to find additional officials, because the hon. the Minister is not going to take over all the officials of the Education Department in the Provincial Administration. This report also indicates that the majority of them will remain there. He Will have to create new posts and to recruit new officials.

Mr. Speaker, this step taken by the Government of transferring Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs will result in tremendous extra costs to South Africa, whilst we heard from hon. members opposite that this step is being taken in order to effect economies. Finally, I want to say that a drastic change such as this must necessarily, when it is applied to a group of people, who as a group do not understand things as clearly as we do, upset these people tremendously. It is essential for us to imbue them with confidence, and a drastic change-over such as this, which must necessarily result from the transfer of Coloured education, will lead to suspicion rather than to confidence in the leadership of the White man in South Africa.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) who has just sat down remarked inter alia that on visits to schools, officials of the Provincial Administration visited both White and Coloured schools and that that arrangement was satisfactory. I should have liked to ask him whether they were also satisfied with the difference between White and Coloured schools. If they were, I am not. My attitude as a representative of the Coloured people in this H6use towards the people I represent is very well known. I have said on previous occasions and I wish to Say emphatically here to-day that the Coloured people in South Africa will never be satisfied with anything else but full citizenship in this, the country of their birth. I have said here before and I said in this House last year that within one generation the White man in this country will have to accept the Coloured man as his equal and not as an appendage to the White population either. The Coloured people with whom I endeavour to keep in touch with the best of my ability, also realized that the achievement of their ideals under the circumstances under which they have lived in the past, does not lie with existing political parties. It depends very greatly on their making use of the facilities at their disposal. We cannot get away from that fact and in that respect the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) made some very pertinent, true statements here. The position of the Coloured people to-day, socially and economically, is being neglected and has been neglected a great deal in the past. The hon. member stated quite correctly that the State was to blame for this. Sir, he is quite correct. If you go into the history of this country, you have to come to the conclusion that the State is to blame, no matter what Government happened to be in power. Reference has been made here by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) to the less-privileged Whites, but the State realized its responsibility towards the less-privileged Whites or the poor Whites as they were known in those days. All of us know what was done in the late 1920s and in the early 1930s for the less-privileged Whites. The Coloured people to-day are chiefly in the same position as our White people who were then -referred to as poor Whittes were at that time, and it is the duty of the State to see that those people are given the necessary facilities to be able to advance to the stage where they can help themselves, better themselves, advance educationally and economically and become a greater asset to this, the country of their birth. That is absolutely essential to us.

That is what we are doing.

The socio-economic backwardness of the Coloured people is constantly held up by the White people, when their political rights are discussed, as a reason why at this stage they have to be satisfied with so much less than the White man has. Sir, I realize that there is a great deal of truth in that, although I also realize that it is sometimes exaggerated. But if one accepts that as a fact, what is one’s duty? My duty in this House as a representative of the Coloured people is to accept for the Coloured people and to use my best endeavours to get for the Coloured people everything that I possibly can in order that they can get to the stage where they can improve their social and economic position, and that can only be done by means of educational advancement which will also bring economic advancement in its wake. We realize—and when I say “we” I speak on behalf of the Coloured people— that we cannot achieve our ideals unless we make use of every means at our disposal to improve our economic and educational position, and as the result of that we will advance to the position where we will not accept anything less than the White man has to-day.

Coming back to this Bill, we must face the facts that the Coloured people did not ask for this transfer of education. As a matter of fact there are many things for which the Coloured people has not asked and for which they could have asked, but as the result of their lack of knowledge, as the result of the fact that they were for so long deprived of certain rights, they never asked for these things or delayed asking for them. The fact remains that the Coloured people did not ask for the transfer of education as is envisaged in this Bill. However, knowing the problems with which my people are faced, I appreciate the Minister’s appeal to the House for a calm, objective discussion of this Bill. Unfortunately not all the speakers who have taken part in this debate have heeded the Minister’s appeal and I regret that when a measure like this concerning the Coloured people is discussed, the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) saw fit to try to prove that apartheid had always been the policy of the Nationalist Party, that it had been their policy since 1947. Sir, the man in the street does not know in any case what the policy of the Nationalist Party or any party was in 1947, and the sooner we stop trying to justify what we are doing by saying that apartheid has always been the policy of this Country, the better it will be for the relationship between White and Coloured in this country. The time when we used race and colour to popularize our political policies with the White people in this country, is past, and the sooner we realize it the better.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) challenged the Minister of Coloured Affairs to say what the Government had done for the Coloured people over the last 15 years. The hon. the Minister can reply to that himself, but what remains a fact is that for generations successive governments have done so little for the Coloured people and my attention was focused on this by what the hon. member for South Coast said. I think if we tried to weigh up what one government did for the Coloureds as against what another government did for them, it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I wish to repeat here what the hon. member for Hillbrow has correctly said, and that is that the position in which the Coloured people in general find themselves to-day particularly with regard to education is a State responsibility. Sir, when the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) spoke he referred to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) and said that after he had praised the efforts of the Minister he should have sat down. Before coming to what the hon. member for Rosettenville had to say about the attitude of my colleague on these benches, I wish to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he repeatedly spoke here about segregation. I would like to know since when segregation has been the policy of the United Party. I was always told that its policy was one of social and residential separation, and that is what I told everybody else. I was told that segregation was the old Nationalist policy of 1948.

Are you not talking politics now?

It is quite possible that this is politics. Unfortunately there was so much politics spoken here that one can hardly keep out of it. In any case, I leave it at that. The hon. member for Rosettenville said: “Is there anything which is asked for in the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that cannot be done better and more efficiently by the Provincial Administrations?” I do not quite know how to answer that in one or two words. The only thing I can do is to ask a counter question and that is this: If anything contained in our amendment can be done by the Provincial Administration, why was it never done? After all, Union came about in 1910, and for 53 years this system of control of education by provincial authorities has been in force. Here we come along with an amendment which embodies the requests of the Coloured people as far as education is concerned. They feel that these are the things which are lacking as far as their system of education is concerned. In paragraph (a) of the amendment we asked, that there will be no curtailment or diminution in the standard of education. In this regard reference has been made here to the high percentage of failures amongst Coloured" scholars. Sir, that is not surprising. The reason for that is quite clear to me, if you take into account the fact that out of 10,750 Coloured teachers in the Republic, most of them have not got the qualifications that their White counterparts have. Of the thousand secondary teachers only a hundred are qualified, on White standards to be teachers in secondary schools. In these circumstances, how can one expect their examination results to be the same? This is something that has happened under the present system of control of Coloured Education by the Provincial Administrations. Secondly, we ask for the enforcement of the principle of compulsory education for all Coloured children as expeditiously as possible. Sir, this was never done. The Provincial Administrations had 53 years in which to implement this.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, the Bill provides for the transfer of Coloured education from the Provincial Administrations to the Central Government and I am talking about the position that has obtained up to now under the Provincial Administrations. In the Cape Province the argument is always advanced that there is not enough money to introduce compulsory education. Under the present circumstances I quite believe that. I do not say that the Provincial Administrations have not done their best, but the fact remains that this was never done and the people who suffered were the Coloured people. In the other provinces, where the difficulty did not seem to be lack of money we find that it was not done there either. Thirdly, we ask for the provision of a progressive extension of school hostels and transport facilities for Coloured children. This is something which the Coloured children have never had. and without this you cannot implement compulsory education. If the question is asked why this cannot be done by the provinces then my counter question is why it has not been done by them. Fourthly, we ask for the implementation of a uniform system of administration for all Coloured education including church and mission schools. Sir, here I want to make it quite clear that I am in no way trying to minimize what church and mission schools have done in the past. Here I wish to refer to a statement made by myself in an article which I wrote in the last issue of the Banier with regard to another issue—

That is quite true, but the stage has been reached where these church and mission schools cannot cope with the problem. I can quote the position of teachers in church and mission schools. What we ask for is that if the money is not there to buy out all these private properties—we realize it is a very great task and that it will take a very long time—that the system of administration should be made uniform. There are cases in my constituency where the local minister of religion is the manager of the school. He has more schools under his jurisdiction than a whole school board has in other areas. This is to the great dissatisfaction of the teachers in those schools because they are virtually ruled by one person, whereas as teacher under a school board school falls under the ordinary rules and administration of the Provincial Administration. We further ask for a progressive adjustment of Coloured teachers’ salaries so as to bring them in line with the salaries of White teachers. That is something new; that was never done before. The Coloured teachers are in this position that whereas their salaries were determined at one time as four-fifths of the White teachers’ salaries their salaries are to-day down to about three-fifths in some cases; just about half. This was never done before. We ask for a progressive extension of avenues of employment for Coloured professional, administrative and clerical personnel in the near future in the field of Coloured education. Here is another case where that was never done before. The Coloured teacher had the hope of becoming a principal and after that there was no further advancement or promotion. Under the present system it is impossible in the foreseeable future for a Coloured teacher to be advanced beyond the position of principal, because can you imagine the position under the present system where a Coloured inspector of schools can be appointed and go to Write schools to inspect them. If you want to promote Coloured teachers under the present system to those two positions you will have a duplication of service.

There has been a great deal of talk about the fragmentation of education. Coloured education has up to the present fallen under the various provinces. There has been a great deal of talk about breaking with the tradition which has been built up since 1910, namely the tradition of the provinces administering education. As far as I am concerned I think that was an altruistic arrangement which became about as the result of Union. Those grand old gentlemen who were bent on having Union sat down but the Coloured people were not taken into consideration at all. If they were represented they were very poorly represented.

That has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that we are considering the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces to the Central Government. That being the case it is necessary to refer to how that position ever came about. In any case as far as the division of education between the provinces was concerned, commission after commission has since then reported on the disadvantages of this system. There is one advantage as far as the administration of education is concerned, as I see it in this Bill, and that is that there will be no fragmentation but a uniform system as from the time that the child goes to school until he gets his Ph.D. at the University College of the Western Cape.

On many occasions in this House occasions will arise in future, as they have in the past, where we as the representatives of the Coloured people will have to consider a measure before this House on its merits. Such occasions have arisen in the past and we want to be free in future, as we are now, to consider the matter objectively before we decide what we are going to do. An hon. member referred to us in these benches as “those indirect representatives ’. I want to quote what that same hon. member had to say about these members on a previous occasion. He said this—

That was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I do not think it is fair when referring to our attitude in this House to refer to us as the indirect representatives. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members are making such a noise that we cannot hear the speaker.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) wants to hear what the hon. member is saying.

In the same discussion an offer made by the Leader of the Opposition to the Government of the day was under discussion. The same hon. member had this to say about it—

That was as far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went, and I wish to adhere to that. I wish to say here that there has been a great deal of discussion on what forms of consultation there were with the Coloured people; when they were consulted and whom were consulted. Since this question was first mooted and it became abundantly clear that it would become a reality, I have done my duty and consulted with the people that I represent in this House. I did so so that I would be in the position when the time came—and that time has now arrived —to know what the Coloured people in my constituency wanted. I will tell the House how I did it too. I did it by holding public meetings where the pros and cons of the transfer of education were put by a Coloured man, not by myself, namely the chairman of the Education Committee of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. In every case, including meetings which I held in Natal, the position was that if the Minister would give the assurance that these items as embodied in our amendment, which were so sadly neglected in the past, would be carried out, they would be happy. The teachers who were present at those meetings do not really care who pays for their education; they do not care whether it is the Provincial Administration or the Central Government. They do not really care where the money comes from as long as the money is found and as long as they have an educational system on a par with the Whites. Any person who travels through my constituency any morning or afternoon will see hundreds of Coloured children along the road, in rain or bitter cold or in the broiling sun, walking six to seven miles to and from school. I feel it is my duty that if the Minister gives the assurance that that which is embodied in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) will be carried out, which will mean an improvement for the Coloured people as far as their education is concerned, we will be unable to tell our people that this transfer of education will mean an improvement in any way. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to give this assurance, not to us, but to the people we represent here. Those people are in need of everything which is embodied in our amendment. They have been very sadly neglected for generations as far as those items are concerned.

In the course of this debate we have had much historical research into the history of education of the Coloured people. I do not intend to give you a dissertation on the history of Coloured education. I should, however, like to deal with the last speaker for a moment, because that is the courtesy of the House. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), as I understand him, is prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). But it is not an amendment to this Bill; it is a request for an assurance in administration. If there is any doubt in the hon. member’s mind, I can give him the reply now. The Minister will say yes, yes, yes, come across and vote for this Bill. Therefore it was not necessary to have an amendment. It is very easy for him to do that if he is not opposing this Bill.

I should like to say right at the beginning that the actual title of this Bill “Coloured Persons Education Bill” is a misnomer. It is not really a Coloured Persons Education Bill; it is a Financial Relations Bill. It is a Bill which could more appropriately have been introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance. Right throughout this debate we have been told that there will be promises, there will be undertakings to the Coloured people, but there is not a single promise, not a single undertaking, that has been mentioned that cannot be carried out to-day under the provincial system, excepting that this Central Government will not provide the money. I know there are members on the other side who are prepared to say that the Nationalist Government of the Cape Province is not as capable of providing education to the Coloured people as the Nationalist Government of the whole of the Republic. It is the same party; it is the same people. This is an excuse to give the Coloured people the impression that they are going to get what is called a “new deal ”; they will be entering a new era. No one believes that. This is purely a financial matter, and it should have been introduced in that way.

There is a question that I should like to put to hon. members opposite. We have heard from the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), and from the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan), that they are quite in favour of seeing not only the education of Coloured people placed under the Central Government but also the education of the Whites. I think we are entitled to-day to a statement from the hon. Minister who is handling this Bill on what the policy of this Government is. Is the policy to take over provincial education piecemeal, as we are doing: first Bantu education, then Coloured education, and then, finally, White education? Is that the plan? Or is this just kite flying? Will the hon. the Minister give us an assurance, as we were given last year by the Minister of Education, who said that he admired the work which had been done by the provinces in regard to education, and that it was not the intention to act in this manner? Now we find a new policy in regard to Coloured education. What value can we attach to it? I do not intend to hold up the House unnecessarily but I want to say that I regret very much indeed that the hon. the Minister, in the course of an interjection, mentioned the name of a distinguished educationist among the Coloured people. I regret that he mentioned his name. I never like to hear the name of a public servant mentioned in this House. He holds an office; we can discuss his office, and we have responsible Ministers.

Under this Bill Coloured teachers will have a lower status than they have at present. There is no doubt about that, because they now become civil servants. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) explained, the status of a civil servant is something quite different from the status of a schoolmaster. As a schoolmaster he is a member of a profession; he has professional rights.

What about Natal?

I am not discussing Natal. The Minister has referred to teachers in the Cape Province. In the Cape Province the teacher has a certain amount of independence. He can express his own views. The Minister is now going to make him a civil servant, and when he becomes a civil servant he is subject to Civil Service regulations. He may not express himself freely. The Minister says that the Coloured teachers have been consulted. The description he gave of the manner in which they have been consulted was not a description of consultation, but of intimidation. We should like to hear the views of the Coloured teachers. I am going to appeal to the Minister to allow this Bill to go to a Select Committee after the second reading, so that we can hear the Coloured people and hear the Coloured teachers. We have been told that they support this Bill, so let us hear what they have to say. And now we come to this sixty-four thousand dollar question: whether in the Bill there is discrimination or differentiation, because the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said there was discrimination. The hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and Parow and other members, including the Chief Whip of the Government Party, said there was a great difference between the two. I see no difference. Of course the provisions are discriminating, and they are discriminating against the Coloured people as far as education is concerned. There is no doubt about that. The very fact that we say to them that they cannot be controlled by the same body means discrimination. I want to settle the argument of those hon. members who insist that it is differentiation and not discrimination. I felt I did not even know my own language, so I looked it up. This is the definition of “discriminate ”. I find that the definition is: “To make or constitute a difference in or between; to differentiate.” So the two words are synonyms; they, in fact, mean the same thing. This is what we are doing to-day; we are discriminating. When I speak about the rights of the Coloured people, especially those of the Coloured teachers, I want to read to the hon. Minister, not the details of his own clause, the clause dealing with discipline, but I want to read to him in contrast what the position is in the Transvaal. I want to read to him how the teachers are treated there. Here the Minister may dismiss a teacher if he is concerned in any way with politics. If he makes a political speech, if he criticizes the education of his own administration, he can be dismissed. The following is to-day the corresponding regulation for teachers in the Transvaal. I quote from Section 85 of Ordinance No. 29 of 1953—

with one condition only, that when he is actually in the classroom he may not make a political speech. But apart from that he is a completely free citizen. He may be a politician but the Minister says that the Coloured teacher is being used by certain organizations. Why should he not be used? Is the teacher not the leader in any country when it comes to national movements? Who were the leaders of the national movement which put those hon. members in control of the Government of this country? The teaching profession. Who were the people who established Afrikaans? The members of the teaching profession. Who were the leaders in the new states that were established in Africa? The teacher, the professor. In this renaissance, in this rejuvenation of the Coloured people of this country which is taking place— they have been suppressed for a time—the people who are taking the lead are the teachers. I think that this transfer to the Central Government, to make them civil servants, is lowering their prestige and lowering their status as professional men. We have heard a great deal in the course of this debate about the success which the Government has made of Bantu Education. Never let us hear that mentioned again, because the South African Foundation has explained to the British people that the contrary is true. They did that in London; they condemned it in London.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

If anybody goes overseas and condemns what is being done in his own country the Minister of Information tells us he is a traitor. Now we get it from the Foundation. I feel that this Bill provides for the denigration of the Coloured people in this country. I can think of nothing worse in their interests if they cannot be educated under the same administration as the Whites. If that cannot be done then this is a step backwards.

All through this debate we have heard the Government side trying to make a case for the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces. I would like to remind the House what the position is. The Act of Union provided for primary and secondary education to fall under the provinces.

Order! That point has been made over and over again. The hon. member must make a new point.

Listening to the debate I thought they had forgotten about that point. Hon. members must remember that members of the Provincial Council are elected on the same basis as members of this particular House. The Administrator is not elected but he is appointed by the Government of the day and he is responsible to that Government. As a matter of fact he has the same status as a Cabinet Minister. It is also necessary to remind this House that all Ordinances passed by the Provincial Council are subject to veto by the Government.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am just sketching the background of the Provincial Administration. This is a most important Bill and to get to the point does take some time. This Bill has quite a lot to do with the financial arrangements between the Central Government and the provinces.

That point has been adequately and frequently made.

May I deal with the appeals that have been made by the Administrator on Various occasions to have the Financial Relations Act reviewed. I want to quote from the Budget speech of the Administrator of the Cape which he made last year—

The hon. member is now discussing another Bill.

I am discussing Coloured education, Sir. I am discussing the speech made by the Administrator of the Cape …

The hon. member must discuss this Bill.

The point has been made that the Minister came forward with this Bill as a result of a motion passed in the Provincial Council in 1957. That particular motion was moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden). He was a back-bencher in the Provincial Council and a party organizer at the time. So. one must evaluate the strength of, that motion by that. That motion was referred to the Schumann Commission and I think you will be interested to hear the result of that. It says here—:

That report had already been quoted; those points have all been made.

Mr. Speaker, this portion has not been read. “According to information obtained by the Commission virtually the sole ground for the resolution was the fear that the financial burden would become too great for the province.” The reaction to the resolution was on the whole unfavourable in the Cape Province. That particular point has not been made. I say this that the Minister and the other speakers on that side of the House have not made a case for the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces to another department. We have a Provincial Education Department and a Central Education Department and now the Minister wants to establish a third one.

That point has been made over and over again.

What surprises everybody here, Sir, is the fact that the Provincial Councils come under the control of the Minister of the Interior. Is it not strange that this Bill was not introduced by that Minister? He is the man who is responsible for the Provincial Councils. There is a financial aspect and the Minister of Finance …

That has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member must come back to this Bill.

I do not want to argue with the Chair …

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling otherwise he must resume his seat.

Sir, with respect, I say that when this Bill is passed through the House the Minister will have assumed certain financial obligations. When this Bill becomes law we will have this peculiar position that the Minister and his Department will not have one brass cent to spend on its administration and will not be able to do anything about it until the money has been voted in this House. That, is the peculiarity of this Bill. We are putting the cart before the horse in introducing a Bill of this kind.

If this debate has produced one outstanding item of proof, then it is that this Parliament, this hon. House, has reached the stage where it should examine its own customs and rules. I say this in all modesty, that we are living in times where we can no longer afford to listen for days on end to the kind of prattle we have been listening to here. I am saying this merely in passing, but I think this Parliament owes the Republic of South Africa more than this. [Interjections.] I am not referring to things of the past. I am now concerned with the present.

It will be impossible for me to follow every hon. member in detail in respect of all the labyrinths that have been opened up in this debate. I shall try to confine myself to some of the main objections to this Bill. Before I come to that, I should like to refer to two hon. members who have participated in this debate. The one is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). The hon. member with great verbosity referred to two excerpts I had quoted from the Schumann report. He asked me whether I was aware that those two quotations I had made were diametrically opposed to each other. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote me a little note and asked whether he could get a Hansard copy of my speech, and he had it at his disposal in this House. But in spite of that, he came along and created the impression that by quoting those two paragraphs I had stated a completely different proposition from the one I really wished to present.

It was not clear from the quotations.

I expressly stated that the first quotation related to the Cape, and as regards the second quotation, I referred to the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State. I have here my original notes I was reading from.

May I just ask the Minister to quote from Hansard?

You see, the hon. member is tremendously important in his own estimation, but we also have other people with common sense here. I shall leave it at that but the hon. member had the facts before him and yet he created that impression.

Read it: I challenge you.

The hon. member challenges me. Of course he is only good enough to challenge when he is situated as he is now situated, but when he has to accept a challenge as he had to in Namib, he is not prepared to accept a challenge. Here is the original speech from which I was quoting, and I was quoting verbatim what is written in this speech, and after reading the second quotation I said—

The Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State are referred to here. Now I leave the hon. member to himself and his importance. But the hon. member went somewhat further and he called himself an agitator in his speech. That is nothing new to us. But he said inter alia that the Government Party is introducing apartheid from top to bottom, except when people have to work for them. That was the implication, and that is what the hon. member wished to convey by his words, namely that this Government has adopted a negative, discriminatory, humiliating policy in respect of the Coloureds, except when we can exploit the Coloureds for the use of their labour. That is what the hon. member had in mind. Now I should like to ask the hon. member: Supposing then it is so humiliating, is it not a fact then that this was the main complaint against the Government when it introduced separate voters’ lists for Coloureds? And where did the hon. member then vote? For the sake of a seat he at that time sat with these people who were acting in this discriminating and humiliating fashion. Now again for the sake of a seat, he is sitting with other people. He trims his sails to the wind. That is the man who wishes to teach us a lesson in ethics, and to tell us what we should do to other people. But I should like to go a little further with the hon. member, for it is high time he should be exposed. I should like to ask the hon. member: He has charged us with having introduced this discriminatory and humiliating apartheid except only when we want the Coloureds to work for us. Now I should like to ask him: Is he in favour of absolute equality for the Coloureds in the Public Service?

I shall gladly reply to you when I have an opportunity to do so.

I tell you that is what he has in mind and that is what that party has in mind. They merely do not have the courage to say so as yet.

I shall reply to you under your Vote.

He wants a fully integrated society, and his party wants to throw open wide the doors of the Public Service and all other spheres of employment, and they want to go further with the integration of the Coloureds than was ever gone during the years before the present Government came into power. But we have had further proof of this from another hon. member who has spoken, namely the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and to a certain extent also the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who, I want to admit, made a very restrained speech, but from which the same tendency nevertheless emerged. Now what does the hon. member for Rosettenville say, following up what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said? He says he is opposed to the Bill and he wants to leave education with the provinces “because the Coloured people should be kept with the White people.”

Those are the words of Hertzog and Malan.

We are not concerned with General Hertzog or Dr. Malan now, but with the hon. member for Rosettenville. He is now opposed to the Department of Coloured Affairs gaining control of the education of the Coloureds for he regards it as a step that will remove the Coloureds from the White people. That is why he is opposed to it. He wants to leave it with the provinces, for he wants to keep them with the White man: “They should be kept with the White man ”. Now I should like to ask him whether he knows that in the Cape Province, where the greatest number of Coloureds are resident, there is a separate division for Coloureds in the Department of Education? Now I should like to ask whether there is any difference in principle, whether you have a separate division for Coloureds under the province or whether you have a separate division for Coloureds under the Central Government? If your objection is that you do not wish to have them under a separate division under the Central Government, then if you are going to be logical, you should also not want them under a separate division in the province. That is to say, you wish to integrate them in the first place, as regards the administration. Now I am submitting that if you were to take the speeches of the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Maitland and Rosettenville and generally those complaints of the United Party, it amounts to this, that the United Party is telling you: We wish to politically integrate the Coloureds with the Whites; we are opposed to the measures you have taken in various spheres for parallel development, and as regards his education, we do not wish to set him on the course of parallel development either. Now I ask: How, in respect of a section of the people that you wish to integrate politically, that you wish to integrate economically, to whom you voluntarily concede social separation, but not by means of compulsory separate residential areas, are you going to prevent them eventually integrating with your child in the same school? Now it is clear as daylight to me, after hearing those hon. members, that if the United Party were to have its way, we shall be heading for integration of schools for Whites and of Coloureds in South Africa. That is what is behind that Party’s opposition to this Bill, that they know that with the step we are taking, we are making it more and more impossible for them to carry out the logical consequences of their political point of view in South Africa.

Do you want to integrate them in the whole of South Africa?

I repeat that if you integrate people politically and economically and as regards residential areas—and that is the policy of that Party—how in the long run are you going to keep the Coloureds separate as regards education?

The old story.

Those are the consequences of the attitude of that party. Now the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who told me that he could not be present here, and I understand the reason why he cannot be present, really led the main attack, and he asked inter alia why the Government has only just woken up? Why does the Government now only desire to bring about improvements in the education of the Coloureds? He says the Government has had an opportunity to do so for 15 years, and what has it done? He cried out: “They did nothing for Coloured education”. I do not wish to reply to the hon. member. I want one of the Coloured leaders himself to give the answer, namely Mr. George Golding, who is a very prominent Coloured leader, and who is not a supporter of this Government. As far as my knowledge goes, he is a supporter of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), and the hon. member for South Peninsula in turn again is a supporter of the United Party. So they are linked together by a roundabout way. I want to have him replied to in the words of Mr. Golding. I have here a speech he made in London as it appeared in “African Affairs” in October 1962. He says this—

Then why change the system?

I am coming to that. First listen to Mr. Golding. He invites everybody to come to South Africa and he says—

That sounds like Russia: Co-existence.

I am quoting it as a reply to the hon. member for South Coast, a member of that party.

And you are saying then that we are the ones who are besmirching South Africa overseas.

That is the reply to the hon. member for South Coast. But now I should like to add a second thing to that. Having now quoted Mr. Golding where he says that no Government has done so much for Coloured education as the present Government by the assistance it has given, I should like, on the other hand, to say to the hon. member for South Coast that I do hope that, since I have now used the argument of Mr. Golding, the hon. member will not do what he did in the northern provinces some time ago when, in addressing meetings, he said that the present Prime Minister is the greatest Liberal, because he is doing so much for the Coloured people. For, you see, on the one hand it is said that we are not doing our duty in respect of the Coloured people’s education, or in respect of the Bantu and his education, but on the other hand the Whites are told that we are doing far too much in that respect.

But there was a second great objection, and that came mainly from the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). They said: You are merely desirous of taking it over for financial reasons, and you are really doing it in defiance of the wishes of Mr. Venter, the Leader of the National Party in the Provincial Council in the Cape and contrary to the wishes of the Administrator of the Cape, Mr. Malan. The hon. member for Boland even went so far yesterday as to quote from a speech which he alleges the present Administrator made to prove that these two gentlemen do not agree with us at all. Where does the United Party get that from? For both the present Administrator and the Leader of the National Party in the Provincial Council of the Cape, namely Mr. Venter, were prominent members of the majority party that adopted the resolution in 1957 to request this Government to take over Coloured education. The hon. member for Drakensberg I see does not believe me yet, and I shall be pleased if she will persist with her disbelief. But what is more, a second proposal was adopted in the Provincial Council of the Cape last year, in terms of which the Provincial Council asked for a subsidy of up to 80 per cent in order to enable them to bear this burden, and if that could not be done, there should be a take-over. While the hon. member for Drakensberg was reading the quotation, I requested her to read a bit louder, and she felt insulted. Now I should like to read a letter for the benefit of the hon. member for Drakensberg and particularly of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who were flaunting the name of Mr. Venter here. On the 22 February I received the following [translated]—

That is what I said.

His letter continues—

But I have received a second letter, dated 27 February, and this letter reads as follows [translated]—

I hope that this will now put a stop to the malicious gossip that has been spread here in an attempt to hide behind Mr. Venter and the Administrator.

That was after the whip had been wielded.

May I just tell the hon. member that apparently she does not know the Administrator and Mr. Venter. They are not people who will subject themselves to the whip, as she does.

Now a third point has been made, and it was made by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members who said that my approach to this matter is wrong because I say it is a burden. I am alleged to have said, in my opening speech, that the financing of Coloured education is a burden. I should like to refer hon. members to a debate that took place in this House on the 29 March 1957. At that time a temporary arrangement was made, for the umpteenth time, between the Central Government and the provinces and you know that since 1910 one commission after another has been investigating this question of subsidies. You know that from time to time there have been failures in consequence of formulas formulated by those commissions, and that in 1957 the then Minister of Finance announced that he would once again appoint a commission to see whether finality could not be achieved now. This was the fifth, the sixth or the seventh commission. So a temporary arrangement was made as a result of a Bill that was introduced here. On that occasion two hon. members who are still in this House, participated in the debate. The one member who participated in the debate, was the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). So far as I know, he occupies a prominent position in that party. I also participated in that debate, and at the time I pointed out the absolute incapacity of commissions to find proper formulas, and during that debate I openly advocated the taking over of Coloured education by the State. At the time the hon. member for Pinetown said, according to col. 3853 of the English Hansard—

And then he proceeds—

The hon. member then continued—

Now it is taken amiss of me when I refer to a burden on the provinces. Now it is said, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said here, that I should not use the word “burden ", for I am insulting the people. But if his own Whip from Natal four, five, six years ago advocated a change in this respect because these people are a financial burden to the province concerned, and that a smaller province than the Cape, everything is in order. It seems to me the whip will have to be wielded there.

I do not like the word “burden.”

The Commission of 1957 completed its task and now it is held against us that when the interim report of the Schumann Commission was obtained, the Cabinet did not wait before coming to its decision, until the complete Schumann report on financial relations was available, and it is said that the Schumann Commission really stated that they recommend that nothing should be done until their complete report was available. But that again is a further reply to my friends opposite who allege that I said that the whole reason for the take over is the financial burden. After the Government had received the Schumann Commission’s report, the Government said: No, for the sake of clear policy, we want clarity, and that is why we are now telling you what we propose to do with Coloured education, and on that basis you have to work out your financial relations with the provinces. In other words, the Government brought clarity and enlightment to the Schumann Commission on what would be done. That is the reason why the resolution was adopted by the Cabinet. But we did not wish to adopt that resolution before we knew the financial implication in regard to the transfer, and that is why there was the departmental inquiry also apart from the inquiry by the Schumann Commission, and I think that is a sufficient reply to the hon. members’ objection.

But the hon. member for South Coast, followed by other hon. members had a further objection, and that was namely the objection of fragmentation. This word “fragmentation” has been running through the debates in this House during the past few years like a refrain. Mr. Speaker, you can hardly find a subject discussed here in which the word “fragmentation” does not appear. May I remind you that as recently as last year the same hon. member for South Coast charged me with being engaged on fragmentation in respect of two steps we took. The first was when we introduced the legislation in connection with the Coloured Development Corporation. Then it was fragmentation of our economy. The second was when last year we introduced an amending Bill on rural Coloured areas, then it was fragmentation of our land. And they carried on here and fought those two Bills. This year I came along with an amendment to that Act on the Coloured Development Corporation, which is an extension to what I asked for last year, and the hon. member for South Coast rose and in spite of the fragmentation said that it is in accord with their policy, and that therefore they would support that measure. And then we came along with a Bill in connection with rural Coloured areas which consolidated all the amendments I have had to battle to pilot through this House during the past years; when I came along with the consolidating measure, the hon. member for South Coast again rose and forgetting the word “fragmentation” he said it was in accordance with the policy of the United Party, and it was passed here without discussion. How then must we take that party when the come along with the story of fragmentation? But if it is fragmentation, then surely it is also fragmentation when in the Cape we have separate control of White education, and separate control of Coloured education? Then surely it is fragmentation also to separate the administration thereof in the Department? Now I ask again what I asked earlier in my speech: Is it the policy of the United Party, if they are to be logical, to fight fragmentation there also, and to see to it that it is discontinued in the province? To that we shall not get a reply. They will wait until next year to discuss this matter again.

I do not wish to refer to the Jagger Report and the Hofmeyr Report Hon. members on this side have referred to those reports and have fully dealt with the arguments in that regard. What we are doing to-day is not fragmentation, but it is something the Hofmeyr Commission advocated years ago already. Now I should like to say that the problem to-day is to get picked and trained manpower among the Coloured population. There is an opportunity for Coloureds to-day, but up to this stage their education was not fully geared to the service of the Coloured Community. We have created more frustrated beings among the Coloured population thus far than hon. members may have any idea of, for the education was only aimed at academic qualifications and no notice was taken of the service that should be rendered to the community as a whole. Now I should like to say that this need is so great that one of the largest employers’ organizations visited me some weeks ago by way of a deputation, and came to interview me on the lack of proper training of the Coloured in various spheres. After that deputation had interviewed me, I received this letter from them, signed by their secretary. I am prepared to show this letter to the hon. member for South Coast or to the hon. member for Yeoville, because I should not like to use the name of that organization here. What does that organization say—

Who was it? What is the name?

And at the same time that is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who quoted here from a speech I am supposed to have made at Springbok a short while ago. I did say that, but I did say in addition that at the present time there is a large proportion of the Coloured population that is not ready for employment, and I hope that as we shall now be controlling their whole education, we shall succeed in rendering the whole Coloured population fit for employment; and if that is a sin, then I commit it gladly.

A further objection was raised, and that was in the words of the hon. member for South Coast: “No responsible Coloured body asked for this change”. Let me say in the first place that there is no representative Coloured body in the entire Republic, for every group that exists among the Coloureds cannot be the mouthpiece of the whole Coloured population. Yet we do have certain bodies who have expressed themselves very clearly on this matter, and I should like to mention the Coloured People’s National Union, the C.P.N.U., that is virtually the only known political organization among the Coloureds at present. I am not talking about the leftist communist organizations. The C.P.N.U. held a congress in Port Elizabeth before we announced that we intended taking over Coloured education, and they voted in principle for the take over, and sent me a letter in which they requested me to do so. But the hon. members say they were never asked. And I repeat the C.P.N.U. is not under our influence. The Free State Coloured Education Society unanimously adopted a resolution in which they requested us to proceed with the take-over. The Union Coloured Council approved the principle of the take-over with certain requests. The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Coloured Affairs met more than 6,000 Coloured teachers on this matter, and at those conferences there were Coloureds who said that they did not favour the transfer. Now where does the story come from that we intimidated them? They spoke openly at the conference, but at not a single conference was a resolution against transfer adopted. On the contrary, the teachers’ meetings dispersed enthusiastically and they were in favour of transfer. The hon. member for Houghton came forward in particular with the T.E.P.A. T.E.P.A. now is the wonderful organization, but permit me to say that T.E.P.A. does not represent the Coloured teachers; it represents only a small group of them. It does not represent a quarter of the Coloured teachers. What is more T.E.P.A. is not recognized by the Administrator of the Cape as a Coloured Teachers’ Organization. Hon. members are now hiding behind the Administrator, are they not? Then surely they should believe him in this regard also. He does not regard T.E.P.A. as being good enough to be a teachers' association, and I propose to follow his lead. T.E.P.A. may now take notice that they will not be recognized.

I do not wish to keep the House for long, but it is not my fault that we are still sitting. It is necessary that on this occasion I should make the following statement in respect of Coloured teachers, for I think it should be clear what our policy with reference to them will be. I should like to read the following statement—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that whilst every effort will be made to develop education for Coloureds, any further attempt by teachers to indoctrinate either the public or the schools politically, either by organizations or individuals, will meet with the severe measures they deserve. The building up of a new relationship between all teachers and the Department will, I hope, be a rapid process yielding beneficial results for education for Coloureds. Many teachers are already working with the authorities and I have confidence that in steadily increasing numbers they will take the path which will lead not only them but their community as a whole to progress and prosperity; and to the small minority of politicians among the Coloured teachers I wish to say: You are free to resign if you don’t want to serve the Department of Coloured Affairs, but be consistent. If you do not want to help the authorities with a positive policy of upliftment of the Coloured people, then stop receiving your cheques every month from this apartheid institution. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say. Hon. members opposite have made the point that what is really involved in this measure is not just the financial aspect, but that we are hiding something—the implementation of our policy. But who had hidden it? If hon. members will read my introductory speech they will see that I stated that the important reason for our taking over Coloured education was that this was in conformity with our plans for the implementation of our policy. Do hon. members think that I am afraid to admit it? This Government has never been afraid to state its policy. [Interjections.]

The hon. Representatives of the Coloureds went further and they wanted me to give them certain guarantees before they would vote for this measure. Let us understand one another very clearly. I will give no guarantees for the sake of political support. Let there be no doubt on that score. This Government has a policy and whoever wants to support it for the sake of that policy can do so and those who do not want to do so for the sake of that policy need not support it. But I am certainly not prepared to say to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), “Please vote for this measure so that I can have your support”, That is what was implied by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Holland), “The Minister will say, * Yes, yes, yes, simply to get your support I want to say immediately that I will not say. “Yes, yes, yes,” merely for the sake of gaining support. We do not set our sails to every political wind. That is why I want to state our intention, and if it does not satisfy hon. members they are free to vote as they please.

In the first place it is absolutely necessary for the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured people that education as a whole would be used and planned to this end. That is our first reason for taking this step. Secondly, that foundation will have to be laid in the primary school. In the third place, provision has to be made at the intermediate school level. Academic education, technical education, commercial education, domestic education and agricultural education are all formative forms of education and they are accepted as being correct by responsible people. Fourthly, there will be no compulsion in this connection but there will be vocational guidance and aptitude tests. Fifthly, schools will henceforth be planned in such a way in towns and on farms that they will serve as community centres so that full-fledged education will come into its own there and so that these centres will not simply be white elephants. Sixthly, the Education Council which is to be established will have to assist in the planning, and in the seventh place the educational institutions which already fall under the Department are a proof of the high standards which will continue to be maintained after this take-over. I want to say to hon. members who are in doubt: Go and visit Porter, visit the technical college, visit the University College of the Western Cape and visit all the other institutions which have been taken over by this Department. If hon. members can produce any proof that standards have been lowered, let them do so. In other words, the standards which will be maintained will be the standards which we have already proved that we can maintain.

The question of compulsory education was raised. This Bill makes that possible but compulsory education is something which depends on three things. In the first place it depends on funds. In the second place it depends on buildings and in the third place it depends on the ability of the community to participate in that compulsory education. That is my reply to the people who want to tell the country that compulsory education should be introduced generally. In the ninth place the participation of the Coloureds in administrative work was raised by one hon. member. We say that it is in the interests of the Coloureds that their education be controlled by one administration, so that they will be trained to share in the administration of that education and this they will receive more easily under Coloured Affairs than under the Provincial Administrations.

The question of salaries was also raised. Hon. members made a great issue of the salaries of Coloured teachers and asked what we were going to do about it. I am aware of the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of Coloured teachers regarding their salaries and I am also aware of the fact that a good case may quite possibly be made out for improving these salaries, but this can only be considered after a thorough enquiry has taken place into the whole question of the recruitment and employment and remuneration of teachers. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science has already said that he is going to refer this matter— as far as the White teachers are concerned— to the National Advisory Education Council as one of its first tasks. I want to say that as soon as the Council is established this matter will at the same time be referred to this Coloured Advisory Education Council to consider and report upon this whole matter in consultation with the National Advisory Education Council. That is my reply on this point.

I want to conclude. The hon. member for South Coast made a further point and said that the Minister introducing this Bill was merely a “stopgap”, and he then referred to a policy statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister before the Union Coloured Council. But we are not discussing the reorganization of the Union Coloured Council to-day. I will give the hon. member for South Coast the opportunity to discuss this question within a short time—to discuss the reorganization of that Council, and when this does come up for discussion the hon. member can discuss the policy statement by the hon. the Prime Minister to his heart’s content and we will give him a reply. But what we are discussing here this evening is the taking over of Coloured Education by the Department of Coloured Affairs. If the hon. member is concerned about the fact that I am only a “stopgap” he can discuss this matter when it is clear to him that I will not be a “stopgap” for very much longer. He must simply be patient. He will have his opportunity. In the meantime we believe that we are taking a forward step for the provinces and for the Coloureds by means of this measure but we also believe that by uplifting the Coloured, by guiding their lives in the future as they have not been guided up to the present, and by enabling them to have a greater share in serving their own community, their own national group and their country, we will also be serving civilization in this country and we will also be serving the interests of the White man.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.: Bekker. M. I. H.; Bezuidenhout. G. P. C.: Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.: Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete. J. H.: Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. G. A.; Knobel. G. J.; Kotze. G. P.: Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.: Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand. F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman. J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit. H. H.: Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.: Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever. D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt. B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk. G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van. Rensburg, M. C. G. J.: van Staden. J. W.: van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel. J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman. R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock. H. C.: Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.: Field. A. N.: Fisher. E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.: Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland. M. W.: Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.: le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan. E. G.: Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.: Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher. D. M.: Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren. C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.: Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.