I move as an unopposed motion—

That Orders of the Day Nos. XX, XXI and XXII for to-day, viz.:

be discharged.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

This Bill is a Bill which apparently first saw the light of day under the protection of the hon. Minister of Information as a Bill which was designed to ease race frictions. We have been able to examine. Sir, a Bill published for information in the Government Gazette and we have reason to believe, because of replies given by the hon. Minister to questions in this House and because of statements made in the Press, that this Bill is essentially similar to the Bill which was published in the Gazette, and, Sir, on balance, despite the excellent reference it had from the Minister of Information, we find it so objectionable that we have no alternative but to oppose its first reading. We do so for two fundamental reasons. I think that anyone who has had the opportunity of studying the Bill published for information must realize that it is opposed to the fundamental tenets of United Party policy. Under this Bill there can be no development of a Native middle-class in our urban areas. Under this Bill there can be no right to permanent residence of Natives in urban locations. But there are other reasons why this Bill in so far as we know its contents—and I am not speaking on the question of detail but I am speaking on general principles—is completely unacceptable to this side of the House. You see. Sir, it could disrupt the entire economy of this country, because the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to have powers far in excess of the powers that any Minister of Native Affairs had in the past. When the hon. Prime Minister was Minister of Native Affairs, the Ministry was described as a kingdom within a kingdom. We have now become a Republic, I would no longer describe it as a republic within a republic. This has become the Republic. He is going to be the dictator. He is going to determine everything. He is going to prescribe the areas or classes of employment in respect of which no Bantu, or no further Bantu, may be employed. He is going to impose labour quotas. He is going to usurp the functions of the Department of Labour. He is going to be given completely autocratic control over the supply and distribution of Native labour throughout the Republic. Commerce and industry are going to be unable to plan for the future with any degree of confidence. He is going to take the power under this Bill to force all industries into particular areas. He can even take the power to force a particular employer to cease operations in the area. He is going to be able to determine the location of industry. He is going to be the man now who is going to be able to reserve work for persons of certain race groups. I suppose he will use it here in the Western Cape. We were opposed to job reservation. But the powers that this Minister is taking under this Bill are far, far wider than anything that was ever envisaged under Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Sir, he is going to be the new dictator in the entire industrial field. His officials can interfere with contracts of service between an employer and an employee if he considers them not in the public interest. And who is going to determine “the public interest”? It is within his discretion alone, with an appeal to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Such important powers in the hands of officials open the door to abuse in any society. And what safeguards does the hon. Minister propose?

There is something else. This Bill will mean the complete break-up of family life for the Bantu in the urban areas. Provision exists here for the removal of the provisions of the Labour Regulation Act and the Urban Areas Act, which permit a Bantu to re-enter the area within 12 months to resume employment with his previous employer. What Bantu will go on leave when he is faced with provisions of this kind? It would deter men from leaving, the cities even on holiday, to join their families. This Bill will mean that local authorities will lose the power to allow wives to join their husbands and daughters to join their fathers, even if these men have been continuously employed in the urban area for years. It seems that visits by African women to their men will be limited to 72 hours without a permit. Is that enough time in which to establish family bonds? I want to know what the effect will be on the farming community? Because this Bill does not apply only to the urban areas; it applies to virtually all areas which are not scheduled or released areas, throughout South Africa. What is going to be the effect on the farming community if they are now to compete with industrialists for their labour, and the Minister is to determine the quotas of labour in different areas? What will happen to our wage structure? It will all be in the hands of this Minister. He will have powers unrivalled by anyone who has ever sat in a South African Cabinet in the past. The dependants of domestic servants and registered squatters on farms in White areas may no longer be permitted to live with them as of right; they will only be allowed to visit there with the permission of the owner and the exemptions given at present to the dependants of servants, registered labour tenants and registered squatters—what will happen to them? I wonder whether hon. members opposite realize what is envisaged in this Bill? Exemptions will in future apply only to the dependants of Africans employed solely in farming operations. These are grounds on which we oppose the Bill.

There is another much more serious ground. That is that the entire Bantu population, except those employed in the reserves, are by this Bill to be converted into a floating mass of labour material which can be divided from time to time into labour units, with no right at all to permanent residence in and around our big industrial areas. In other words, here you have a Bill the object of which is to try to find grounds for the myth that all Bantu are permanently attached to the reserves or to the Bantu homelands. What is the result going to be? The result is that the main export of the Bantu homelands will be labour, and nothing else. What is going to be the fate of those Africans previously exempted from the restrictions, as of right, to remain in the proclaimed areas? Under the present Act the Bantu born in the Republic or South West Africa may remain, as of right, in the urban or proclaimed areas for more than 72 hours if they have lived there continuously from birth or have worked for one employer for more than ten years, or have lived there lawfully for 15 years without contravening any laws, and there are various other exemptions. Under this Bill those exemptions vanish. The entire basis of their existence in these areas ceases to exist, and it cuts right across everything for which the United Party has stood and fought in the years that have gone past. It is a new and revolutionary Bill which in our opinion undermines the entire basis of good relations between Whites and Bantu in South Africa, and therefore we oppose the Bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminds me of a little boy who runs on to the sports field before the game commences, and he runs around in circles and says: “I have won; I came first.” It is not even the time yet, and there is still no one on the sports ground, and the aspects the hon. member has raised have not yet come up for discussion, and he will have every opportunity to raise his objections when the Minister moves the second reading.

But to see whether the hon. member will in fact qualify for one of those games, we might dwell for a moment or two on some of the aspects he has touched upon. The hon. member has once again, for the umpteenth time, mentioned the question of family life. He once again pointed out that he wishes to encourage the family life of the Bantu in the industrial areas. That is why he comes into direct conflict with the attitude of the Government. Because we have Bantustans, it is our desire that the greatest measure of family life should not be encouraged in our industrial centres in the White areas, but rather in the Bantu homelands. That is why it is necessary to limit family life in those areas as much as possible, and to pursue the pattern that has been followed in our main industry during the last half-century. The Bantu employed in the mines on the Rand has never had the right to have his family with him on the Rand, and that is one of the main industries. The consequence of that is that the Bantu completes his service contract there, and has every opportunity to save all he possibly can for his family when he returns to his homeland. That is what we wish to encourage. [Interjection.] I am so glad the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) interrupts me. It is mainly as a result of his policy that a new generation has emerged, particularly in the Peninsula and in the Western Cape, which has become a great problem, and I blame his administration for it. He, is aware that with the influx that occurred while the hon. member was Minister of Bantu Affairs there were thousands of Bantu from the Eastern Cape who came to live here, and they mixed socially with the Coloured population, and that has become a tremendous problem.

And you then supported me.

That is the greatest nonsense. The hon. member knows that if there is one thing I have fought against throughout my life, it is this very thing. No, I say the administration of the hon. member, while he was Minister, gave rise to a problem that is insurmountable to-day if they wish to implement their race federation plan. Because take note, Sir, the hon. member now proposes that the Coloureds as a population group should disappear and be absorbed into the White group for political purposes. I wonder whether they have ever considered that as regards the tremendously large number of Coloureds, and more particularly the younger generation you have to-day, they are of such a nature that you can hardly tell whether they are Coloureds or Bantu. But those are the people they wish to integrate with the Whites for political purposes, because they say those people should be put on the Common Roll with the Whites. I say you reach the situation where you have tremendous numbers of people whom you cannot distinguish from the Bantu. In other words, in removing that difference, they are building a direct bridge between the Whites and the Bantu, and then you may reach the stage where the Bantu will say: That is my child you are now placing on the Common Roll with the Whites, and he can vote, but I cannot. [Interjections.]

Where is your bench companion, Russell?

That is the position in which the United Party will find itself and in which we have already landed at the present time as a result of the uncontrolled flow of Bantu to the cities. It has resulted in a great problem and nobody but the hon. member for Green Point is to blame for it.

Order! The hon. member is now going much too far away from the Bill.

I am only dealing …

Order! The hon. member is not dealing with motions before the House.

There are some other aspects the hon. the Leader of the Opposition objected to most vehemently. He says that all industries will be sent in a particular direction by the Minister. But surely that will be a very good thing. That is precisely what we want. Why does the hon. member object to it? We want the industries that can fit in more particularly in the White areas to be concentrated there, and the industries in which Bantu labour is mainly employed should be removed to the border areas. That is not something to which there should be any objection. That is something in regard to which he should tell the Minister not to delay longer with the Bill. The hon. Leader also referred to job reservation. The Minister will now be able to intervene there, too. But surely that is a good thing. We have already reserved employment in the building industry for the Bantu. [Time limit.]

One of the things which worries me about the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, and the attitude of others responsible for the babble in that corner over there …

On a point of order, may the hon. member refer to hon. members here as “rabble”?

I was referring to the babble of hon. members in that corner, and, although it hardly fits in, it is a Biblical word. [Interjections.]

Order!

What worries me about the speech of the hon. member …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to hon. members as the “rebels in the corner”?

The hon. member did not say that.

On a point of order, the hon. member did not refer to the “rebels”, but to the “rabble ",

Order! What is the matter with hon. members to-day?

The hon. member who has just sat down speaks about this Bill and the people it affects as though they are a lot of cattle who are being transferred from one place to another. He does not appreciate that we are dealing here, not only with people, but with people who are indispensable to the existence of the civilization we have in this country. This Bill deals with the very basis of the continuance of race relations between the Bantu and the Whites. As my Leader has said, this goes to the very root of the difference between the two sides of the House. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said that our policy of a race federation has been introduced in order to deal with the Africans here, but I want to say that hon. members opposite also have to deal with this problem. This problem was not introduced by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl); it is a fact of South Africa, a problem that every Government has to deal with, and this is the way this Government proposes to deal with the problem of the urban Bantu. Just imagine the hon. member saying that the centre of family life must be in the homelands, a place they have never been to and are never likely to go to. These people were born here in the urban areas, but the hon. member suggests that their home life must be centred 500 to 1,000 miles away in a place where he has never been. This Bill is not realistic, and that is why we oppose it. How can the hon. member talk about the home life centring in a place where the family has never been? One of the Acts being amended by this Bill is the Urban Areas Act. The original Urban Areas Act was introduced to provide some protection for the Bantu. [Interjections.]

Order! I now ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to keep the peace.

I ask the same of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant).

Both hon. members should keep the peace.

The Urban Areas Act was intended to provide a certain protection for the persons living in the urban areas, but this Bill undermines the very existence of the people whom the original Act was intended to protect. Those hon. members are quite happy about it, because, as my Leader said, they want to give some legal existence to the myth that these people do not really belong there, but belong to some mythical homeland. I know that the Minister of Information has been consulted about this Bill, and he gave out a fantastic statement about the Bill, saying that it was intended to reduce friction between the races. But I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Justice has been consulted about it, and whether he has been asked whether this Bill is likely to produce such a state of affairs as the one we recently had to deal with in this House? On what basis can one expect the urban Bantu to have respect for law and order if you do not give them a stake in the community, if you do not give them some reason not to riot?

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

This Bill removes the very basis on which any support by the urban Bantu for law and order can be expected. It removes from them any security they might ever have had. It goes so far as to make the jobs they have now a matter of doubt, in the discretion of some official. Quite apart from that, the humanitarian aspects of this Bill fill me with tremendous dismay and melancholy, that we, and especially hon. members opposite, who pretend to have the interests of the African at heart, can pretend to anyone in this country, but especially overseas, that they have the interests of the urban Bantu at heart. To treat any African as a beast of burden, as part of a sort of circulating labour force with no roots anywhere at all, except in some mythical place where they have never been, is what this Bill does. How is the Minister going to explain this? Has he consulted with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the Minister of Information, as to how they will explain this overseas? It is all very well to have a political theory that these people belong somewhere else, but in fact they are here and will always remain here. The fact is that we have a multi-racial country. We always have had a multi-racial country and we always will, and any theories or laws will not alter the fact. This Bill is introduced at a stage when there are no existing Bantustans, which form the very basis of this Bill.

Let us look at one of the other provisions of the Bill, that no persons in urban areas are to have more than one servant living on their premises. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) to do all their own housework, particularly when there is no accommodation for a servant, in terms of the laws of this Government, but what about the thousands of elderly people? They are allowed to have one servant living in on sufferance, and then only if no alternative accommodation is provided. What is the basis for this? Is this something which is necessary for the elderly people and for the Bantu? I do not think any justification can be found for this Bill at all. My Leader has said the basic difference between this side of the House and that side is the facing of certain facts in this country, and one of those facts is that the urban Bantu are and always will be a permanent part of our community. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a peculiar thing which is happening here, that hon. members opposite are opposing the introduction of this Bill. If ever there has been a Bill on which the Government has had consultations with outside people on the most extensive scale imaginable it is this one. There has not only been consultation during the past few weeks, as the result of the publication of the Bill of 9 February, but consultation on the matters contained in this Bill which will still be tabled has been conducted for much longer than the past few weeks or months. It has continued for the past 2½ years already on a very extensive scale. There are municipal organizations, other departments and associations and private individuals, trade and agriculture, through their federated bodies, and large, employers and city councils—I could mention numerous bodies that have been consulted and which have given their views.

Even the Bantu?

Yes. I shall in due course even submit to the House the views of the Bantu, but this is not the time for it to-day. We have even had representations from city councils controlled by the United Party, and who are now co-operating. We have even had suggestions from those city councils that were acceptable to us and which have been incorporated in the Bill. But the hon. members have made a very strange error of reasoning, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been the ringleader in that respect, and that was to regard the Bill published in February as the Bill for the introduction of which leave is being sought to-day. It concerns the same matters, but if the hon. members had merely compared the Long Titles of the two Bills they would have noticed the difference. All this House knows in connection with this Bill to-day is its Long Title, and if they will merely compare the Long Title with that of the Bill published in February they will see the difference, particularly in regard to the things that are being done in the interests of the Bantu. I do not want hon. members opposite to infer from that that the Bill of which notice has now been given is exactly the opposite of the Bill published in February. I am not suggesting that for one moment, but the hon. member for Durban North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) continually referred to “this Bill” and “this Bill” is not here to-day as yet. No, I am afraid the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party know very well that this Bill can be discussed only after some time has elapsed, and we know that they need a very strong lightning conductor to-day. [Interjections.] I see the Leader of the Opposition is very uncomfortable, because he does not know what I am insinuating when I refer to a lightning conductor.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any clause to which I have referred that is not in this Bill?

I shall reply to the hon. Leader as soon as I have completed my argument in regard to the lightning conductor. We know the Leader of the Opposition has had a very uncomfortable week-end. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had an equally uncomfortable week-end, particularly Friday night. One does not begrudge the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to try to lead off the lightning, but I do not think he ought to abuse an occasion such as this for that purpose. I know he and the hon. member for Yeoville have had a difficult week-end with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the labour quotas that could be instituted in terms of the Bill that has been published. He said that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development “would thereby be in a position to usurp the functions of the Department of Labour”. He also said that trade and industry would then not be able to plan and carry on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just asked me a very fair question. He has asked me whether any changes have been made in those clauses that concern the points he has raised. As regards this one point I can assure him that an amendment has very definitely been made. I am not saying that the clause has been deleted wholly. I say an amendment has been made to it, an amendment that has been made specifically to meet these points he has mentioned, namely, the relationship of this Department to the Department of Labour and the position regarding job reservation and with regard to trade and industry. The interests of trade and industry were in fact taken into consideration when we added certain provisions to the Bill as published in February.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also referred to the question of family life. In that respect also great consideration has been shown in the Bill for the introduction of which leave is being asked here for the family connections of Bantu employed here and who then become unemployed and cannot find employment here, but are able to find employment elsewhere. Greater consideration has also been shown in this Bill for the family connections of these Bantu. Mr. Speaker, I put this question the other day during another debate: the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has also referred to this, and I now wish to ask the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite expressly to tell us, in view of their incessant hammering on the question of family connections of Bantu who are employed here: Is it their policy now that they want more and more Bantu workers here, together with their families? Yes or no. That is a very simple question. It is so brief that even the Leader of the Opposition could reply with a mere “yes” or “no”, but please not with the words “yes but” (“ja-nee”). Let the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who is now consulting with his Leader and may speak next, please tell us whether in fact that is their policy that, if they had a say in the matter, Bantu workers in the White areas should henceforth be here to an increasing extent on a family basis, yes or no. We say that we still maintain the old viewpoint we have always held, namely, that the Bantu may be present here as an employee, and that his dependants he has here with him and who qualify to be here may be here, but we say very emphatically that the Bantu must not be here as employees on a family basis to an increasing extent. I hope the Opposition will be equally frank to come and say the opposite.

I referred earlier on to the many bodies that have been consulted, and somebody interrupted me. Is it fair to all those bodies, tens of them, and persons who have been consulted and who have co-operated in a constructive manner to bring this Bill into being, to withhold the product of their consultation from Parliament? Is it fair to them? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want us to publicly play the fool with interested members of the public, i.e. city councils that are controlled by his party. [Time limit.]

I am very sorry that a debate on a measure of this gravity should have been cheapened by the type of speech which we have just heard from the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister tried to convey that there had been a great deal of consultation by his Department with numerous organizations all over the country. That may be so, but he tried further to convey that these consultations had revealed agreement with this measure from the various municipalities and bodies of that kind that he had consulted. He did not say so but that was clearly his intention. He could not say so because I know and he knows that the great majority of bodies of that kind do not agree with all the measures in this Bill. He further attempted to castigate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for coming forward with a speech against this motion before the Bill had in fact been tabled in the House. Sir, the Opposition has every reason to come forward with opposition at this stage because firstly when asked by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), the hon. the Minister stated that this Bill would be brought before this House this Session— not any old Bill but this Bill which was printed in the Government Gazette. Surely we can take the word of the hon. the Minister when he says that “this measure” will be brought before the House. Surely in those circumstances we are entitled to say, if the Minister says that this Bill will be brought before the House, that we can deal with it on that basis. Apart from that, a further spokesman of the Minister’s Department—I believe it was either himself or the Deputy Minister—stated, in reply to queries, a reply which was published in all organs of the Press, that this Bill would not be re-drafted but that it would be introduced substantially in the form in which it appeared in the Government Gazette. Are we to ignore these Ministerial statements? Are we to disbelieve them, or are we entitled to say, if the Minister says that this is the Bill which is to be introduced, that we can rely on the fact that it will be substantially in the form in which it was published? That is the basis on which we attack the Bill at this stage. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition put a question to the Minister to which we have not yet had a clear reply, and I repeat that question: Has any material change been made in the clauses against which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke? I hope that someone who follows me in this regard will be able to stand up and give a clear answer to that question. Of course, they will not do so but still the challenge remains there for them to meet.

The hon. member for Durban (North) dealt with this Bill chiefly as it affects the townsman. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the position of the rural community, the farmers, under the provisions of this Bill. It does not apply only to urban areas. I cannot emphasize this sufficiently. It applies to any area outside the scheduled or the released areas to which the hon. the Minister chooses to apply it, so it is as much a danger and a clog in the economic wheel of the farmers as it is in the wheel of the industrialist or the man of commerce in the towns. Let us for a moment consider the effect it will have on farmers who carry on intensive farming operations, the type of operation which requires a great deal of labour in order to make a profit. When one bears in mind that this Bill empowers the Minister to prescribe areas in which no labour agents or employers’ recruiting licences can be issued, if one bears in mind that it allows him to prescribe areas in respect of which no recruiting of Native labour can take place, and furthermore that it empowers him to define areas or classes of employment in which no recruited Bantu may be employed, the House will realize what an efficient strangulation Ministerial decree can have principally on those farming areas where intensive farming operations are carried out in which recruited labour is largely employed, and not only those but any type of farming operation where recruited labour is employed.

Then there is this clause dealing with the cancellation of contracts of service as they pertain to Native labour. Power is given under this Bill for a district labour officer, an official of the Department of Labour, to cancel any contract of service between a farmer and his Native labourer if, for example, he believes that the contract is not bona fide. If, for example, he believes that it is not in the interest of the employer to employ that Bantu labourer he may cancel that contract of service. Sir, it is difficult to conceive of legislation whereby, when there is a willing contract between a Bantu labourer and a farmer, the farmer wanting the man to work and the man wanting to work for that particular farmer, a labour officer is given the power to cancel that contract because he believes that it is not in the interests of either of the two parties. Sir, this is an example of the lengths to which the Minister and his Department will go in an attempt to divorce Bantu labour from the farming community and send it back to the reserves from which they believe it came. Furthermore, provision is made for classes of employment which can be cancelled where the Bantu is being employed in an area where the Minister does not wish him to be employed or if he stems from a source of labour which the Minister does not want to work in that particular area. There are further provisions which affect the farming community. The provision of married quarters for farm labourers is under the control of the Minister; regulations controlling the siting and establishment of compounds and other facilities can now be made not only in respect of urban areas but in respect of farms as well. The Minister controls not only the source of labour, not only the type of labour that is to be done but also where the labourers shall live. I have yet to find the farmer who wants directions from the Government as to whom he should employ and as to where and how he should house them, and I challenge any hon. member opposite to find a farmer who wishes that to take place. This Bill, so far as the farming community is concerned, gives power to the Minister to make regulations concerning almost every aspect of movement, employment, control and conditions of service, types of work and the employment of Bantu which it is possible to imagine. All that is now to be controlled by officials of the hon. the Minister’s Department.

Has any agricultural union objected? Since when are you the president of an agricultural union?

Sir, there is a vast expansion in the powers of the labour tenants control board, to the extent that under this Bill they will not only control labour tenants but they will control all Bantu labourers employed on any land. In other words, there can now be interference by a labour tenant control board in the employment by farmers of Bantu of any kind anywhere in the Republic of South Africa. Bantu labour inspectors in respect of any land including farms will now have the power to snoop, to interrogate, to carry out investigations of the number of Bantu employed; to carry out investigations into the books of a farmer and to summon him before a tribunal to answer questions under oath as to the type of labour he employs and the number and the source from which he employs that labour. I do not believe there is a single farmer in the country who will gladly assent to snooping or interrogations and investigations of this kind into his farming activities on his land. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention and the attention of the House and of the country to the fact that the United Party opposes the introduction of this Bill not because they are against the Bill, but because they wish to be in the good books of Mr. Russell and the other Russellites; that is the only reason. [Interjection.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will only give me a chance to show why I say that—and I have every reason to say that—then he will agree with me. The attitude of the United Party in the past has always been—and this has been said on behalf of the United Party—that as regards a first reading they cannot raise any objection because the Government is entitled to put its case.

Not always.

What kind of principle is this that sometimes applies and sometimes does not apply? That reminds me of the American who said: “Those are my principles; if they do not suit you, I have many others.” I should like to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that a predecessor of his committed the United Party to this attitude, and there must be a good reason if they no longer observe that old principle that the other party should be heard.

Frankie, why do you not make your own speech?

The hon. member for Yeoville is afraid that I shall expose his own past and the past of the United Party and of the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] No, it is still the same United Party we have here. The hon. member says it is a new party with new principles and a new beginning. I should just like to draw your attention to what the Leader of the United Party, even if it was not the present Leader, said in connection with the viewpoint of the United Party in respect of the powers of the Government to introduce a Bill and the Opposition’s attitude towards that at the first reading. Here in front of me I have a report of the debate that took place on 14 July 1953, in a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament when for the first time we tried to remove the Coloureds from the Common Voters’ Roll. In 1953 Mr. Lovell of the Labour Party objected to the first reading and then Adv. Strauss rose and put the attitude of the United Party in respect of that as follows; it is very interesting indeed. He said this: “We will not commit ourselves to one single provision of that Bill.” (Col. 25)—

And I am putting it to hon. members opposite that the hon. the Deputy Minister is acting completely in accordance with constitutional law—

What is wrong with that? Even the United Party endorses that. They are accusing us day after day that we are abusing our power and do not hear the other party. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) is always accusing us of being a police state, but for his sake the United Party now abandons the point of view it stated at the time in 1953. Mr. Strauss continued—

I say that also to the Leader of the Opposition for he as Leader of the Opposition ought to subscribe to the principles that you should hear the other party—

I am also saying that again to the Opposition now. I understand they do not like to listen to this, because it is a little too close to their past. He continued—

I say that to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also.

My friend knows the procedure. Why does he pretend that second reading speeches have to be made at this stage?

That is what the hon. member for Zululand also has done—

Are they suggesting now that the Minister does not have that right? The hon. member for Durban (North) knows very well what the rule is, but because he is one of the great champions of Mr. Russell, because he is one of the Russellites, why does he not want me to read this—

What is wrong with that? The United Party comes here now and repudiates their own past. In Col. 26 Mr. Strauss continues—

And not one single member over there, not the Leader of the Opposition, nor the hon. member for Zululand, nor the hon. member for Durban (North), has said that we on this side are acting unconstitutionally. They were only acting as champions for Mr. Russell and the Russellites. They did this for no other reason. In the words of Mr. Strauss:

That is not the reason; they think we are wrong, but they really believe that they will fare much better if they were to pander to the Russellites a little, and make a plea in favour of the Russellites. Mr. Speaker, I could read more in the same spirit.

May I ask a question? Have we not already heard the case of the Minister of Information?

If the Opposition object to the Minister of Information, why do they raise the matter here now? They ought to wait until he introduces a Bill or until his Vote is called. It seems to me that I should say to the hon. member for Florida what Mr. Strauss said to Mr. Lovell, and as I have just said to the Leader of the Opposition: “He knows the procedure.”

Mr. Speaker, let us for a moment see who voted against Mr. Lovell and in favour of leave to introduce the Bill in 1953. It is very interesting to see who voted for that motion. The following gentlemen inter alia voted for it; Mr. J. D. du P. Basson, the man of great principles, Mr. L. C. Gay, Capt. B. H. Henwood, Mr. J. W. Higgerty, Mr. A. Hopewell, Mr. T. G. Hughes, Mr. D. E. Mitchell and Mr. S. J. M. Steyn. All those members are now going to repudiate their own past and vote against the motion for leave to introduce this Bill. The absence of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) will save him from repudiating his own past when we proceed to vote. [Time limit.]

On the conclusion of the period of one hour allotted for the discussion of the motion, the debate was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 161.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development thereupon brought up the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill.

Bill read a first time.

I move—

I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has given further consideration to the question of giving lists of units to unit-holders on written application against payment of a prescribed fee. He said he would discuss the matter with the Registrar to try to come to some agreement with him on the matter.

My Department will discuss this matter with the hon. member. Surely this is not the occasion to bring in any amendments! I am considering the matter and if possible and if I find it necessary, I shall bring in the necessary amendment whenever I can do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 9 is one of those clauses we oppose in principle. For purposes of the record I should like to read it—

The first thing that strikes one here is that this is the first time in our constitutional history that we not only talk of an Executive Council or of executive powers but also definitely use the word “Cabinet”. Our Constitution itself does not refer to a “Cabinet”. I should like to hear from the Minister when he replies why we now introduce the word “Cabinet” for the first time in our history.

What further appears clearly from this clause is that this so-called Cabinet or Executive Council is once again the symbol of an independent state, of an autonomous state. It refers to a state or to a people who have already achieved political independence, or political maturity. A Cabinet is something foreign to the Bantu. They have not known anything like that in their history. The second question I therefore wish to put to the Minister is why he did not evolve something for the Bantu instead of the word “Cabinet”, which is based on their cultural structure about which the Minister talks so much.

Do you want them to be a lot of witchdoctors?

It does not matter what I want. I am not the Minister. The Minister should tell us why he has introduced something which is not based on the cultural structure of the Bantu. It would be interesting to hear what he says. I wish the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) would get up and suggest something. I am sure that even the Minister would be glad to have some basis for this term, so that it could be in line with the cultural structure of the Bantu.

The real objection we have on this side of the House is that once more it is the symbol of sovereignty, the symbol of renouncement, the symbol of the independence of a territory which, as the Minister says, is an integral part of the Republic of South Africa but which nevertheless is also a “state”. That is something entirely unknown in our history, Sir. Therefore we feel that as far as this clause is concerned, this side of the House cannot support it.

But the clause goes further. By giving Ministers to this “integral” portion of South Africa, we are giving this territory a higher status than is given by our Republican Constitution to South West Africa or to the provinces. There is no such thing as a Cabinet or Ministers in the provinces. We simply have members of the Executive Committee. It is therefore clear that when this clause becomes law the Transkei will have a higher status than the provinces. Those members of the Cabinet will also have certain clearly defined powers with which the Central Government cannot interfere. That is important, and for that reason we also feel that we should oppose this clause. It is once again clear proof of the direction in which the Government is going, a direction which cannot redound to the benefit either of the Bantu in the Transkei or the Whites.

With regard to the questions put by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) to the hon. the Minister, I should be grateful if the Minister will indicate why he has chosen this word “Cabinet” to describe the executive body in this Bill. The word “Cabinet”, of course, has an old-established connotation both in law and in practice in South Africa. As the executive arm of government it has recognized functions and responsibilities. Its functions are entirely different from those set out in the Bill itself. That is the reason why I ask this question: Why has this been called a Cabinet? Because it is only a Cabinet in name and in nothing else. It differs from that long-established concept of collective responsibility whereas here it is a case of majority responsibility in which Cabinet splits become the rule rather than the exception. I am not concerned with how this body is going to function; I am concerned with the connotation which the hon. the Minister has given to this body. If his answer is that this is what was asked for I can only say that it has not been granted. If it was not asked for then it is a deception. It is entirely misleading to call this body a Cabinet and it would be completely deceptive both to the persons concerned and to any interested body outside South Africa. The importance of the question asked by my hon. friend becomes of greater significance having regard to the use of a commonly known word for an entirely different purpose.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said, viz. that the words “executive” and “Cabinet” used specifically in the Bill have certain specific connotations in constitutional law that have developed through the ages. A Cabinet, e.g., is not just an ordinary body of a few persons in a legislative assembly. It is more than that. It is a body that is in fact clothed with executive powers. Where the word “Cabinet” is used here and where reference is made to an “executive” here, I do not know to what extent that is consistent with what is said in Clauses 10 and 11 in that connection. As you know, Mr. Chairman, a Cabinet has executive authority; it is the head of the executive authority of any country. It virtually has sovereign power. In the colonial system reference is usually made to “executive council”; reference is seldom made to a “Cabinet The word “Cabinet” is much more closely related to a country with dominion status or to an independent state. A Cabinet is a conception that has arisen from the British parliamentary democracy, and it has a specific meaning. Therefore it seems strange to me that this word is being used. A Cabinet, e.g., is not only an executive authority; it is subject to certain constitutional rules; it is subject to the rule of Cabinet responsibility; it is also subject to the rule that the members are appointed by the Prime Minister. It again seems very strange to me that the word “Cabinet” is used in Clause 9, when we refer to what is said further in Clauses 10, 11 and 12, in regard to a Cabinet itself. It seems to me that the Government and the hon. the Minister have no conception of what they are doing here now; they are using words without regard to the constitutional meanings thereof; they are conferring powers without realizing what they are doing by so doing. I feel that this can only lead to a very unhappy state of affairs in South Africa, if the Bantu in the Transkei and in the other Bantustans that are to be established later on, are going to say: “A Cabinet has been promised to us; a Cabinet has such powers and ought to have such powers, and why are we not getting those powers?” The hon. the Minister is digging a grave for himself and for our country, South Africa, by means of this legislation.

It seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite have a great desire to bicker this afternoon. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has asked what there is to a name. He asked what the difference is. But there is a world of difference. What does it mean to him when I call him a Sap (United Party supporter)? For the purposes of this House he is one, but in his heart he is not one. The hon. member who has just spoken has forgotten his history. Before the days of unification there also were members of a Cabinet in the Free State and in the Transvaal. Does the hon. gentleman know that?

Yes.

Does the hon. member know how limited their powers were in those days?

They had Cabinet responsibility.

Yes, only responsibility, precisely, but they were members of a Cabinet. Now the hon. member and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) are making a great fuss because they think this executive will not have sufficient status to be called a Cabinet. Why are the hon. gentlemen always trying to break down and to belittle? One moment we are aiming too high for their liking, and the next moment we are aiming too low for their liking. One moment we hear that this is everything but self-government and the next moment we hear that by calling them a Cabinet we are placing them on too high a rung. That was the objection of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Why does he object to that? Is it in order to belittle? Why does he not motivate his objections? He merely says he objects.

I have motivated them. And now I wish to know from the Minister why he is using the word “Cabinet”.

The hon. member has not proved that it is wrong. It is purely a question of choice of words. I think the hon. members are only bickering. They have not adduced any argument why this body with executive authority should not be called a Cabinet. We call it a Cabinet so that those people can realize that they have responsibility and are not there as a puppet body; that they have executive authority in relation to the powers we shall be conferring upon them in subsequent clauses.

Sir, I do not think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has gone far enough. As I see it this clause deals with the conveyance, subject to limitations now but without limitations later, of sovereignty to the Transkei. When you talk of executive government and when you talk of a Cabinet then quite clearly the Government is using words here which it intends shall be understood by the inhabitants of the Transkei to mean that they will have executive government and a cabinet, and that the powers that will be enjoyed by the Transkei are the limited powers which are set out in the later clauses of this Bill but to which further powers will be added from time to time in terms of the provisions of the later clauses of this Bill, the intention being that in the end the Transkei will become an independent state, a state entirely independent of this Parliament and free of the control of this Parliament. In other words, this clause is intended to convey to the inhabitants of the Transkei that this Government intends what it says, although it is often denied on political platforms, namely that it is the intention of the Government that they will be able to progress to full independence if they have the necessary qualifications and if the time is ripe for it.

We have always said that.

I am sure the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) is one who has always said that. But I am not now discussing the way in which various members on the other side of the House have been throwing dust in the eyes of the electorate in regard to this matter. I do not think that is relevant to this clause. I want to put it fairly and squarely to the Minister—and I am sure he will give me an honest answer—that the Government’s intention in wording this clause the way it appears is that they wish the inhabitants of the Transkei to know that they will have executive government which will, in terms of the later provisions of this Bill, administer some five departments of state and that in due course, in terms of the provisions of Clause 37, further powers will be extended to them from time to time until they are completely independent of the legislative power of this Parliament and any control by the Cabinet of the South African Government. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will go further; that not only is that the intention of the clause but it is also the intention that this clause will make it clear to the people of this country that the Government, in respect of other areas in this country, will take similar measures which will eventually bring about the position where this Parliament, which is today a sovereign Parliament over the whole of the Republic of South Africa, will no longer enjoy that sovereignty. Big sections of this country will no longer fall under this Government but will fall under the Cabinet of the Transkei and certain other areas, Cabinets which will have executive powers which are no longer subject to any limitation of this Parliament.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is very fond of setting traps. He must not think we are so stupid as to fall into those traps. He must remember that we have the Act that puts this matter very clearly and plainly. We have so frequently said that what is going to happen in future is a matter for the future. To say now that this step will immediately lead to a position where there will be no control over the Transkei is not fair. We are now concerned with what is provided here in the Act.

I am faced with a second problem. I do not know who spoke on behalf of the United Party, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) or the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). The hon. member for Hillbrow argued that this is incontrovertible proof that we are on the road towards granting full independence to the Transkei. The hon. member for Germiston (District) expressed the same view. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, however, said that this Bill was just a farce, that it was a fraud. How can one argue with such people?

He referred to collective responsibility.

Surely one must speak on behalf of the United Party. Now I do not know who is speaking on behalf of the United Party, or is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) one of the Russellites also? Possibly he is speaking on behalf of Mr. Russell. The position is still so much in the dark that I do not really know what is going on.

That is your difficulty.

The Bill clearly provides there shall be a Cabinet. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was quite right; we are using the word “Cabinet” because the Bantu desired that, but personally it was my own desire that there should be a Cabinet so that an ambiguity could be eliminated. I knew that this kind of accusation would come. Hon. members say now that they object to this on principle. I just want to read to them what their own chief propagandist said in the article he wrote in the Sunday Times on 21 January. He explained their plan in that article, and he said this, as appears very clearly from Hansard—

Then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) continued—

How can hon. members blame me now when I say that there should be a Cabinet with a Prime Minister in the Transkei? Hon. members asked whether it will be a Cabinet according to the modern conception of a Cabinet. Can there be any doubt about it? Any person who has an elementary understanding of modern constitutional conceptions surely cannot ask such a question. I do not even want to refer to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He ought to go and learn his Std. VI history over again. This matter to-day is in conformity with the views on constitutional concepts throughout the world. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow comes forward with the other proposition, and he says that I am one of those who are in favour of everything being based on the cultural structure of the Bantu. Of course. What else is this but to a large extent an off-shoot of the constitutional culture of the Bantu? Hon. members who know the Zulu system will know that it also applies in the case of the Bantu that they had an Assembly; true, the Assembly did not consist of elected members, but it was a democratic institution because, except for a few exceptional cases, they did not ignore public opinion. That was one of the fine things in that system, that they continually held their ears to the pulse of the heart of the nation. If a paramount chief ignored those views, he was very quickly done away with. But, and this is the important point, the hon. member ought to know that they had an inner council. That applies to most of our Bantu tribes. They had inner councils which were responsible for certain aspects of national life. Thus they had an inner council that was responsible for military matters; he was the Minister of Defence. There is one that is responsible for the land. He is the Minister of Lands. There is one who is responsible for family organization; he is the Minister of Social Welfare. So I could go on. It is my difficulty that hon. members in general are not well informed, but what I am stating here is an absolute fact. Take the one matter with which I had a good deal to do while I was a student, for instance: When a tribe moved to another place, that Minister of Lands, as they themselves sometimes called him, with his three experts were sent to go and see whether the land there was suitable, whether the water was suitable, etc., and in the regulation of the apportionment of the land, he also plays an important role. Here you have an instance where to a large extent there is an adaptation to the traditional views of the Bantu; it is not something strange to them. But at the same time it is a matter of principle to us also that these things be put clearly and plainly, not only for us, not only for the Opposition, but to the whole world so that they will realize that what the Bantu is getting here is not a second-rate thing. Here they get their own Cabinet, and that Cabinet will be their executive authority. Initially they get their six Ministers, but in course of time they will get more according as they show the capacity to receive more. That Cabinet is their executive authority, and we want to put that very clearly for then there can be no hairsplitting over words. I may say that this approach highly satisfied the Bantu and makes them very happy. That is why hon. members can have no objection to it. I say again that it is in conformity with modem constitutional ideas all over the world.

I regret to say that the Minister is now talking nonsense, but not only that. I also want to ask him who is now talking on behalf of that side of the House, the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who is Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission, or the other members on that side.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister said that this side of the House now wrongly assumes that this Bill will automatically lead to independence, and then he said that he wanted to make the Bantu in the Transkei understand clearly that here they will have something definite on which they can continue to build, and for which they are given these specific powers. Does my hon. friend still want to tell me that the object of the Government is not for the next step to be autonomy, sovereignty, independence? Does my hon. friend deny that? Does he deny that this is a step towards the independence of these Bantu? Of course he cannot deny it.

On the way to autonomy.

There the Chief Whip now says it. Therefore this side of the House is quite correct in saying that my hon. friends opposite did the greatest injustice to the voters of South Africa, when even as recently as the year before last they shouted us down when we said that that was the intention of the Government. Where did we have to get the truth? We had to get it from abroad. We had to go abroad to discover the plans of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, what does any person understand by “a Cabinet”? It definitely indicates the possibility, it definitely holds the promise that that body will be able to handle certain portfolios, and that it will lead to the independence of that area. Now my hon. friend says that that is the modern constitutional concept.

It is in line with it.

But my hon. friend has not told me where he gets hold of this constitutional concept. He did not give me any reference for it. If it is so modern, why could we not incorporate that modern idea, this modern constitutional concept, in our own constitution? No, the Minister has included something here which was not known, and he is now trying to explain it by asking whether I do not know what the structure of the Zulus was. He said I ought to know. Of course I ought to know and I tell him that the Zulus never had a constitutional concept such as a Minister of Lands.

Someone who played the same role.

They had a Great Council, and if Chaka felt like it he simply bashed in their heads if they did not agree with him. We know that they also had an Inner Council. But why does my hon. friend not rather call it the Great Council or the Inner Council if he is so concerned with the cultural structure of the Bantu in South Africa. Then I could have understood it. But I think we should clearly understand what my hon. friends intend doing by means of this and later clauses. They mean it to be the beginning of the establishment of an independent Transkei, and on the basis of that independent, sovereign, autonomous Transkei, seven or more other states will be established which will eventually become autonomous and independent, and which will surround South Africa. And that is the great objection we have here also, namely that it will lead to the downfall for the Whites in South Africa. For that reason we will oppose this clause, just as we opposed the others.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) says that he does not understand us, but his action is incomprehensible to me. I want to remind the House that when we introduced terminology such as “Bantu Authority” or “Territorial Authority” or “Regional Authority”, that hon. member made use of the opportunity to say that we wanted to lead the Bantu back to the jungle in the political sphere. What is happening here in this clause? We are taking the wind out of the sails of this hon. member of the United Party who acts in this incomprehensible way. Hon. members opposite are always contradicting themselves. They ought to welcome this provision because the designations of these various constitutional concepts have been modernized and are quite understandable. What is wrong with that? I think that the outside world will realize that this is so. We are not using the old terminology now and I thought that hon. members opposite would welcome this fact. This terminology that we are using for these various constitutional concepts will be understood by the outside world and people outside will realize that our aim is not to lead the Bantu back to the jungle, as the United Party used to say in the past. The outside world will now realize that the White Christian guardian in this country is earnest in his intentions and that he will lead the Bantu along a constitutional path to what we may call self-determination. The National Party is not as politically immoral as the other side of the House, which shirks the logical consequences of its policy. We are busy with an evolutionary process here.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am confining myself to it in this sense, Mr. Chairman, that I say that the designations of these various political concepts will be understood by the outside world. The people outside this country will realize that the Government is honest in its intentions and that it is leading the Bantu people along a constitutional path to eventual self-determination, even though this may take 100 years, or even 200 years. We know that that is not only an unreasonable world opinion; there is also a reasonable world opinion that demands that any nation, irrespective of race or colour, shall eventually control its own affairs. We are now using this terminology, these designations of various constitutional concepts. The outside world understands this, but hon. members opposite seek to bring us into discredit in this regard. One of those hon. members said that the Bantu welcomed these forms, these constitutional concepts.

No, the hon. the Minister said it.

It amounts to the same thing. The Bantu will welcome them because they have been modernized. The Bantu know that this is something good which springs from democracy—this use of modern constitutional concepts. We are introducing them into the Transkei constitutional system in this way and the Bantu realize that our intentions are honourable. What is wrong with that? No, it is hon. members opposite who act in an incomprehensible way. We are quite understandably acting as Christian White guardians in emancipating these people and in leading them to eventual self-determination—a right that the White people enjoy in their own area. We are not shirking this task.

I am grateful to the hon. Chief Whip that he was prepared to say the things which the hon. Minister ran away from. I would just like to say to him that if he has the idea that where the Government sets its feet on the road, it will be a matter of 200 years, he is making a fundamental mistake. But the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration accused me of setting a trap. It is not necessary for me to set a trap. I have asked the hon. Minister to make certain admissions, quite clearly realizing the importance of those admissions, politically, and to the people of this country, because I say again that hon. members opposite throughout the length and breadth of South Africa have denied that this will lead to independence. Therefore I challenge the hon. Minister to make it clear. I was not setting a trap. The hon. Minister surely cannot deny that he agrees with the hon. Prime Minister when he said this in a speech as published overseas by the Information Service of South Africa—

I asked the hon. Minister to make that admission to this House in this debate that this is a vital step in the carrying out of that policy. But the Minister said that I was setting a trap for him. I thought better of the hon. Minister. I did not think he would run away. I did not think that like Peter when the cock crowed for the third time, he still would not acknowledge the truth.

Hon. members opposite will forgive me if I tell them that they do not want to discuss this clause. They want to discuss independent Bantu states. The point that they have now raised was fully discussed during the second-reading debate and all that they have said is very true; this whole piece of legislation that we have before us, from beginning to end, is a step along the path which has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). But why do the hon. gentlemen not discuss the clause? One cannot take this step without this clause. We are going to create a territory with legislative authority and I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Mention one part of the world to me, any country, where there is a body with legislative authority which does not also have executive authority? It is simply not possible to set up this territory with legislative authority without giving it executive authority. It states emphatically that the Transkei will have executive authority in regard to all matters in respect of which powers are given to the Legislative Assembly. One has now to give it a name and it was quite wrong of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to want to name it in accordance with colonial constitutional development, because that was something entirely different from what is contained in this clause. It was the practice of Great Britain to appoint her most important State officials to the Executive Council—the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Treasurer-General. The Executive Council was comprised of these officials during the colonial period. These people were appointed. One cannot compare this body with the body envisaged in this clause. We have here what one can call— and I still hold this view—a form of responsible government, because the executive authority is responsible to the legislative authority. They can be removed from office, as we will see when we come to the various clauses. But there is no party system in the Transkei as yet, so they cannot have a Prime Minister as we have where the leader of the majority party becomes the Prime Minister. That is why they will have a Chief Minister as he is called here. He is elected but he is still elected by a majority of the legislative body, and so the position is no less constitutionally correct than it is here where the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. Quite honestly I think that those hon. members are stumbling over points which ought not to worry them at all. We have here nothing more or less than an executive authority, and it is called the “Cabinet”. The only objection hon. members opposite have is to the name given to that body. That is the only objection they have raised and it is really a mere debating point. They adopt the attitude that the status given to this body is too exalted, while we say that we do not mind giving this body a decent status because we admit that if this is a success it will lead to greater things. It will then be a body which one can in all respects compare with a Cabinet as it exists in democratic states they have in mind.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This Clause 10 typifies in a sense the double-sided approach of the Government to the constitutional development of the Transkei. It embodies in the first line two concepts, firstly “a Cabinet” and then the fact that the principal official of that Cabinet shall be a “Chief Minister”. Now, Sir, to be logical, the Government should have referred to that Minister as the “Prime Minister”, because the term “Cabinet” is a term exclusive to British constitutional history, and the term “Cabinet” is virtually unknown outside British constitutional history, and in accordance with the terminology of the British constitutional development, the Chief Minister, or the principal Minister of a Cabinet is almost invariably a Prime Minister. It is felt no doubt by the hon. Minister that for its own electorate that would be going too far that they would not stomach the concept of a Prime Minister of the Transkei, because it would indicate, or illustrate the fears which were expressed by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) earlier on that this is merely a step in the direction of sovereign independence. So to allay those fears, the term “Chief Minister” is resorted to. Now one does not have to have more than a slight knowledge of British constitutional development to know that subordinate executive committees in the colonies under the British regime were not called “cabinets They were never called cabinets. They were called “executive committees” or “executive councils”. I do not want to refer to the previous clause, and I am merely using this as an illustration, but the term “Cabinet” was used exclusively for countries akin to dominions which had achieved independence.

In Holland they have a Cabinet.

Holland is one of the few countries outside of the British constitutional system where that term is used. The term “Chief Minister” in British constitutional development—and it is largely, I may say, at the British market that this legislation is directed, or the English-speaking market, if you like, in the outside word—is almost invariably used for those colonies which have not yet reached the stage of dominion status, places such as Malta which had a Chief Minister, most of whose functions were at that time at least, when the term was used, still subject to the control of Whitehall. As is so often the case, the hon. Minister wants the best of both worlds. He wants a descriptive title, a form of terminology which for overseas purposes indicates independence, and yet for domestic consumption he requires a terminology or a title which suggests merely a subordinate legislature, or a subordinate council of one kind or another, which is still subject to the control of this Parliament. That is why I say that he is illogical and inconsistent in the form of words used in Clauses 9 and 10 and to use in Clause 10 the term “Chief Minister”. It enables this double approach on anything pertaining to the Transkei to put forward in the domestic forum or in an overseas forum, whichever is desired. But whatever the form of wording used in Clause 10, there is no doubt that the objections raised earlier by the hon. member for Hillbrow still pertain, that this is a first step—a derogation from the authority and sovereignty of this Parliament over the Transkei.

This clause gives the power to the Transkeian Government to control the administration of the departments referred to in Part A of the First Schedule. I do not wish to go into details in discussing these department, but I wish to refer to them and to point out that there are six departments mentioned and that they are far-reaching in effect and are of considerable importance in the general administration of the Transkei. I would point out that the Cabinet will have the right to control those departments free of any supervision by this Parliament. I point out that one of these departments is the Department of Justice. I believe that this Parliament would be taking a very serious and most unfortunate step if we were to pass Clause 10, which gives these powers to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei.

Why? What jurisdiction has our Parliament to administer justice there?

Does the hon. member for Standerton again equate the position in which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly will be with the position in which the Provincial Councils are vis-à-vis this Parliament?

Order! That point is not under discussion at all. The hon. member can only discuss the constitution of the Cabinet.

I do not wish to labour this point, but if that is what the hon. member for Standerton had in mind I have already answered it in relation to Clause 1. The second point I wish to draw attention to in regard to this clause is sub-sec. (2), which empowers the State President at any time by proclamation in the Gazette to assign the administration of further departments to the Cabinet and to amend the First Schedule to this Act accordingly. This power is once again free of the control or the supervision of this Parliament. The State President will be able to act on his own accord, and this Parliament will not have any say in any assignment of the administration of further departments. The Minister was at great pains in relation to Clause 1 to convince this House that in fact the sovereignty of Parliament was in no way affected by this Bill. I say that he was completely unconvincing in relation to Clause 1, but as we go through this Bill from clause to clause, dealing more fully with the Bill, it will become, I suggest, clear beyond doubt that in fact the sovereignty of this Parliament is affected and that the powers which this Parliament now enjoys are being given away without any further control in future by this Parliament. I say this is one of those instances because the State President is now being given the power to assign the administration of further departments in his own discretion. I believe that this is a very bad clause and one which this House should not be asked to pass.

We have had another demonstration here which proves that the accusation that I have so often repeated is true, namely that hon. members have not read the Bill. Would you say, Sir, that the hon. member could have said this of the State President if the hon. member had read the Bill? He should have read Clause 38 which lays down the procedure to be followed. The State President can only grant additional powers with the approval of this House. But now the hon. member says that this Parliament has no authority in that regard. It is not fair towards this House that a Member of Parliament should do his work so badly. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) laughs, but he was a teacher and if one of his pupils had done his work as badly as this, the hon. member would have caned him. If this type of work had been done during examinations I am sure every pupil would have failed. I do not think it is fair to make a statement of this nature without having studied the matter. I want to give the assurance that additional powers can only be granted with the consent of this House.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) also made another statement but in this case he was a little more careful. He wanted to know why we are not using the designation “Prime Minister” but “Chief Minister We were asked just now why we were using the term “Cabinet” and not the term “Executive Authority”. At one moment they accuse us of not having gone far enough and the next moment they accuse us of having gone too far. What do they want? If they move an amendment I will then know what they want. The fact is that we allow ourselves to be guided to a very large extent by the wishes of the people in the Transkei and they have decided that the term should be “Chief Minister”. The hon. member says that this is exactly in accordance with British tradition. Quite right, but one of the views that we have always held is that one cannot force British tradition down the throats of every nation. Every nation develops according to its own character and wishes. This Bill is not based on British tradition but to a very large extent on Xhosa tradition.

Why then does the hon. the Minister use British constitutional terminology?

There is a recognized terminology throughout the world to-day which we bear in mind. I am one of those who always admits that the British Parliament is the Mother of Parliaments but every nation evolves according to its national characteristics. One of the selfish actions on the part of certain British statesmen was always to want to force British forms down the throats of other nations. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) mentioned a very important principle—that we reject the colonial approach. That is why we approach this Bill in the way we do. But at the same time we take account of the facts as they are and I want to make it clear immediately that the Transkei is not as yet independent. If it progresses to such an extent that it becomes independent one day, that then will be the time to think about other terms. But to-day the people want these terms to be used. They do not necessarily want to follow the terminology of any other country. But the hon. member will also know that there are other countries, even in Africa, where the term “Chief Minister” is used in stead of “Prime Minister”, and so that argument cannot be used against these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister gave a very intriguing explanation to the point I made. First of all, he tried to belittle my argument by suggesting that I had not read Clause 38. I would like to ask the Minister if in fact the State President, when acting under Clause 10 (2), must adopt the procedure laid down in Clause 38, why does not Clause 10 (2) say so? On the contrary, Clause 10 (2) says that the State President may at any time by proclamation in the Gazette do the things set out in (a) and (b), whereas under Clause 38 the State President is given the power from time to time, with the approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly, and by proclamation in the Gazette, to amend the First Schedule. So on the one hand the State President must when acting under Clause 38 act after the approval by resolution of this Parliament, but in regard to Clause 10 (2) he is given the power clearly and unequivocally to act at any time by proclamation and to assign the administration of further departments to the Cabinet. So, far from accepting that I have misread the Bill, or have not read it at all, I ask him once again to explain exactly how his explanation fits in with the wording of these two clauses.

The hon. member is becoming more and more confused. I wonder whether he has read the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act? In that Act we find the following: The executive authority of the Republic in regard to any matter affecting its internal or foreign affairs is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the executive. What does that mean? Surely there can be no doubt about it.

Does the hon. the Minister not admit that when the State President acts in terms of the section of our Republican Constitution that he has just quoted, he is acting only on the advice of the executive authority and that the matter need not come before Parliament at all?

Just for the record. I should like to put it very clearly. Under Section 10 provision is made for the extension of departments. Under Section 38 provision is made for the extension of legislative powers. Now it is self-evident that when the legislative powers are extended and there is no department, the State President will be obliged to create a department, but he will not necessarily ask Parliament to do so. Even if it were obligatory, it is not necessary, for you cannot have an extension of the legislative power falling outside finance, justice, education, internal affairs, agriculture and forestry, roads and works, and leave the thing hanging in the air. The opportunity this House will have to criticize, approve or disapprove, will be when permission is sought under Section 38; and once the permission has been granted, it is obvious that the State President receives permission by implication to establish a new department. Therefore the hon. the Minister is quite correct when he says that the hon. member has not read the Act. But one would swear that one should not only introduce a law but also a textbook for the hon. member for Musgrave.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has tried to belittle the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) but I do think that the hon. member for Musgrave has drawn the attention of the hon. the Minister to a very important point. It is very clear that the hon. the Minister has not considered this point. The provisions of Clause 10 (2) and those of Clause 38 are contradictory.

Not at all.

Clause 10 (2) reads—

1. (a) assign the administration of further departments to the Cabinet, and amend the First Schedule to this Act accordingly;
2. (b) provide for the number of members of the Cabinet to be increased to not more than nine.

But let us deal with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) only. Clause 38 reads as follows—

In the one case it is stated very clearly that it is necessary for the State President to act with the approval of Parliament but those words do not appear in Clause 10 at all.

No, because the First Schedule consists of two parts, A and B.

Quite correct. A deals with the Department and B with the matters which the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei is empowered to deal with. It is very clear that Clause 38 covers all the provisions appearing in the First Schedule. It is also clear from Clause 10 that the State President may at any time assign the administration of further departments to the Cabinet and amend the First Schedule accordingly.

May I ask a question? Under the Bill as it stands, does the hon. member think that it is necessary to have parliamentary approval if we proclaim a Department of Prisons, which always falls under Justice?

As far as this side of the House is concerned we believe that full control must be vested in this Parliament and we are opposed to powers being given for the transfer of important departments by proclamation.

What does “Justice” mean then?

This is something that is very important. Certain powers are already being transferred in terms of this Bill but we are opposed to further departments and the administration of those departments being transferred by way of proclamation in the Gazette. We believe that the provisions of Clause 38 are sound. Those provisions make it very clear that the final say will rest with this Parliament. We say that to insert these two provisions will create confusion. It is far better to deal with the whole matter in terms of the provisions of Clause 38 so that the approval of this Parliament will be necessary.

I am nearly prepared to accept that the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) does not have clarity on this point, but I am not prepared to accept that in regard to the bulk of the points raised. I think the key to his whole misunderstanding lies in Clause 9, where the executive authority of the Transkei in regard to all matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws, is relegated to the Cabinet. There we find the nexus between the second part of Schedule A and the functions of the Cabinet. The whole of the Cabinet functions, not split up into departments, is limited by the wording of Section 9 to those specific matters in which legislative authority has been given. If we want to illustrate that and refer to the annexure, and take the Department of Justice as an example, we find that sub-sections (4) and (7) of Part B refers to “justice functions”. The argument of the Minister and the hon. member for Standerton is that the legislative authority under Section 9, which circumscribes the total of the executive authority, cannot be extended except with the consent of both Houses of Parliament as prescribed in Section 38, and consequently the extent of executive authority in toto cannot be extended except by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think that is manifestly clear. Theoretically I concede that these functions which are at present to be split up between six Ministers could be split up further. For instance, there is authority given for the administration of deceased estates and the execution of wills. Theoretically that could be taken out of the hands of the Department of Justice or the Department of Internal Affairs and be given to a Minister or the Master of the Supreme Court. Theoretically something ridiculous like that could happen, but practically there is not the least risk that the number of Ministers or the number of Departments can be increased without relating it to an increase in legislative powers, and for that a resolution of both Houses of Parliament is required.

I am indebted to the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) for throwing a little light on the subject. His explanation is that in theory there could be a reassignment of some of the powers which are allocated to the six Departments to be created, but he says that in practice this is unlikely to happen without an increase of legislative power, which falls within the provisions of Clause 38 and which would require reference to Parliament. It seems to me that this is not such a theoretical matter which would justify us in accepting the anomaly which exists, because quite clearly there are, under Part B of the First Schedule, a variety of powers which are being allocated to the six Departments. As the hon. member for Kempton Park pointed out, some of these functions could in terms of Clause 10 (2) (a) be reassigned without affecting the provisions of Clause 38, and therefore without reference to Parliament. That being so, if it is not the intention of the Government to provide for reassignment of Departments without reference to Parliament, I submit that Clause 10 (2) should be omitted because there is no need for it. If, on the other hand, it is the intention that there should be reassignment without reference to Parliament, I say that is a thoroughly bad provision. For that reason I think we ought to have clarity from the Minister, because he was not prepared to concede any substance in my argument. Now that the hon. member for Kempton Park has in fact thrown the true light on the clause and has shown that there is in fact an anomaly along the lines I pointed out, I suggest that the Minister should give us an explanation of what the Government intends by these two clauses and this anomaly.

The hon. member for Musgrave insists that there is a conflict between the provisions of Clause 10 and those of Clause 38, but let us just confine ourselves to Clause 10. This provides that the State President may establish additional Departments. His complaint is that this Parliament will have no say in the matter. But to-day is the occasion to say something about it when we discuss the provision of the First Schedule. I should like to draw his attention to Clause 7. Nothing debars the State President from establishing a Department for the police if necessary. If the hon. member will refer to the First Schedule Part B, that deals with matters falling within the categories of matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei is empowered to pass laws, he will see that it includes—

Under 9 he will see it is provided—

He may establish a Department of Lands; he is getting the power to do so in advance already. We are not discussing the question of whether it is expedient or not, but inherently there is no conflict in the formulation of these sections, save that to-day not so many Departments are established as may be established under the legislative power of the Transkei. You find the same thing in Section 13: “Labour matters in the Transkei …” The State President may establish a Department of Labour there. If the hon. member for Musgrave will just consider the matter, he will see there is sufficient scope for such a construction under Section 13.

I accept his submission that Parliament, after this Act has been passed, will not demand any further reference, but the matter has been referred to Parliament to-day. To say here that no criticism at all of the Minister may be raised if the State President were to establish this Department on the advice of the Executive Council, merely shows that the member knows nothing about the procedure of the House. Surely the Minister remains responsible, even if the State President has done so; there is always an opportunity to criticize the Minister and the Government. If the hon. member will not avail himself of that, it is his own affair. I repeat that inherently there is no conflict between the provisions of Section 9 and the provisions of Section 38. The hon. member for Musgrave does not know what he is talking about.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 11,

Clauses 11 to 17 are purely administrative and they refer to a set-up which we hope will not come into existence. They are of no interest to us and we do not propose to debate them in the present circumstances. The next clause in which we are interested is Clause 18.

Clauses put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

The form of oath that can be administered is set out in this clause but no provision is made here for an affirmation. In Clause 33 which is similar but which is intended for members only, provision is made both for the swearing of an oath and for affirmation. I wish to confine myself to Clause 18. I think there should always be the alternative because as a matter of fact I regard the affirmation as being really superior to the oath. Sir, what is the origin of the oath? Where does an oath come from? It comes, of course, from the Jewish law. In the 19th Chapter of Leviticus in the 12th verse we get the nature of an oath and in the Jewish law we have the nature of a vow in the 30th Chapter of Numbers and in the 23rd Chapter of Deuteronomy. I have the greatest respect for the swearing of an oath, and when people swear an oath I respect them; I know they mean it seriously. I myself on occasion have no great objection to swearing an oath but I prefer an affirmation because an affirmation is the Christian way of stating a promise. Where does one find the Christian manner? One finds the Christian manner, of course, in that greatest oration in the history of mankind, the Sermon on the Mount. There you have a statement on the question of an oath. Hon. members will remember that on that occasion Jesus was speaking to people who had been educated on the Jewish law, and He spoke to them about certain provisions of the Jewish law. He said, for example, what their attitude should be towards murder, under the Sixth Commandment, and He gave them the Christian law on murder. He spoke to them about the Seventh Commandment on adultery and gave the Christian attitude on adultery. Then He came to this question of the oath, and this is what He said: I quote now from the new modern translation to which Mr. Speaker introduced us two years ago. These were His words on that occasion: “Again, you have learned that our forefathers were told, ‘do not break your oath; and oaths sworn to the Lord must be kept, but what I tell you is this: You must not swear at all, not by Heaven nor by earth nor by Jerusalem nor by your own head. Plain “yes” or “no” is all you need to say; anything beyond that comes from the devil or, as we say in our Afrikaans translation, “laat julle woord wees: ‘Ja’, ‘ja ‘nee’, ‘nee’; wat meer as dit is, is uit die bose”. Sir, swearing an oath when we become Members of Parliament is not the most serious undertaking in a man’s life; there is one more serious than swearing loyalty to your country for five years here as Members of Parliament. That is the occasion when a man is asked, “wilt thou take this woman to thy wedded wife, to have and to hold, for richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness or in health, till death thou shalt part”? You do not raise two fingers of the right hand and swear an oath, you say simply, “I will”. You make an affirmation. I want to say it in the words of that old sentimental song, “Not for just an hour, not for just a day” and not for five years in Parliament, “but always”, Therefore I think that anybody who insists on an oath instead of an affirmation is giving us an old-fashioned manner of swearing, which is a good manner but not as good as the modern Christian manner which I have given.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the difference between the form of the oath which is contained here and the oath which is contained in Section 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This oath is obviously based upon the oath which appears in our Constitution, but I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that in our Constitution all hon. Ministers and members are required to swear to be faithful to the Republic of South Africa. Here the oath which is to be sworn by Ministers, and, I presume, by other members, does not take the form of the oath which we, as members of this House, and which Ministers take, namely to be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, but in effect fealty is sworn to the Transkei State. It reads—

I raise no objection to that—

I want to say that here again I believe that the Government is making a fundamental blunder in the terms of this Bill. It is again introducing the idea of a separate state to which this side of the House has the utmost objection. I do suggest that having followed the pattern of the Republican oath, the Government is dishonouring that oath by including in this clause a provision in which the members of the Transkeian Cabinet only have to swear to respect and uphold the Constitution of the Transkei. It introduces the idea of separatism, of a separate state. I say again that this is one of the other provisions which quite clearly are intended to create in the minds of the people of the Transkei the idea that the Transkei is a separate state which will eventually be separated entirely from the Republic.

We are dealing with two matters here. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) objected to the oath and he should like to introduce the affirmation as an alternative. I do not know why no provision has been made here for the affirmation, but I can imagine that the people of the Transkei probably said they wanted to have the oath and not the affirmation. Far be it from me to foist an affirmation upon them if the Bantu say that they prefer to take an oath.

However, the point made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is something quite different. I might still agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District), but I cannot acknowledge that the hon. member for Germiston (District) is right at all, for fundamentally allegiance to the state merely means that one will obey the country’s laws. If the people of the Transkei obey the laws of the Transkei, even if they were to obey only the laws of the Transkei, then I think everybody in South Africa, in the Republic and outside, ought to be very thankful.

I wish to take the matter further. The hon. member for Germiston (District) says by implication that when an oath is taken to the effect that the laws of the Transkei will be obeyed, the duty of these people to obey the laws of the Republic will thereby be abolished. He did not say that in so many words, but by implication, for as a lawyer he unconsciously relies upon the legal maxim that by mentioning the one the other is excluded. In this case it is not so, because we do not abolish the allegiance these people owe the Republic. They are still under an obligation to obey the laws of the Republic in so far as they are citizens of the Republic, and for that reason the hon. member errs in suggesting that when the Transkeian Ministers swear allegiance to the Transkei, and swear that they will obey the laws of the Transkei, they will thereby necessarily be disloyal to the Republic. There he is making an allegation unworthy of him and one which the people of the Transkei certainly do not deserve.

I should just like to refer to the argument advanced here by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), namely that far be it from him, where the Bantu of the Transkei asked for an oath, to deny it to them.

Why not say “Transkei”?

I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend about it.

The name of the River is the “Kei” (K-i).

That means “stone”.

The hon. member can call it what he likes; his argument still remains the same. He says far be it from him to deny the Bantu of the Transkei the oath if they ask for it in this form. Does the hon. the Minister agree? I now want to refer the Minister to Clause 33. Why did the Bantu in that clause ask for a “solemn affirmation”? Why is provision made there for their making a solemn promise? Why are they given the choice between laying down an oath or making a solemn promise? Why do they ask in terms of Clause 33 for something which we on this side also ask for? I think the Minister also feels that provision should be made for the alternative. But I go further. I should like to hear the Minister’s views in this regard.

Where is the solemn affirmation provided for in Clause 33? There is only provision for an oath.

Clause 33 provides—

That promise is part of the oath.

Why cannot provision be made here for the solemn affirmation we also have the right to make in this House?

You swear that you solemnly promise. That is all it says.

I will read the oath to be taken by Ministers in terms of Clause 18—

That reminds me of the treaty system where they made the same kind of promise, i.e. that if the British Government paid their salaries, if it appointed an agent for the tribes, then they would preserve the peace and allow missionaries to come there and would not commit theft, etc. But now this oath goes further, and that is what I object to seriously—

With respect, we are treating these people as if they have all accepted the Christian faith. Could my hon. friend not have evolved something else?

Do you wish to intimate that they are a lot of heathens?

There are people in our own party who have not adopted the Christian faith.

That is the foundation of the State.

My hon. friend knows that the large majority of the people in the Transkei are not Christians.

They are.

Most of them have not adopted the Christian faith. What does it mean to a man who has not adopted the Christian faith to say, “I undertake before God to honour this oath. So help me God.”

The Jews accept it, and they are not Christians.

I think that this oath borders on blasphemy, or could easily be bias phemous. I personally object to this specific part of the oath which has to be taken.

I want to say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I wish that the world had progressed to such an extent that we could adopt that attitude. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We have to accept the fact that as far as people in general are concerned, his promise one makes to the Almighty is a far more serious step than merely the giving of one’s word of honour. This is unfortunately true, and the hon. member as an ex-teacher knows that this is the case. Provision has been made for an oath to be taken in all the constitutions that have been adopted recently. It is a question of honour and a matter of pride on the part of every nation. Very few people will have any objection in principle to the taking of this kind of oath. Indeed. I think that it is a privilege for every Republican to-day to make a very important and solemn promise of this nature to the Republic. It is certainly a privilege for every Republican to do so. I cannot imagine anything that can bind one more strongly than this. The same thing holds good for the people in the Transkei in respect of their territory. I repeat what the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) said here—that those people want the provision to be framed as it is framed in this clause. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) made a second statement; he said that a separate oath will be sworn to another state. In reality that is not the case. We must remember that we are dealing here with a process of emancipation and we must bear that fact in mind. The fact is simply that these people will take an oath of allegiance to the laws of the Transkei and to all laws prevailing there, even the laws of the Republic which are in force there. I agree with what has been said here by the hon. member for Standerton—that if the people keep that promise then we will have achieved a very great deal. And so the accusation made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) in this regard does not hold water as far as the principle is concerned.

But I want to come now to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). He said a few things here which certainly did not redound to his credit. I do not think that he was being fair to suggest to the world that the Bantu of the Transkei are barbarians. The question that he actually asked was: Why do we ask them to swear allegiance to God while most of them are not even Christians? Let me make this other point. I must honestly admit that many of those people have as yet not been christianized. But there is one thing that is apparent and that is that all of them acknowledge the existence of a godhead, a godhead which is a very great force in their view, perhaps far greater than in the view of many Whites. I want to tell hon. members that this is one of the areas in which mission work has been done for many years. This is one of the areas of which one can say that most of its leaders are connected with some church or other. Most of those people are professed Christians and I have met some of them who are deeply Christian and whose Christian approach to life I cannot doubt. To compare the present position now with the position that existed under the Glenelg system is to reflect upon the Bantu of the Transkei. It is not fair to hold up a picture of this nature to the world. That is why I resent the fact that the United Party calls these people barbarians when it suits them to do so, but when it does not suit them to do so then the Bantu are different people entirely. The United Party are playing a game of chess.

I did not speak about barbarians. May I put my question to the hon. the Minister? The Chinese are not Christians but are they barbarians? The Japanese are not Christians but are they barbarians?

It is easy for me to answer the hon. member’s question. I did not say that he said that they were barbarians. I asked why he suggested that they were barbarians. In Glenelg’s time these people were branded as being barbarians. We must not forget that the Eastern Province was the first part of the country to be civilized. Civilization was possibly most successful in the Eastern Cape. But I want to come back to the argument of the hon. member. He referred to the Chinese and the Japanese who are not Christians. That is my attitude precisely. They are not barbarians. Does the hon. member want to tell me now that if a responsible Japanese takes an oath he will not keep that oath?

I did not say that either.

The hon. member is opposed to this oath that has to be taken. He asks what they know about it. I want to give this Committee the assurance once again that those people want this because there is a deep Christian feeling on the part of many of them; there are many of them who, though perhaps not Christians, have a deep religious feeling. They want to accept that responsibility.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 22,

We oppose this clause because it hands over the power of the State President to the new Cabinet to be established in the Transkei.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 23,

Clause 23 provides for the composition of the Legislative Assembly. The hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite have been at pains to tell us that each and every clause in this Bill has been asked for by the Bantu in the Transkei themselves. It may be true that the Territorial Authority passed each clause of the Bill and the Minister now regards that fact as a request on the part of the whole of the Transkei. In regard to Clause 23, the Minister will know that there was strong opposition by the Territorial Authority to the composition as provided for here. His officials must have told him that the clause was only passed by a majority of five and that if Chief Sabata and his right-hand men had been present the clause would probably have been rejected as it appears in its present form. We are opposed to this clause not merely because of the composition of the Assembly but because this is the Assembly which will control the new proposed independent state of the Transkei. This is the main symbol of sovereignty which is being bestowed upon this new authority and that is the reason why we intend opposing it. In view of the opposition which was raised in the Territorial Authority, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will tell us whether the voters in any of these particular areas are proportionate to the number of chiefs who represent them in this Authority? For example, in terms of 23 (b) (i) the Dalindyebo region is given 10 chiefs. The Emboland region only gets eight chiefs. And as I know those regions this is not proportionate to the number of voters in those districts. The number of voters in the Dalindyebo region must surely warrant more than 10 chiefs as compared with the eight chiefs for the Emboland region. The same applies when you compare the Dalindyebo region with the Nyanda region. Are there more than three times as many voters in the Dalindyebo region than there are in the Nyanda region? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how the number of chiefs was arrived at. Were the traditional chiefs taken in any particular area and was that regarded as a fair method of representation of the people in that area? When you come to the question of elected members, of course, the number will be proportionate to the number of registered voters in a particular area. But as far as the chiefs are concerned, do the numbers as set out in this clause bear any resemblance to the number of voters in those areas?

I want to take the issue a bit further with the Minister. In regard to the 45 elected members it is quite clear that in their dealings with their constituents their activities are not going to be limited to the Transkei as such. It is quite clear that more than half the voters of the elected members will live outside the boundaries of the Transkei. This means that those elected members will have considerable dealings with their voters in the urban centres of the White areas as the Minister likes to term them. They will be in contact with their voters all over the country. These elected members will be entitled to address their constituents and to advise them of their activities. The first question which comes to my mind is what will be the status of these elected members? I do not find any provision in this Bill which determines the status of those elected members. Clause 44 deals with the status of Paramount Chiefs. We know that all Paramount Chiefs and Chiefs, even those beyond the borders of the Transkei, enjoy a certain status when they leave the Transkei and travel around the Republic. I should like to know from the Minister what the status of these elected members will be. Will they enjoy a status similar to that of Paramount Chiefs when they travel beyond the borders of the Transkei? What will be the status of an elected member to the Legislative Assembly when he comes to Langa to address his constituents and when he travels from the Transkei to Langa? Is he going to get a permit to leave the Transkei? Is he going to be regarded as an agitator if he expresses views to his constituents which the Government does not like? Is he going to be under control? These are questions which we should like to have answered. For the first time we are going to have numbers of ordinary Bantu who will be at liberty, as elected members of their compatriots, to proceed anywhere in the Republic to address their constituents and to express any views they like. There will be no limitation on them whatsoever. They will have the right to express any views they like as they have the right to do in their Legislative Assembly.

There is the other aspect that an elected member may not necessarily live in the Transkei. It is quite clear from Clause 16 that before he can be an elected member he must be a registered voter in the constituency which he represents. If he resides outside the Transkei he derives his citizenship from the Transkei. In other words, any Bantu in Langa—he may have been born there—is perfectly entitled in terms of this Bill to stand as an elected member for the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. If he is elected he will still be entitled to reside in Langa. I want to ask the Minister what is his status going to be in that urban township? It can happen in any of the urban centres of South Africa that an elected member of the Legislative Assembly resides there. Is this elected member going to be expected to travel third class and to sit on a hard wooden bench or is he going to enjoy a special status? These are questions which the Minister cannot escape. Does the hon. Minister think for one moment that once these people are elected and they enjoy a particular status amongst their own people they will continue to be prepared to be treated in the way in which they are treated to-day? They will not be. They will ask themselves why the Chiefs enjoy some status whilst they enjoy none. I should like to hear from the hon. Minister what his views are in this regard once this Bill becomes law.

I want to take the argument put forward by the hon. member for Turffontein a stage further, and I hope the hon. Minister will reply in this regard. It is very clear from sub-paragraph (c) of this clause that there are to be elected representatives, 45 of them, elected by the registered voters of the Transkei. Now we know from other parts of this Bill that a lot of these people will be in the White areas, and the hon. member who has just spoken took Langa as an example. As he said, one wants to know what the status of these people will be when they come to the White area for the purpose …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this clause. I do not think that the status of the elected members come into the picture at all. This clause only deals with the composition of the Assembly.

Yes, Sir, we are dealing with the composition of the Assembly, and included in the composition of the Assembly are 45 members elected by the registered voters of the Transkei.

Merely the number.

What I wish to discuss is the relationship between these members and the registered voters who elect them. May I remind you, Sir, that there are also in this Legislative Council a great number of chiefs. I do not wish to trespass outside your ruling, save to place before the Minister one situation which will exemplify that very point, viz. the relationship between the elected members and the registered voters of the Transkei under sub-section (c). It is this: At one of the meetings to which the hon. member for Turffontein drew your attention, in a place like Langa, a mass meeting no doubt, that member when addressing the registered voters, will not be limited by the provisions of Schedule A.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the number only, that is the 45 members elected by the registered voters of the Transkei. What the hon. member is discussing has got nothing to do with this clause.

May I take a point of order, Sir? This clause does not only refer to the composition of the Legislative Assembly. It deals with the question of the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, and then it goes on to deal with the composition. Now surely we can discuss what flows from the establishment of the Legislative Assembly.

I heard the hon. member, but it deals with the composition only.

I will abide by your ruling and conclude simply with this sentence: If those persons deal with matters which the hon. Minister regards as subversive, when in this country, what will he do?

In the first place the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asked what the position was because a considerable number of these people later voted for an increase in the number of elected members. I may just say that originally the proposal of the Recess Committee was that there should be far fewer elected members than the number for which provision is now being made in this Bill. It was only after the hon. the Prime Minister had appealed to them to increase the number of elected members and had asked them to adjourn to discuss the matter amongst themselves first that they later agreed to increase the number of elected members and this number was then increased in the proportion of 60 to 45. I readily admit that when the Territorial Authority was discussing this matter a motion was moved to the effect that the number of elected members should be further increased and a large number of members voted in favour of that motion but the fact remains that the majority voted for the basis which the Recess Committee then suggested and of course we accept the decision of the majority. If in the future they want to effect a change in this regard that will be a matter that can be discussed. But we must accept the decision of the majority in the Territorial Authority. Contingent to this, the hon. member asked what the position will be in connection with the elected members. We know that they will be elected according to the number of enfranchised voters. I think that this is a sound and fair democratic method to follow and everyone is satisfied with it. The hon. member also asked me what the proportion is of the number of chiefs. There we have a difference. What we have done here has also been done on their recommendation. There are a number of traditional chiefs whom they recognize and they suggested that this number should remain as it is. We have accepted that suggestion. What we are making provision for here comes from them. As far as the other two matters that have been raised here are concerned I regret that the rules of the House do not permit me to reply to them.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouch6.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 25,

To show the silliness of what is proposed here and idiocy of the situation that can arise, I want to point out that this clause provides that the number of chiefs representing a region shall be reduced (the numbers to be allocated to each region are laid down in Clause 23) whenever a new paramount chief is chosen. In other words, the number in the Assembly remains constant, but members of the Assembly who are there by virtue of the fact that they were a chief in a particular area, will be removed if at any time within any region a further paramountcy is created. The second half of the clause goes on to provide how the elimination of those chiefs shall take place in the event of the creation of a new paramountcy. It says that it will be done by secret ballot, by the paramount chiefs themselves. The question that I would like to ask the hon. Minister is this: What is going to be the position if one of those chiefs to be eliminated is one of the chiefs that the Legislative Assembly as a whole has elected to be a Minister. Is that Minister now going to be removed by secret ballot of the paramount chiefs? Because if he happens to be a chief in an area where an additional paramountcy has been created and his name is drawn in the ballot of the paramount chiefs, then he is eliminated immediately.

The position is very clear. The hon. member does apparently not understand what he is talking about. I say so with all due respect. In this clause it is merely laid down that the number of chiefs may not be reduced.

If the hon. Minister will allow me, he apparently has not followed me. In Clause 23 (a) it says that the Legislative Assembly shall consist of the “paramount chiefs of the Transkei”, and now Clause 25 goes on to say that if any additional paramount chieftanship is created, then the number of the chiefs from the particular area must be reduced, because the Legislative Assembly cannot at any time consist of more than 64 chiefs. Now if an additional paramountcy is created, one of the chiefs from that area has to go, and in order to decide who of those chiefs goes, sub-section (2) lays down that if one or more chiefs are to be excluded from membership of the Assembly, the person or persons so to be excluded shall be determined by secret ballot at a meeting of the paramount chiefs. Now my question to the hon. Minister is a simple one: What happens if the chief to be excluded is one who has been made a Minister and has been elected to be a Minister by the Legislative Assembly. He then is removed from office by a secret ballot of paramount chiefs. But the one who has to go may be a member of the Cabinet, elected by the Legislative Assembly. If the hon. Minister looks at Clause 16, it is even more clear, because there it says “if he ceases to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he can no longer be a Minister”.

If the hon. member reads it again he will see that it does not only deal with “paramount chiefs”, We are dealing here with paramount chiefs and the other chiefs. It is not only the paramount chiefs who have the right to expel a person. They are being given that right in terms of this clause and the approach contained in these provisions is actually a traditional one. If a man falls out, it is obvious that he can no longer remain a member of the Cabinet. That is something that has always been accepted automatically. It is nothing new.

The hon. Minister has missed the whole point raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The hon. Minister has said that this clause deals with the paramount chiefs who may be created and the ordinary chiefs, and that they cannot exceed a certain number. The question put by the hon. member for Turffontein is this: What if an extra paramount chief is created so that the number of chiefs has to be reduced? If the chiefs themselves then decide which chief will have to be removed as a chief and he happens to be a member of the Cabinet, what then? He might be a Cabinet Minister elected by the whole Assembly and yet in terms of this provision the chiefs in a particular area can now cause him to cease to be a member of the Cabinet.

If a chief is voted out, his membership of the Legislative Assembly ceases automatically and he also loses his position as Minister. This is therefore a democratic approach to this matter. We are dealing here with a sound and democratic principle which is being systematically introduced there.

We are now entering the land of fairy tales, of Alice in Wonderland. The hon. Minister says that this is a perfect democratic principle! What about the 45 elected members? Have they no say in this matter? Because when a Minister is elected by the Legislative Assembly, the elected members of the Assembly have nearly a 50 per cent say in the creation of the Cabinet. But the Minister says that it is quite democratic that four paramount chiefs sitting together can put the name of one of these chiefs in a box, draw his name out of that hat and he ceases to be a member of the Cabinet. And that is a democratic principle! The Minister says that I have not read this Bill. I do not think the hon. Minister has read the Bill. I ask the hon. Minister again: Was it intended that the paramount chiefs of the Transkeian Authority should have all the say over whether or not …

Not the paramount chiefs, the paramount chiefs and the chiefs.

I want to read the subsection in full—

Read on.

Quite right, but that still does not remove my objection of this body of chiefs in one region only, paramount chiefs or chiefs if you like, determining what shall happen over the whole of the Legislative Assembly and as to whether any particular chief who has been elected as a Cabinet Minister shall continue to hold the position as Cabinet Minister or not. Because once they decide that he shall be removed, he ceases to hold the qualifications as a member of the Assembly, and then ceases to hold the qualifications as a Cabinet Minister, and to my mind it is a most undemocratic procedure.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

This is the clause which sets out which persons are entitled to register as voters and to vote for the new Government in the Transkei. We are opposed to this clause, mainly again because it is a symbol of sovereignty which is bestowed on this area. We are not opposed to the Africans in the Transkei being given some form of vote for their own Assembly. In fact we welcome that. We supported the old Bunga system whereby the heads of the kraals voted for the members of the district councils who in turn elected the Bunga. So we are in favour of a democratic form of election of councillors. But what we object to in this clause is that it is a clause which will entitle people to vote for the new Parliament and this clause creates a symbol of sovereignty. I do not wish to discuss the details. We are not interested in how the voters are placed on the roll.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 32 deals with the paramount chiefs and when they are to vacate their seats. In terms of this clause, a paramount chief vacates his seat in the Legislative Assembly if he does not attend any sittings of that Assembly and if the Assembly so decides. Our objection to this clause is that if a paramount chief is compelled to vacate his seat in the Assembly, he also loses his position as a paramount chief, unless the Assembly otherwise decides. We have not moved any amendments because we are opposed to the Bill as a whole, and the policy of establishing the separate, independent state, but it is our duty to point out to the Minister the trouble which may be caused because of this provision. If the Assembly decides to remove a paramount chief, it can do so without consulting the members of the tribe at all, and the Minister should know what can happen if the tribe decides to stand by the chief and to go against the Legislative Assembly. I say it is quite wrong, and the Minister is looking for trouble in doing so, to give any other body the power to remove a paramount chief from the position he holds, not because of his personal worth, but because of his birth. The Minister and the House should know that these chiefs, by virtue of their birth, are held in esteem by their people, irrespective of what they are like as men or their ability. We oppose this clause because we can see that there will be endless trouble should the Legislative Assembly decide to deprive a chief of his position.

The hon. member has raised a matter which is very important and he has every right to have certain doubts in this regard. We know what the attitude of the Bantu towards their Paramount Chief is. They hold the view that the Paramount Chief is not a person who can summarily be removed; it is all a question of the blood. This is a matter to which we have given very serious attention. On the other hand, we are faced with the problem that throughout our democratic system there are certain reasons why a Member of Parliament must be deprived of his seat. This is provided for in the previous clause and we must give effect to its provisions. At the same time there is also the question, as the hon. member also said, of what can happen if such a person is relieved of his office. I want to say immediately that a number of the chiefs had some objection to this provision and we eventually decided on these present provisions which had their unanimous approval. For the sake of our democratic approach to these matters and also our training of the Bantu in democracy, we cannot neglect to foster a very great sense of responsibility towards the Legislative Assembly. That feeling of responsibility must be cultivated. But at the same time there is the traditional approach to the chief. He is a chief by descent and that is why we are giving the Assembly the right here—which is actually accepted in many circles—to decide to reinstate a chief who has been relieved of his office. In other words, the Assembly can reinstate him and we are sure that there will be no trouble in such cases. But it may be that a chief conducts himself in such a way that not even the Assembly can see its way clear to reinstating him and then he will have to stand the consequences of his actions.

The hon. member asks what will happen if his people stand by him. It will of course present some difficulty but we have already had cases of this nature in the past which have mostly been resolved so that I do not foresee any great difficulty in this connection. I say again that the fact that we are giving the Assembly the right to reinstate such chiefs helps us to avoid the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member. I readily admit that the hon. member does have a case but at the same time I want to emphasize the fact that this clause has the approval of all the chiefs.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 33,

Mr. Chairman, a member of the Legislative Assembly is required to do two things. The first is to make and subscribe before a judge of the Supreme Court an oath that he will uphold the Constitution; and, secondly, he is required to perform his duties as a member of the Legislative Assembly. Now, in order to uphold the Constitution he has to swear an oath, but in order to perform his duties he makes an affirmation and says: " I solemnly promise I think he should either swear an oath in both cases or make an affirmation in both cases, because this clause is obviously the result of confused thinking.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 37,

This clause deals with the important question of the powers of the Legislative Assembly. I want to tell the Minister that I believe that one of the many cardinal mistakes made in this legislation is the provisions of this clause. I do not believe there can be found anywhere a parallel for the powers of legislation which are granted in this clause. Again I say that quite clearly this is one of the major clauses which derogates from the sovereignty which all of us have insisted should remain vested in our Parliament. It starts off in simple form by providing for the making of laws not inconsistent with the Act in relation to all matters referred to in Part B of the First Schedule. These are very important matters, the questions of finance, justice, education, interior, agriculture and forestry, and roads and works. It is clearly the intention of this Government to extend these powers as time goes on. The provision here is that the laws made should not be inconsistent with the Act, and then there is provision to provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any law, including any Act of Parliament, in so far as it relates to any such matter and applies to the Transkei or to any citizen of the Transkei, whether such citizen is resident within or outside the Transkei. Here power is given to legislate in respect of Transkeian citizens within the area of the Republic which shall not fall within the Transkei, and in respect of the important matters set out in the Schedule. It then goes on, in paragraph (2), referring to legislation outside the Transkei, to refer to citizens who are resident elsewhere than in the Transkei, i.e. within the Republic, and it says that any such law shall have effect in any such area or, as the case may be, in relation to any such citizen in any place within the Republic where such citizen may be resident. I should like to say immediately that I know of no power which is more fraught with danger than a power of this sort in legislation of this Parliament which provides for a Parliament outside the Republic, as it will eventually be, but for the time being within the Republic, to be able to legislate, and to enforce its legislation, in any place within the Republic where such citizens may be or may be resident. In other words, provision is made for the enforcement of the Acts of the Transkei outside the borders of the Transkei and within the borders of the Republic. I regard that as highly dangerous. I regard it as an invasion of the rights of this Parliament, and even at this late stage I hope that hon. members opposite, who through the years have laid stress on the importance of retaining the prerogatives of Parliament, should refuse to be party to reducing the prerogatives of this Parliament in respect of any portion of the area which falls within the Republic of South Africa. I see the hon. member for Vereeniging shaking his head. I am not surprised. I am glad that I have been able to make him shake his head, because it he thinks for a moment—and he can think— he will realize the great danger in this provision.

[Inaudible.]

I have said enough to indicate what a dangerous provision this is. I want to say this to the Minister. I wonder whether it has occurred to him that although the powers of legislation are very wide, they do not cover the whole field of legislation, and it is the declared intention of this Government gradually to extend those powers of legislation. Do the Minister and his colleagues not realize that if they give this power to the Transkei to legislate in respect of its citizens within the Republic, they will be entitled, and will claim the right, to continue to legislate in respect of other powers which may be entrusted to them from time to time? I would say to the hon. the Minister that nowhere is there any provision in this legislation which gives any indication that when there is an extension of further powers, those powers will not be granted on the same terms, but may be granted on other terms in order to secure the prerogatives of this Parliament. I cannot too strongly stress how strongly I feel on this matter. I believe the Government is here making a cardinal mistake, and Parliament is making a grave mistake if it fails to vote this clause down, because it lays the foundation for future difficulty. If the Government remains in power, other states will be established on the same pattern. I challenge the Minister to give me any example where any sovereign Parliament has been prepared to extend to a Legislature which has been established within its area the right to legislate adversely to the instrument, i.e. this Parliament, which has created that body. I hope the Minister will realize what a serious power this is.

I will give you an example later.

I will be interested to hear it, but I hope that when the hon. member gets un he will say that he supports every provision of this clause because, if so. I believe his voters will remove him from office at the first available opportunity.

I really do not understand the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). If he does not support this clause, what is the meaning of his race federation plan? I want to take him through Schedule B, item by item. As I interpret his race federation plan—and he must tell me if I am wrong—it is not a geographical idea; they do not want to give the Xhosa people powers within a certain geographical unit. They say that it is not a geographical federation but a race federation and they want to give all the races in the country the right to govern themselves in respect of those matters which concern them intimately. Is that not so? Yes. The hon. member has been speaking about the Xhosa and I also want to confine myself to the Xhosa. They want to give certain powers to the Xhosa. They say that they do not want to restrict the Xhosa to the Transkei because it is not a geographical federation but a race federation. In other words, they want to give the Xhosa the right to govern themselves in all those matters affecting them intimately. Where a Xhosa is makes no difference—whether he is in the Transkei or at Langa. This is their policy. They say that they want to give the Xhosa the right to govern themselves as far as these things are concerned. Now we come to the test. What are the things that they want to give to the Xhosa? We must test this by means of this Bill, by means of Schedule B, to see whether we are going to give the Xhosa more powers than the United Party are prepared to give them. I just want to deal with this point. The hon. member for Germiston (District) is one of the senior members of that party and now that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has left their party, the hon. member for Germiston (District) will probably move up a notch. He says that the most dangerous thing that we can do is to give the Transkei Parliament the right to pass legislation affecting the Xhosa outside of the Transkei. But good heavens, it is the policy of that party to give the Xhosa the right to govern their own people in connection with those matters affecting them intimately, and that was also what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote in his article.

Let us see what those matters are. The first is direct taxation of the citizens of the Transkei. Is the hon. member opposed to that? No, he does not want to reply because he knows that if one wants a federation one of the first things to do is to have direct taxation—I am not talking about indirect taxation now. Is he opposed to that? He knows, but he does not want to say it. He is absolutely silent. Let us take the next matter—the education of the Xhosa. Has he any objection to Xhosa education falling under them? This is one of the things that affect them intimately and he says that it is a terrible thing to give that power to the Parliament of the Transkei. But is it not the policy of his party that the Xhosa should have control over the education of their own people?

Go on.

Yes. I will go on. Now we know that they agree in the case of education for the Xhosa. But now we come to a provision which will almost make the hon. member for Transkeian Territories hit the roof! I refer to agriculture. Does he agree with that? The fact remains that they cannot object to the handing over of agriculture because after all there is very little agriculture practised in Langa. They may produce a few sweet potatoes or potatoes there but other than that there is very little agriculture practised in Langa. Xhosa agriculture is practised chiefly in the Transkei.

What about item 21?

But I am only dealing now with item 3 of the First Schedule. I still have to come to item 21 which I will do if I have time. Let us look at item 5—

Has the hon. member for Germiston (District) any objection to the Xhosa having control of these functions? He has no objection. Let us go through the list. Let us look at item 6—

Will they have any objection if, for example, they ill-treat the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in the Transkei?

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that the hon. member be requested to withdraw that remark and to apologies. I regard it as a gross discourtesy.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want your ruling on this matter.

Order! Order!

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, although I would not care if he was ill-treated there. But let me tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) not to try to hide the fact that he feels uncomfortable in such a ridiculous manner. He made an attack on this clause without giving the matter further consideration. This clause is a correct interpretation of the policy of his party. They now say that they do not want the question of cruelty to animals to fall under those people but in terms of their policy they say that every power should be given to those people in regard to matters affecting them intimately.

But let us look at item 7 of the First Schedule. I admit that this one may perhaps be contentious. It states—

It is therefore in the discretion of the Minister of Justice to transfer these powers. The provision continues—

In terms of their federation plan do the United Party want to give less power to these people than is provided for in this clause? What is their plan? What prospect do they hold out to these people?

Deal with sub-section (1) (b) of the clause!

I am still dealing with the First Schedule but I will come back to this sub-section if I have the time. At the moment I am still dealing with the First Schedule which tells the people of the Transkei precisely what powers they will have over the Xhosa in the Transkei and over the Xhosa outside of the Transkei. [Time limit.]

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging has completely misconceived the case. He is seeking to introduce confusion in the matter. I on the other hand wish to confine him to the provision which is before the Committee. I will deal with other items later but now I should like to keep him strictly to the provision which is now before the Committee. This is quite clear. I say that for the hon. the Minister, Sir, that his legislation is perfectly clear in respect of the powers which are being extended. The hon. member for Vereeniging has completely overlooked the provision whereby there will be an extension of further powers from time to time until—that is the intention of the Government—the full powers of legislation in respect of the Transkei shall be vested in the Transkeian Parliament which is now being established. That is not disputed. We are not dealing only with the provisions of the First Schedule as contained in this Bill. This Bill contains provisions for the extension of these powers from time to time. We have the authority not only of the hon. the Minister but also and in very much clearer terms, the authority of the Prime Minister for making perfectly clear that the end result of the road upon which the Transkei is being set is complete independence, subject to its own laws and to no other.

I give you that as a present.

The hon. member says he gives me that as a present. Of course he cannot deny it. But I go further and say that it is a part of the policy of this Government that as regards the inhabitants of the Transkei, the Republic of South Africa will have the use as a labour force, not only now but in terms of their policy afterwards, of a large number of the inhabitants of the Transkeian territories. It has been said again and again by hon. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that there will be no interference with the labour force of South Africa in so far as a labour force is required, and these persons will be required. Here, Sir, a precedent is being set or an embryonic state which will one day become an independent state being given powers of legislation in respect of its citizens when they are in South Africa in respect of those matters which are in the competence of the Transkeian Parliament.

Where do you get that from?

That is so in terms of this Bill.

Where?

I should like to ask the hon. member to read this Bill; apparently he has not done so yet. I am speaking now to the hon. the Minister who is more responsible than the hon. member for Vereeniging, and therefore he will not deny that the powers contained in the Schedule are now being vested in the Transkeian Parliament. There is provision in this Bill for the extension of those powers from time to time in respect of further matters and in respect of the powers of the Transkeian Parliament in regard to matters in respect of which it can legislate. There is power of legislation in the Transkei and there is power of legislation in respect of their citizens outside the Transkei. There is power for them to legislate adversely to an Act of this Parliament. That is set out quite clearly in the legislation which we have before us now.

These are the reasons why we are concerned about this legislation. The hon. member for Vereeniging is seeking to introduce a red herring into the debate… [Interjections]… as to what the policy of the Opposition is. The policy of the Opposition is not in question. What is in question, Sir, in this debate and what I am entitled to discuss is the provisions of the Bill which is now before the House and not any alternative which is not before the House at the present time. There is plenty of opportunity in the Budget and other debates to discuss possible alternatives. In this debate, however, we are discussing the provisions of this Bill and the case we want to make out to the hon. the Minister is that these provisions are dangerous, most highly inadvisable and that there can be most tremendous complications arising from this piece of legislation which has been put before us. In particular do we say that those dangers stem in large measure from the legislative powers contained in Clause 37. These, as I said, go beyond anything I know of. The hon. member for Vereeniging has said that he would give me an example of it. He has been quite unable to do so, however. He cannot do so. The fact is that we are dealing with legislation and I challenge the hon. the Minister to give me any parallel of the legislative powers which he is vesting in the Parliament of the Transkei by Clause 37, bearing in mind that it is intended that those powers will be extended from time to time until, in the words of the Prime Minister himself in the statement which was quoted here this afternoon, there is a state of complete independence; when it is hoped that there will be some form of commonwealth. Now, Sir, it is the very essence of a commonwealth—the only commonwealth we know of to-day, i.e. the commonwealth of nations—that one state is not entitled to interfere with the legislation of another state. In other words, the fact that there may be a commonwealth of nations between the main area of South Africa, the Transkei and various other states which will come to be established, does not in any way affect the powers of legislation of this Parliament. But this clause does affect those powers of legislation and we say that in respect of an experimental Parliament on an experimental basis, it is utterly wrong that legislation of this sort should be passed by this Government in the circumstances of to-day.

I want to tell the hon. member that this clause should really be read with Clauses 38 and 39. If he does so he will see that the powers being given to them are actually of a threefold nature: those that are being transferred immediately; those that may possibly be transferred in the future: and those that will not be transferred at all. There are two very important matters of principle contained in this clause. The first of these principles is that we are following a process of evolution. I want to admit immediately that I do not know of any other constitution of such a nature and that is because the other constitutions that have come into being in Africa have been the result of a process of revolution. It is in this regard that South Africa is doing Africa such a great service. We are following a process of evolution. In other words, we are at the moment only giving the Transkei a number of powers which they see their way clear to exercise. That is also all that they have asked for. The hon. member is also quite correct in maintaining that from time to time more powers will have to be given to them. This, after all, is in accordance with the process of evolution, the process which is in the interests not only of South Africa, but also of the people of the Transkei. As they gain the necessary experience and ability so they will be able to manage their own affairs in a responsible manner.

But there is also another important principle concerned in this matter. If the hon. member reads this clause he will see that the Transkei may not make laws which are in conflict with this legislation. This fact does away with the danger that the hon. member has in mind. No law which is in conflict with this legislation may be passed by the Transkeian Parliament. In this provision, therefore, there is a guarantee for the hon. member, for this Government and for everyone in South Africa. No law that is in conflict with this legislation may be passed there.

If the hon. member analyses this clause carefully he will see that there are actually only two matters in respect of which the Transkeian Parliament can make laws as far as the Bantu in the White areas are concerned. Here I just want to mention another principle; that it is our policy—and we have often stated as much—that these Bantu should have strong ties with their own homeland. Because of this fact we have these two important principles that form ties which bind them to their homeland. The first of these is taxation. This is a basic right of the Bantu. I pointed out to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) the other evening that there are even cases of Basutos working here in Cape Town who have to pay their tax in Basutoland. That is an old-established and basic right and one of the binding forces that we acknowledge here.

Secondly, there is the question of the registration of the people who have to vote. We are also giving them this right in respect of Bantu outside of the Transkei. These are the only two matters in this legislation in regard to which the Transkeian Parliament can pass legislation in respect of their subjects outside of the Transkei. These are the only two. After careful study I can state this as an absolute fact. I want to say again that it is, of course, the policy of this Government, as the Bantu develop further, to give them increasingly more powers in the Transkei. There can be no doubt about that at all.

Let me give the hon. member an example in regard to the matter about which he is apparently so concerned—our labour potential. Let me take as an example the Bantu working in our mines. Let us say that the Parliament of the Transkei want to pass a law in regard to the Bantu working in our mines. That law will, of course, be ultra vires, because it will be in conflict with this legislation. The position is, therefore, that they will not be able to pass legislation affecting any labour arrangement governing the Bantu working on our mines. That is why the hon. member need not feel concerned in this regard. The basic principle is that no law which is in conflict with this legislation can be passed.

I want to say this in conclusion. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was correct in saying that he had not heard a more damning judgment passed on the policy of the United Party than we heard this evening. If the hon. member is so afraid of these few powers that are being given to the Bantu he will have a fit when all the powers are granted to the Bantu under the Federation Plan of the United Party.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not discuss that matter any further.

Very veil, Mr. Chairman, I shall not deal with it any further. I just want to say that the hon. member will then really be afraid.

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member for Germiston (District) to address the Committee, I call upon hon. members to confine themselves to the legislative powers of the legislative assembly of the Transkei in regard to matters contained in Part B of the First Schedule only.

Mr. Chairman, I remain completely unconvinced by the hon. the Minister’s argument.

I will take you up on that.

I have listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister has had to say and I will listen with great interest to what the hon. member for Standerton will have to say. The case I made out remains completely unchallenged by the Minister. Here there are legislative powers being granted in respect of certain matters. It is true that there are certain qualifications but the whole basis of this legislative pattern must be considered in the light of known facts. The hon. the Minister has most clearly stated that, as a gradual process, more and more powers will be extended …

Order! I have to call the hon. member to order. He is not confining himself to Part B of the First Schedule. Only those matters referred to there can be dealt with now; not those which are going to happen in future.

I will do my best to obey your ruling. Sir. I can only say that the powers as they stand in this Bill are powers which in my view should not be conveyed by this Parliament to another Parliament. In respect of those powers, no residual powers are being retained in this Parliament… [interjections]… although what is being established is in some way a subsidiary Parliament within the confines of South Africa. I say that this is an experiment; it is a dangerous experiment and I can only hope that even at this late stage we could still convince the hon. the Minister that the course he and his party are setting this country by this measure constitutes one of the greatest dangers to this country. I can only hope that the voters of this country will realize in time just how dangerous that course is so that they can rescue South Africa from the morass in which this legislation will bring us.

I shall try to remain within the limits of your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I should like to discuss Clause 37 in the light of the argument of the hon. gentlemen opposite that this clause, read with the relevant schedule, derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament. At the same time I should like to point out that Clause 37, if accepted, will be an act of a sovereign Parliament. It continues to be an act of a sovereign Parliament. I want to go further and say that this sovereign Parliament is in this legislation conferring certain powers upon another organ of government in South Africa, but that a part of the Legislature of this Parliament is going to remain a part of the Legislature of that organ. Laws of this Parliament, such as the legislation under discussion now as well, are made by the House of Assembly, the Senate and the State President. Under Clause 37 laws are made in that organ of government by the Legislative Assembly and the State President. That is the context in which we should see this argument of sovereignty and I am putting it thus to my hon. friends opposite.

Will you be good enough to reply to a question? Do you admit that in this legislation there is no provision for this Parliament to repeal an Act of the Parliament of the Transkei as long as such Act falls within the limits of this Bill?

Once it has become an Act of the Legislative Assembly, and has been passed in accordance with the procedure laid down here and signed by the State President in respect of matters in the Transkei as laid down in the relevant schedule of this Bill, this Parliament cannot repeal that Act. I admit that; indeed, we have never yet denied that that is the position. Anyone reading this Bill will concede that. But that does not detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament. This Parliament may repeal all this legislation we are now dealing with.

My hon. friend has asked for a precedent in history. History is full of precedents for Clause 37. “State President” means “State President acting on the advice of his Ministers”. That has been so all these years in British history. A convention will arise later that he will act on the advice of his Ministers in the Transkei, and at that stage it will be in process of becoming an independent state. May I just revert to Clause 37 for a while. What are the things for which provision is being made in this clause—not in Clause 38, on which the hon. member for Germiston (District) has based his argument; we can discuss that later on. What are these matters? There are, e.g., taxation; education in the Transkei; agriculture in the Transkei; inferior courts in the Transkei; justices of the peace in the Transkei; life and property in the Transkei; the lower ranks of the police in the Transkei; estates and legacies in the Transkei; land settlement in the Transkei; public works in the Transkei; births in the Transkei; the licensing of motor vehicles in the Transkei, etc. What is there in this for hon. members to be afraid of? What is there in this that can derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament? My hon. friends opposite have not replied to that as yet, and until such time as they do so they do not have the right to say that from the platforms in the country. They have to prove it here this evening; they may not say it outside.

So we could go on; there are local boards; licensing, to which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has referred. That is licensing within the Transkei. Let me mention an example of what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. Here it is in my drawer. He said that under his party’s race federation plan one of the functions that will be entrusted to the separate races will be the licensing of businesses within their own group. There is the registration of births and deaths within the Transkei; the conduct of welfare services within the Transkei; etc. Indeed, there is hardly a thing they can do outside except the levying of direct taxation and perhaps to some extent the registration of voters.

That is all I wish to say on this matter. My hon. friends opposite, with all due respect, have not proved the allegations they made here this evening.

The hon. member who has just spoken overlooked two important factors when dealing with the powers to be given to the legislative assembly under Clause 37. Firstly, Sir, there is the question of taxation which is a burden on citizens of the Transkei whether they are resident in the Transkei or outside the Transkei. Bearing in mind that in terms of an earlier provision of this clause, we know that the extra-territorial residents in the Transkei will not have a majority representation in the legislative assembly and bearing in mind that a great many of them live permanently beyond the borders of the Transkei, then quite clearly if there is to be any undue bearing of the weight of taxation, it will be on those citizens who are permanently resident in the Republic. But it does not end there, because if one looks at sub-section (2) of this clause, one sees that not only has this foreign legislature the power to legislate so that its laws are operative within the Republic, but it has power in terms of this sub-section to make provision for the due enforcement within the Republic of the legislation of the Transkeian Parliament. They may make provision within their legislation for power to enforce within the Republic of South Africa laws made in the Transkei.

Now, you can only enforce legislation in someone else’s territory in one of two ways: either you may take power in your legislation to compel the police authorities in the foreign state to enforce your legislation; or you may take powers through the courts of that foreign state to enforce that legislation. Not only is the situation, as pointed out by the hon. member for Germiston (District), unheard of in constitutional and international law, but surely also these powers are unheard of in either of those spheres. Whoever has heard of one state having power to force the civic arm of either the judicial or the executive of a foreign state to enforce its law in that state? Not only is it an unheard of concept, but it is difficult to conceive of any provision more likely to create friction between two states than this particular one, more particularly where the group of people in respect of whom these laws are to be enforced are resident within our borders whilst a majority of the total population of the Transkei constitutes a minority representation when it comes to the making of laws which our civic authorities are going to have to enforce whether we like it or not.

Order! Is the hon. member confining himself to matters contained in Part B of the First Schedule?

Yes, Sir; I am dealing with direct taxation. There is another example to which I should like to refer. It has been overlooked by all speakers from that side so far. That is item No. 16 of the First Schedule, i.e.—

I want particularly to stress the words “and the conduct of elections … at any place in the Republic…”. Now, in the case of an electorate which is able to deal, in terms of its constitution, only with matters which do not directly affect it, what greater source of difficulty and friction can there be than for a foreign legislature to be able not only to legislate in that regard extra-territorially, but to cause its policies and its laws in that regard to be enforced in the Republic of South Africa by a civic arm or authority other than its own.

But they cannot force us to do it!

But it does not end there, because we are dealing here with the conduct of elections in the Republic. This is perhaps the point where I should discuss a matter which I tried to raise earlier but which you said I raised under the wrong clause. This point is what the hon. the Minister is going to do if in the conduct of these elections, matters are discussed in the fiery and emotional atmosphere of an election and in the big urban concentrations in the Republic, matters which the hon. the Minister finds not only embarrassing but positively seditious in his views. It may not be so in the view of the politicians of the Transkei and they will certainly have nothing to do with the powers set out in the First Schedule because these, by and large, are not things which affect the extra-territorial Xhosa living within the area of the Republic. The sort of thing bothering him is the sort of thing which the hon. Minister will find highly embarrassing …

How do you know that?

… to the extent, Sir, that he will no doubt consider it seditious. How can he possibly deal with such a situation and at the same time make this constitution work? And at the same time honour the provisions which he has inserted in Clause 37 and which he will have us believe the Transkei people themselves asked for? He is completely in a cleft stick. If he is to honour this constitution, then he will have to allow these elections to have a free run and if he allows that, Sir, one does not have to look far in light of recent events in this country to find a situation where the Bantu electorate, the urban electorate, will be stirred up in no time at all.

Why?

I hope the hon. the Minister and hon. members, such as the hon. member for Vereeniging, will meet this situation squarely and give the House a clear explanation how it is possible to reconcile a conscientious implementation of the provisions of Clause 37 with the sort of thing you can have at election time which I have just dealt with.

I have not been endowed with the prophetic gift with which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has been endowed. So I cannot say whether the hon. the Minister will find himself in an embarrassing position when these elections are taking place. I have promised the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that I shall take up the challenge he has been throwing around so extravagantly. The hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Zululand are concerned about the legislative powers of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. As I understood them, they have more or less reconciled themselves to it, because it is within a limited local area. Then they are also concerned about the extra-territorial legislative power of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. But such a power is nothing strange, Mr. Chairman. Even a colonial Parliament could make laws that applied within the mother country. They need not look very far for examples. We ourselves in 1911 passed an Act that was applicable in London and which could be enforced, not in London, but here in South Africa. It is a very ordinary international law relationship that any legislative body may pass laws for its citizens residing outside its territory. That is nothing new. But the hon. member for Zululand raised another point, to which I shall reply later. I just wish to enumerate the various examples I promised to mention to the hon. member for Germiston (District). When this Parliament was still a colonial Parliament, it had the power to pass laws for a territory outside our borders, namely, South West Africa. We gave them their constitution in 1919 and thereafter.

That was a mandated territory and that is something quite different.

No, it was a self-governing territory to which we granted self-government. The King gave us that mandate to use as we wished, only we were not to clash with Article 22 of the Mandate. If the hon. member for Germiston (District) refers to the Statute of Westminster, he will see in Article 3 that this particular matter received the attention of much greater men than he or I. It says there: “It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament shall have extra-territorial legislative authority.” In other words it is declared, i.e. it had been so always.

Now I come to the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. member almost had a fit because that Act which is extra-territorial might be enforced by the courts of that foreign territory where the Act applies. Is that not so; was that not your problem? The hon. member’s problem was that the judiciary of the “foreign country” would enforce laws. But he is a stranger in Jerusalem. He is as yet too young to know all about this. Does the hon. member then not know that Dutch laws, applicable to the Dutch army, were enforced in South Africa, and that Dutch subjects were indicted before the courts here, and were convicted here? Now the hon. member says the bottom of the world will fall out if we retain this provision in the Act. Is he not ashamed of himself to place that on record in the light of history and in the light of his legal training? All that will happen is that such matters will be arranged administratively. All that happened in the case of the Dutch was that the South African Government administratively recognized those Dutch laws; those laws were applicable only to Dutch citizens in Dutch territory, but their enforceability was granted administratively. All that can be done here is that administratively leave will be granted to the Transkei to enforce the laws made under this Act in the courts of the Republic, but of course only in respect of Transkeian citizens in the Republic. That is all and there is nothing strange about it. I really want to request hon. members opposite that before they come along here with their judicial problems, and try to create an uproar in the country, they should please make sure of their facts so that they will not appear ridiculous, and perhaps in addition make an impression on people who are as ignorant as they.

It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) giving us examples where laws were made applicable to their citizens living abroad. He gave Britain as one of the examples. He said that Britain had the right to make laws affecting her citizens living outside Britain. He gave South West Africa as another example where the King of England gave us the power which he had been given by the League of Nations to administer South West Africa. But in both those cases the mother country was dealing with a colony. But in this case we are not dealing with a colony; or are we now becoming a colony of the Transkei?

I will give you an example of that as well.

As far as I know the only time when South Africa applied the laws of the Netherlands to the citizens of the Netherlands here in South Africa was during the war. There was a very real reason why we did it. We did it to make sure that those Hollanders did their duty.

The principle was the same.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) and the hon. member for Standerton told us that the Parliament of the Transkei could only deal with the subjects set out in Part B of Schedule A. They said it only affected matters in the Transkei. Then they asked what was wrong with that. They said that we were prepared to give them the same powers under our race federation. They referred to such matters as agriculture and Bantu education and that sort of thing but they stopped there. They did not go on to paragraph 21 of part B of Schedule A which gives the parliament of the Transkei “the control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei but excluding the licensing of dealings in arms and ammunition and explosives”. This power which we are giving to the parliament of the Transkei does not only relate to citizens of the Transkei; it gives the Transkei the power to legislate for citizens of the Republic.

Where?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) must not display his ignorance. The Minister will confirm what I am saying namely that we are giving the power to the Transkei parliament to control licences which are issued to the White traders in the Transkei.

I see what you mean.

You see, you were talking through your hat as you so often do.

I still do not see anything wrong with that.

Oh, you do not see anything wrong with that! The hon. member for Queenstown said we could go and tell the people of the platteland about the powers that were being given to the Transkeian Parliament but I say this that if we go out and tell the people what is happening to the White people in the Transkei they will realize what this Government is doing. We are doing exactly the same thing to the Whites in the Transkei that was done to the Whites in Kenya and in Rhodesia. The Transkeian Parliament is going to control the issuing of licences and the licence fees; it will control the White traders in that area. The hon. member for Vereeniging must keep quiet; he knows nothing about this matter. The hon. the Minister admitted in a letter to the liaison committee that the Whites living in those Bantu areas as traders would be foreigners in a foreign land and that like all foreigners they would have to obey the laws of the land in which they were living. Not only is the Transkeian government being given power to legislate in regard to matters affecting the White traders and the Coloured traders, people who are not citizens of the Transkei, but in terms of sub-paragraph (b) our Parliament will not be able to do anything about it because our Parliament cannot legislate in regard to matters which the Transkeian Parliament is authorized to deal with in terms of Schedule B. What is more, any Act which we may pass here or which we have passed can be repealed by the Transkeian Parliament. Let me ask the hon. member for Vereeniging to give us any example of where anything similar has ever happened anywhere or in this country before. I challenge him to show where any provincial council or any other body has been given the power to repeal or amend any Act passed by this Parliament.

What about the State President?

Don’t worry about the State President. The member for Vereeniging relies on the fact that the State President can refuse to give his assent to any law passed by the Transkeian Parliament. But this clause does not say what will happen if there is a deadlock because of the State President’s refusal to sign. There is something else I want to point out. Does the hon. member for Vereeniging think that the State President is going to be advised by this Cabinet? What did Kaizer Matanzima say? He said the State President was going to be in the same position as the Governor-General was when we still belonged to the Commonwealth. He said the Governor-General had to take the advice of his Ministers. He said when the Governor-General dealt with South African affairs he took the advice of the South African Ministers and that the State President would be in the same position namely that when he dealt with matters affecting the Transkei he would take the advice. …

Who said that?

Chief Kaizer Matanzima.

Since when is he the law?

Ah! Since when is he the law! I would point this out that except for Chief Kaizer Matanzima the Government has not got another single Chief with them and the Government will have to do what Chief Kaizer Matanzima wants it to do.

The hon. member must come back to the Clause.

I was only dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging, Sir. He relies on the fact that the State President will be able to control the Parliament of the Transkei. The State President has not got the right to veto; all he can do is to refuse to give his assent and it is not clear from this Bill what happens in that case. [Time limit.]

I will not deal at length with the main argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He spoke about the licensing of the White traders. I just want to point out that there is a very great difference between the Whites who do not live in the White area of the Transkei and those who do in fact live in that White area. His argument is only true in respect of the limited number of traders who live in the Bantu areas.

It is not a limited number; there are about 600 of them.

They live there in the area of the state which is to be established and which will be controlled by the Legislative Assembly.

I want to come back to the main argument and to the misinterpretation of Section 37 which was given by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and pursued by others. The crux of the matter is the provisions of sub-section (2). The extra-territorial legislative power is limited to the cases where: “Where in terms of the said Schedule the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws applicable in any area outside the Transkei or in relation to citizens of the Transkei who are or are resident elsewhere than in the Transkei but within the Republic, any such laws shall have effect…” In other words, the Schedule must expressly provide that the Legislative Assembly is empowered to exercise certain of these legislative functions outside the area of the Transkei as well. As was pointed out by other speakers, the only provisions in Schedule B, where this express power is given, are in relation, in the first place, to direct taxation and, in the second place, to the implementation of their own franchise laws. There are also the collection of and control over all revenue (Sections 21 and 23) in terms of their own taxation proposals and the imposition of penalties, which may possibly also be interpreted as functions which may be exercised outside the area of the Transkei.

The error and the misrepresentation of which I wish to accuse the hon. member for Germiston (District) is this: If the powers of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly are extended by this Parliament, then this Parliament will again also have to say specifically in regard to each of those powers that it may also be exercised within the Republic. His original argument was that the Legislative Assembly is now being given a number of powers which appear harmless but that later they will be given increased powers which they will then also automatically be able to exercise in the Republic. It is not true that the powers they are being given now can be exercised by them in the Republic, except in those cases where that is stated expressly. And in future it will again have to be stated expressly.

Then I want to deal with the hon. members for Germiston (District) and Transkeian Territories in regard to their disparagement of the control exercised by the Republican Parliament. Section 40, read with Section 71, provides that the State President will be advised by the Minister of Bantu Administration, i.e. by the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa, before giving his assent to laws. The power to repeal laws, if ever such a situation should arise, remains in our hands. I want to say clearly that the intention of this Bill is not to provide a mechanism to hinder and obstruct the Transkei; the object is to create a mechanism by means of which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly can develop in an orderly fashion, and within their own capabilities, to an increasing freedom. We will not stimulate them, but we will not stop them from doing what is right and reasonable and within their own capacity.

Then the argument was advanced generally that extra-territorial legislation is such a fantastic thing. Did the United Party Government itself not apply its electoral laws extra-territorially in Libya during the war years? Reference has already been made to the military laws of the Netherlands, but is the whole of the International Private law not an example of how a state passes Acts which are binding on its citizens and can be enforced on them when they come back to its territory? In the normal course of events the Transkei need not even depend on administrative arrangements, as the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has indicated, to enforce their legislation in our area. But if a Bantu from Langa returns to the Transkei and he has not paid his taxes, the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei can deal with him and fine him or punish him for not having paid his taxes.

The last two points want to raise are these: The hon. member for Germiston (District) stated that the Republic would retain no “residual powers”. That is nonsense. At this stage we hold all the power. There is no devolution of sovereignty at this stage. The mechanism is being created for a devolution of sovereignty. [Interjections.] We are now discussing the provisions of this Bill. The last point I wish to make is this: If ever I have seen a party run away from the kernel of its own ideas, it is now. There has never been a clearer expression, in terms of legislation and practice, of the so-called main political concept of the United Party, namely its race federation, than at the present time. But now that they see the creature of their dreams in a reasonably tangible form, as established by a wise National Party, it gives them the fright of their lives. That proves that we know more about those matters than they do. That is why we can say precisely how foolish it is to want to base the government of a whole country on such an extra-territorial concept.

Perhaps I can also deal with the additional point raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), namely as to what will happen in the case of sedition being committed when an election is held in a Bantu location in a White area. Surely it is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. The laws of the Republic apply here. And whether a South African citizen who happens to share a dual citizenship with the Transkei, or a South African citizen who at this stage still has an option on a dual citizenship with Britain, makes himself guilty of sedition, he is still subject to the same laws as the South African citizen and can be dealt with accordingly, either by the courts or administratively, as the law provides. That presents no problem. It is self-evident. Or does the hon. member now think that because the Transkei has attained certain powers its citizens have suddenly become royal game in the Republic and they can do here just whatever they like? There is no such suggestion. The Transkei is being granted its own legislative authority in order to enable us to exercise even more strongly our own legislative authority here in our own area.

I should like to deal with the last point made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). His argument advanced that raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) was that in the White Republic the laws of this Parliament would operate. His argument was that, therefore, laws which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly may make to operate in the White Republic would not be effective. That argument. I suggest, has no substance whatsoever, as will appear when we come to deal with the clauses under Part VII of this Bill, which deals with the administration of justice. I cannot at this stage go into any detail in regard to these clauses. But the point I want to make at this stage, in answer to the hon. member for Kempton Park, is that in terms of those clauses the courts of the Republic are obliged to carry out the laws relating to Transkeian citizens which are made by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly with effect in the Republic. I challenge the hon. member for Kempton Park to deny that that is so. The only proviso to that is that the State President must give his assent to any laws which are passed by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. The hon. member for Kempton Park may argue that the State President would refuse to pass a law which conflicted with laws which were operative in the Republic or which were against the principle which we upheld here. As has already been pointed out, the only provision, if the State President refuses to give his assent, is that he must refer the measure back to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. No provision whatsoever is made in this Bill for the situation where the Transkeian Legislative Assembly insists on passing this law despite reference back by the State President.

It is obviously referred back again.

What a naively irresponsible attitude on the part of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). Does he suggest that the ball is going to be kicked backwards and forwards between the State President and the Transkeian Legislative Assembly indefinitely? Does he not realize what a bone of contention this is going to create?

It is possible, but in practice it will never happen.

This attitude on the part of the hon. member for Vereeniging is so naive that I do not think it requires any reply.

I should now like to deal with an argument of the hon. the Minister’s, an argument which was also taken up by the hon. member for Kempton Park. The hon. the Minister suggested that he and the Nationalist Government were fostering a process of evolution by Clause 37 for the Bantu in the Transkei. This is an argument which, as I have said, was followed by the hon. member for Kempton Park. He said that what the Government aimed at was an ordinary evolution of the administrative processes of government. I suggest that this is a complete misrepresentation of the true facts. How can the hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Government say that they are fostering a process of evolution amongst the Bantu in the Transkei when the powers that are immediately being given, under Clause 37 of this Bill, to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly go far beyond the powers which provincial councils enjoy at present? Does the hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Government suggest that the. Transkei has reached a stage of responsibility greater than that of provincial councils to-day?

Don’t the electorate of Provincial Councils also elect this Parliament? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) says this is no parallel. I wish to deal with this matter in some detail. In all three sub-sections of Clause 37 the powers which are being given to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly go beyond those which are presently enjoyed by provincial councils.

So what?

The hon. member opposite asks “So what?” [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Chairman, if they would be a little more patient the answer to their question “So what?” may become apparent. Firstly, in regard to sub-section (1) of Clause 37 the Transkeian Legislative Assembly is being given the power to legislate in such a way as to amend or repeal any laws including any Act of this Parliament which relates to matters which are being handed over to the Legislative Assembly …

If the State President agrees.

If the State President agrees. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vereeniging persists in making this interjection “If the State President agrees”.

Do you deny it?

Of course, I do not deny it that is what this clause says. But as I have already pointed out what sort of a provision is this? Do hon. members opposite think, as I have said before, that this football is going to be kicked backwards and forwards between the State President and the Transkeian Legislative Assembly if the latter insists on passing a law which the State President refuses to give his assent to? [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat made a big issue of what would happen if the State President refused to approve an Act of the Transkeian Parliament and sent it back, and he says that they would then send it back again and we in turn would send it back once more. But was that not the position of the Union of South Africa for many years? There was a time before 1926 when the King had to assent to our laws. It could then have been argued in the same way that he could refuse to sign and then we would have to send it back to him, etc. Thereafter it was the Governor-General. He could refuse to sign Acts and send them back.

On whose advice?

On the advice of his Cabinet. On whose advice do hon. members opposite think the State President will refuse to sign? Of course it will be on the advice of the Cabinet of the Republic. That is the position as it is at present. Ever since 1910 the then Union of South Africa was in the same position. If the British Cabinet had advised the King not to sign our Acts, they could not have become Acts. Then those Acts were sent back to us, and we in turn sent them back again. It was for them to decide. What is so strange about that? This is not an independent country. At that time we were practically being treated as a colony. That is what happened, and that is what is being provided for here now. But in practice it just does not work like that. Therefore the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) should not say that I am naive. He evidently completely ignores what happened in South Africa over a period of 20 to 30 years. And it worked well! Surely we are not a lot of robots. We are intelligent people. We know how to act in regard to these matters, and if next year or the year after we see that it is not working properly, we will change it accordingly so that it will work. But to blind oneself to this matter, and to say that the Transkeian Parliament will now pass an Act and that the State President on the advice of the Cabinet will refuse to sign it, and it is sent back and they again pass the same Act and then it is sent back again—surely he knows that it will not work out in that way. Surely he knows that there are negotiations, and they are told why it cannot be approved of.

How is that done?

In the same way that it was always done between Great Britain and ourselves. And how many times were Acts sent back to us? It just does not work that way in practice.

But I want to come back to the only really important objection hon. members opposite have to this schedule and to Clause 37, and that is the influence which the Transkeian Parliament can have on the Xhosas outside the Transkei. Now the first matter mentioned is that of direct taxation. In essence, all that the hon. members for Musgrave and Zululand said was this: Can the Transkeian Parliament, or their Cabinet, now force our police to take action in collecting taxes from the Transkeian citizens here who do not want to pay their taxes?

Through the courts.

Very well, through the courts. In the first place the Act levying the tax must be approved by the State President, and then it is for us to decide to what extent we will apply that Act. We need not seek far afield for an example in that regard. Take the case of Switzerland. Switzerland has 5.000,000 citizens living in Switzerland, and it has 3.000,000 citizens living outside Switzerland. Those 3,000.000 citizens living outside Switzerland are liable for military service in Switzerland up to the age of 65 years. Now it is a matter for negotiation between our Government, or any other Government, and the Swiss Government, as to what should be done if a Swiss refuses to do his duty. If they tell us: That Swiss who is in South Africa had to come back to do his military service but he did not come, and you must hand him over to us, or you must punish him, then that is a matter to be decided between the Swiss Government and ourselves. They cannot compel us to hand him over. They cannot compel us to do anything which will disturb the good order in our country. Just as little can the Transkeian Parliament compel us, or exert any pressure on us, to do anything here in order to satisfy them which will undermine good order here. Surely that is nonsense. The hon. member for Zululand asked what would happen at election time. The same argument applies there. He says a candidate for the Transkeian Parliament may come to Langa and he may hold fiery communistic speeches. The only privilege we grant those people is to come in here to make propaganda amongst the Xhosa in Langa or in Meadowlands to vote for them. But if in that process they contravene our laws we will take action against them.

Illegally.

Why illegally? They come here under our laws. It is for us to decide.

May I put a question? if a Bantu speaker in the Transkei now makes a speech which is strongly pro-Communistic, will it not be punishable?

That is for the Transkeian Government to decide. But the position there with regard to security and the administration of justice is set out in this measure, and if things there get out of hand, this measure gives us full scope to control the position as long as this Constitution remains in force. The trouble with the hon. member for Maitland is that he is arguing as though these people are already entirely independent. They are not independent. They may become independent later on. We do not know. Here we are laying the foundation—and we do not deny it—which will enable them to become independent later on. But we are not arguing about that at the moment. We are now discussing what powers are being given to them under this Constitution. And if they want to bring about a communist revolution in the Transkei then we have the fullest right under this Constitution to intervene. The hon. member must not ask me what the position is going to be if at some future date they are entirely independent; I am not allowed to discuss that.

May I put a question? If an election takes place in the Transkei are you going to repeal Proclamation No. 400 which forbids meetings?

It will depend entirely on what the position is in that area with regard to internal security. We are not going to do anything to jeopardize internal security there.

In that case you cannot have an election.

Why not? What nonsense! Does he forget what happened in 1943? In 1943 we had an election in South Africa and at that time the emergency regulations were still in operation. Has he already forgotten what happened in 1943? At that time we had emergency regulations which were a thousand times worse than Proclamation No. 400. Sir, the trouble with hon. members opposite is that when they do anything it is perfectly in order but when other people do it then it is always wrong. The hon. member talks about Proclamation No. 400. In 1943 we had the emergency regulations under which the then Prime Minister could do whatever he pleased; we had an election, and nobody has ever suggested that it was an unfair election. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer to the subject of Education under Part A of the First Schedule. We are dealing with 1,500,000 people in the Transkei. Quite recently we dealt with Coloured education in South Africa. The number of Coloured people in the country is approximately the same as the number of people in the Transkei, and I want to deal with the manner in which we are going to provide for education in the Transkei. There has been a complete lack of preparation. We have for the Xhosa people a university college which was established specially for them. That university college is the University College of Fort Hare, and it is not in the Transkei. Now we are creating a system of education and giving this system of education to the Xhosa people when their university college is not under their control. As a matter of fact, in the control of that university college, the council of the university college is a White body and they have an advisory council in an inferior position consisting of Xhosas. The same is true of the senate of the university college; the senate of the university college is White and an advisory senate has non-White people on the staff. Now it is an intolerable position for the government of the Transkei to be told that their only university college to which their students can go is not under their control. We say that we are giving them control of education while we are taking from them, or keeping from them, the only university college in the whole country to which they can go. But we have been saying that to train men for service in the Transkei we need to have men who have taken courses in engineering, in education, in the law, in medicine, and so forth. How are they to control that? What is the good of saying to them: You will control one part of the education of your people but you cannot control the other part? Now let us come to the Control of primary and secondary education of the Xhosa children in the Transkei. How should one make provision for that? In handing over the government to any province, or section, or colony, we have two things to have in mind: the first is preparatory administration and the second a share in the government. I admit there has been an attempt to give a share in the government. There has been very little done in preparatory administration. And the most important thing after administration is education. Now let us look at where the two come together in the administration of education. What preparation has this Government given to the people of the Transkei?

Order! I think the hon. member is taking that question too far. The method of handing over education and justice and other matters mentioned here cannot be discussed in detail under this clause.

Sir, I want to see how the Department of Education is to be conducted in the Transkei when they take over.

Obviously then another hon. member can put the same question in respect of the Department of Justice, and so the whole field could be covered. That would lead us too far afield.

Mr. Chairman, I have been working on this, not only this Session, but in previous Sessions, because, having heard the announcement of the Government’s policy, I was anxious to see what steps were being made. So far as I can see, in education no steps have been taken to hand over. Let me give an example, a reply to a question by the hon. Minister of Bantu Education. We have the Estimates of Bantu Education for this year for the whole Republic and Transkei Education is part of them. In the establishment of the Department we find that among the higher posts there are 28 administrative posts, consisting of people who know how to administer the system of education; we have the higher professional posts, 73. That gives us a total of 101. And we have in addition 42 higher administrative posts, but not top posts. Altogether 143 posts for Bantu Education in South Africa and of those …

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that I cannot allow him to continue. This clause states specifically that “subject to the provisions of this Act the Legislative Assembly shall have the power (a) to make laws … in regard to education”. But there the details cannot be discussed.

My point is criticism of this Government, of the hon. Minister and the Minister of Bantu Education, because this legislation is being introduced without preparation. There should have been at least 20 Xhosas occupying these higher posts before the take-over.

I move—

But we have come to the most important part of this discussion. What is this Government doing? You are creating another Congo.

The Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 38,

It would appear that Clause 38 has to be read together with Clause 39, because in Clause 39 there are various subjects for legislation which may not be discussed. Therefore under Clause 38 I should like to ask the hon. Minister—it is really a quest for information, and I want to revert to what I was discussing under the previous clause when the closure was moved—I should like the hon. Minister to tell us whether it is the policy under Clause 38 to make provision for higher education for the Xhosa and if so, what provision is to be made? We know that to-day provision is made in the Fort Hare University College. What provision does the Government intend to make under Clause 38? The Bill tells us that no part outside the territory outlined in Clause 2 will come under the jurisdiction of the Xhosa Parliament. Now I should like the hon. Minister to tell us whether under Clause 38 it is the policy to have Fort Hare University College come under the Bantu Government in the Transkei, and if not, why not? I hope the hon. Minister will give us that information. We were refused the opportunity under Clause 37 to thresh this matter out. I think it is a most important thing in education as far as these people are concerned. In Fort Hare the leaders are going to be trained.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair in regard to the acceptance of the closure?

No, Sir, I am reflecting on the gentleman who moved it.

The hon. member said that he did not have an opportunity to discuss the matter.

I was trying to discuss it when the closure was moved.

If we are to accept the protestations of hon. members opposite that the Transkei Legislature is to be some kind of inferior body subject to the control either of this Parliament or of the State President, then it is difficult to understand why this clause is there at all. After all, Sir, look at the context in which it appears. Clause 37 sets out the legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly. The clause which follows it sets out matters reserved to this Parliament, and sandwiched in between we have a clause referred to as an “extension of powers of legislative assembly”, That is Clause 38. Now if it were not desired to hold out a bait to the Government of the Transkei to ask for more, then one would not have a clause of this kind at all. It is quite unnecessary here. If in the future there were to be agreement between the hon. the Minister and the Chief Minister of the Transkei that a certain extra power should be transferred to his Legislature, then an agreement could be made and it would be perfectly easy to have an amending Bill to this Act during ensuing sessions of Parliament. There is no need to make provision here for the extension of powers, unless it is intended to show to the public at large and to the Transkeian public in particular that it is merely a matter of asking and an extension of powers will be granted to the Transkeian Legislature over and above those set out in the Schedule to this Bill.

So what?

It is difficult to understand most remarks of that hon. member, but in particular the remark “So what?”. It is difficult to understand as he amongst others have protested over and over again that the purpose of this Bill is merely to extend limited self-government in terms of this Bill to the Transkei. while in the next breath, in effect, they say, as is said in Clause 38; We make provision so that when you ask for more, we will be able to grant more.

Of course.

What is the necessity for it? There is no necessity for it. It conveys an impression to the audience outside, and in particular to the audience in the Transkei that the hon. Minister is prepared to go further than the provisions contained in this Bill. I say again that it is quite unnecessary, save when it is designed to give the impression that the Government is prepared almost immediately to consider a further extension of powers. It is unnecessary, because whether it is there or not, it is always open to the hon. Minister to come to an agreement with the Transkei for a further extension of powers after negotiation and to grant it by an amending Bill. This is simply an invitation to the Transkeian Government to ask for more.

How is one to understand the arguments of hon. members opposite? Some time ago when we dealt with another clause their objection was that the right was being given to the State President, by way of proclamation in the Government Gazette, to approve of the establishment of a certain department. At that time they wanted to know whether this House would have no say in the matter. We then pointed out that when such powers were handed over, they had to be approved of by this House and by the Senate. It was only then that hon. members realized that that was so. The hon. member over there now comes along and complains that there is no need at all for this clause. How are we to understand him? This clause is necessary in fact in order to provide the guarantee about which they were so concerned a moment ago, so that when further powers are handed over they will have to be approved of by this Parliament. That was the difficulty which hon. members opposite had, and now they come along with the very opposite difficulty. But we owe this to the Bantu of the Transkei. I go further, however. The Bantu of the Transkei have also asked that it should be done in this way. Another point has been raised here by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). He wanted to know how we were going to build up the administration there, particularly in respect of education. The important point here is that the Bantu in the Transkei themselves stated that at this stage of development they still did not have people with the necessary knowledge and experience to cope with the administration and that we would have to assist them for a considerable time to come. Our White officials will be withdrawn from the Transkei as and when the Bantu acquire the necessary knowledge and skill to be able to look after these things themselves. This is one of the guarantees that the process will be an evolutionary one and that we are not going to act in a reckless fashion. Sir, I do not know whether the rules of the House would permit me just to reply in connection with Fort Hare. I can only say that the same rule will apply there, that higher education will be handed over to them as and when they develop and are able to take over the control of higher education. That is why we have made provision that there will be a White council and senate at Fort Hare but in addition to that there will be an advisory Bantu council and a Bantu senate. In due course the control will be handed over to the Bantu so that the council and the senate will then be composed of Bantu and the Whites will be there in an advisory capacity. That is the process that is being followed there. The question has now been posed whether the Transkei Government will have any say in that regard. I can only say that this matter has been discussed with them and that they have expressed the preference that Fort Hare should still remain in the Ciskei.