I should like the hon. the Minister to explain a matter that I raised earlier when another clause was being discussed. Clauses 37 and 38 tell us that provision will be made for the departments to be established under Part A of the First Schedule Then in Clause 39 we find subjects which are excluded from the legislative powers of the Transkei. There is one subject which does not appear in either, university education.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that. Only the subjects excluded can be discussed here.

This one is neither excluded nor included. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain it. I do not want to discuss education at all.

I can only say, as has already been announced in the past, that this is a matter, of course, which will be placed under their control in due course once they have gained the necessary experience. There is no special reason for its inclusion or its exclusion.

Clause 39 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 40,

This is one of the clauses which have been altered from the Bill as we first received it. The other Bill which is on the Order Paper does not read the same as this one does. As we understand from the Minister that the Bill as presented to us was prepared and asked for by the Xhosa of the Transkei themselves, I should like him to tell us whether these amendments were put to the Territorial Authority and whether they have in fact approved of the amendments which have now been made. This is the clause under which the Government pretends that it can keep control of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, because in terms of this clause the State President has to give his assent to any Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly. The State President, in assenting to or refusing to give his assent to Bills of the Transkei, will naturally act on the advice of his Minister. As I pointed out last night, Chief Matanzima immediately said that the President, when acting in this capacity, would be acting on the advice of his Ministers in the Transkei. I should like to ask the Minister whether he and the Transkeian Territorial Authority have in fact come to an agreement as to whose advice the State President will in fact act on in regard to any of the proceedings of the Transkeian Parliament.

Then I should like the Minister to tell us, too, how it is intended to resolve any deadlock between the State President and the Transkeian Parliament. This clause provides that if the State President does not assent to a Bill, he returns it to the Transkeian Parliament, with his advice and remarks, and within seven days the Cabinet must lay the papers before the Legislative Assembly. What happens if the Transkeian Parliament refuses to accept the advice of the State President? What will be the position then? Will the State President then have to give his assent on a subsequent occasion, or will his refusing to give his assent act as a veto on the Bill? I ask the Minister whether this particular question was also thrashed out with the Territorial Authority and whether they understand the position, and whether the Minister has suggested to them some way in which the deadlock can be resolved. Before we discuss the clause further, I should like to hear the Minister on this point.

In the first place I can only say that the views of the Territorial Authority were fully taken into account. As I have said previously, the request really came spontaneously from them that any laws that they pass be submitted to the State President. But there we have taken the procedure one step further inasmuch as these laws will be referred back to the Transkeian Government. Here we have a practical example of the way in which we are going to solve these problems through consultation. In solving these problems the necessary guidance will be given by my officials and all the parties concerned will be consulted.

The hon. member wants to know what is going to happen if we are unable to find a solution. It stands to reason that in that event the State President will have the final say. There can be no doubt in that regard. The other question, which was asked by the hon. member’s colleague, is to whom the State President is going to listen—to the Government of the Transkei or to the Government of the Republic. It goes without saying that the Minister of Bantu Administration will have due regard to the views expressed there and that he will convey those views to the State President, and finally the State President will naturally act on the advice of the Executive Authority of the Republic and not of the Transkeian Government. There is no doubt on this score, and the people in the Transkei know what the position is, but once again I want to emphasize strongly that our approach is that there will be very close consultation with the Transkeian Government through the Minister of Bantu Administration, and I am convinced that all these problems will be solved. We have had very little trouble in the past where we have followed this course. The principle is perfectly clear.

The Minister has said that by way of consultation any difficulty with the Transkeian Government will be resolved. After the State President has returned a Bill to the Transkeian Parliament there will be consultation and he hopes to resolve the difficulties that way. Last night when we were discussing another clause the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) suggested that there would never be any difficulties because the South African Government for many years found itself in the same position in relation to Britain, and that the Governor-General had acted on the advice of his Ministers here, although the King had the power to veto any Act of this Parliament before 1926. But I ask the Minister what would have been the position had the King in fact vetoed a Bill passed by this Parliament?

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that. It has nothing to do with this clause.

But the position is exactly the same. The State President will have a right to veto a Bill.

Order! The hon. member cannot deal with that now.

I am drawing an analogy. The State President will be in the same position that the King was. We had this argument last night, that it worked in South Africa before 1926, and why cannot it work in the Transkei now?

Order! That was last night and under a different clause. Now it is irrelevant. Under this clause the hon. member must confine himself to the State President.

Last night this clause had not been reached yet.

Order! The hon. member cannot argue with the Chair. He must either obey my ruling or resume his seat.

But then it is impossible to discuss this clause.

On a point of order, the position seems to be that we here have a position outlined in this clause analogous to one previously in our history. If the one succeeded or failed to succeed, surely it has reference to the wisdom or otherwise of applying this clause.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories referred to a discussion which was held last night on a previous clause. That discussion cannot be brought into the discussion on this clause. That was the point I made.

I accept that, Sir, but surely in arguing the wisdom or other wise of accepting this clause it is permissible to draw an analogy with a similar state of circumstances which existed previously in our history and which enables us to decide whether or not this clause should be given effect to. Here the simple solution is that the State President has a right of veto and he has a right of veto on the advice of the Ministers of the Republic, not the Ministers of the Transkei. The previous position which existed was that His Majesty the King had a right of veto, through the Governor-General, acting on his behalf. On the Ministers of which state did he rely in exercising that veto; was it the Ministry in Great Britain or was it the Ministry in South Africa? Here you have an exact parallel arising.

I am considering it now but I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to continue the discussion on the lines on which he did a few minutes ago.

Mr. Chairman, may I just put it to you …

I am sorry, I cannot allow the hon. member to argue with the Chair.

It is perfectly clear that under this clause a sanction may very easily arise. The Transkeian Parliament may have passed a Bill; that Bill, in terms of the clause, is submitted to the State President for his assent. We know what the view of the Prime Minister of the Transkei is. The hon. the Minister takes a different view with which I am inclined to agree, namely that the State President in acting would act on the advice of the Executive of the South African Parliament. Quite clearly this is a case which could easily lead to frictions as between the Parliament of the Transkei and the Executive of the South African Parliament. Sir, I wonder whether the Minister and the Government have fully considered the situation which they are creating in South Africa where they are laying down a situation in respect of legislative powers of the Transkeian Parliament without making it clear in this clause on whose advice the State President would act. Sir, it is true that in the Constitution in respect of executive functions the State President must act on the advice of his Executive in the Republic of South Africa, but the hon. the Minister knows that a change might very easily be brought about by legislation, and as far as the Transkei is concerned we know that a claim has been made as to the meaning of this clause which varies from the meaning placed upon it by the hon. the Minister. I do say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he should consider this position very seriously indeed. A new Parliament is being created, and I submit that there is the possibility of friction arising. This is just another of those provisions of the Bill which I submit might easily lead to great difficulties in the future.

I cannot agree at all with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). What he is really afraid of is that the Minister of the Transkei will have the right to go to the State President and make a submission. [Interjections.] No, that is not the position. The hon. member is afraid of that and now he contends that that is the position. If it were the position then an analogous case would be our own case when we ourselves were in the process of becoming emancipated vis-à-vis Great Britain. Mr. Chairman, you may think perhaps that I am out of order but I just want to draw your attention to the fact that if we place that interpretation upon the clause, then we shall be making the Transkei an independent state in the same way that the Union of South Africa became an independent state when our Ministers had direct access to the King. The State President would then also be head of the Transkei. But that is not what is stated here. It is stated here specifically that legislative measures will be sent to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for submission to the State President. But that is all it says; it says that the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and that he submits it to the State President. The only thing that the hon. member for Germiston (District) can ask now is whether the Minister will be entitled, at his own discretion, to make a submission in respect of the contents or whether he would simply be a conduit pipe through which matters have to be submitted from the Transkei to the State President. But as the position is set out here it is impossible to draw the inference that the Minister will have no function except the function of a post office.

He has no right to do so.

That is how the matter is put in constitutional law. You are not going to say here that the Minister will add his own frills to it. All one needs at the point where legislation and implementation meet is an opportunity to persuade or to dissuade. That has been stated before by people who have given much more thought to constitutional law than the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and myself.

Speak for yourself.

Sir Walter Bagehot said, “the Sovereign has no power except to persuade or to dissuade”, and he added, “a sagacious King or Queen requires no more All that we are doing here is to give an opportunity to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development “to persuade or dissuade”, and “a sagacious Minister requires no more”, Not only is this opportunity being created administratively while the measure is on its way to the State President, but also on its way back. Where it is provided here that the State President may refer the Bill back it really means that he gives it to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and from the latter it goes back to the Transkei “with the opportunity to persuade or to dissuade ". It cannot be put in any other way than it has been put here, and the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. the Minister and which I too have just placed upon it is the only interpretation that can be placed upon it.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to amplify the statement which he made in reply to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in regard to his function in this constitutional chain of procedure which the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has tried to explain. The Minister has referred to the procedure of consultation. Of course, we on this side of the House have always advocated consultation between the Government and all the different groups in this country and we are very glad to hear that the Minister has now adopted that policy to that extent at any rate. This consultation having taken place, I ask him with great respect, is he then in the position, as indicated by the hon. member for Standerton, of merely being a link or a post office to send the communication on to the State President—no more and no less? I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to explain to me something which apparently the hon. member for Standerton tried to explain, but I submit failed to explain. He called the men involved in this particular clause a conduit pipe. Sir, in the middle of a conduit pipe nothing happens except that something flows one way or the other or gets blocked. There is no consultation in this pipe; surely that is clear, and I am not making a constitutional, legal point! What I am trying to get at is this: The hon. the Minister must tell us what his part will be in this chain of events from the Transkei Legislature to the State President, because he hinted very broadly at a certain situation arising out of this when he said in effect to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that naturally the Minister of Bantu Administration “sal die Staatspresident inlig”. “Inlig” can mean all sorts of things, even if he is sagacious. It can mean that he will merely give him the information which the State President asks, or it can mean that he will enlighten him in the sense that he will hold up the beacon, the light, for the State President to see in the course that he has to follow; it can mean a number of things, as the hon. the Minister knows, and unless he says categorically that firstly the Commissioner-General will play post office and no more, that he will be the conduit because he has no say in the matter at all, the Legislature having decided a certain matter submits it to the Commissioner-General purely for transmission, then unless he says that he as Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will then himself, by virtue of his powers, sit in judgment and submit to the State President, in the light of his judgment, what he wants him to understand—because that is the power of sagacity that we have been told about—then I want to know whether that is exactly the same as this so-called conduit pipe where the hon. the Minister will have no say as it were, but will merely present the State President for his consideration with a certain measure. It means either the one thing or the other. Either the Minister must say to us that he, the Minister, will sit in judgment and, as the Sunday Times would say, “will be the baas”, or he must say to us that the analogy of the hon. member for Standerton is in fact correct and that he the Minister, will do no more than act as part of the machinery for transmitting information or measures between the Transkeian Legislature and the State President.

On a point of personal explanation, that is precisely what I did not say.

Order! The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is addressing the Committee.

Sir, I am finishing now. I did not misunderstand the hon. member for Standerton. If he wants to get up later on and explain why he talked about a conduit pipe he is welcome to do so. But I understand words to mean what they are supposed to mean in their ordinary meaning. Either the hon. member for Standerton or the hon. the Minister must tell us, in reply to the very important question raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories how this particular clause is going to be implemented in practice having regard to the obvious difference between this situation and the situation which arose when we, for example, had a Governor-General who did certain things virtually on the instructions of his Ministers. Sir, we need that explanation and it is no use trying to side-step it with any references to pipelines, conduit pipes or post offices.

I am sure that the hon. member is not very serious when he asks me to explain what the position of a Minister is vis-à-vis the State President. I contend that every Member of Parliament is acquainted with that machinery. I rise simply to make two things perfectly clear. Perhaps I did not put it clearly enough for the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). The first point is that this clause leaves no doubt that such a Bill will be referred back for consultation with the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei, and it will only become an Act when the State President has signed it. It will not become an Act until such time as it has been assented to by the State President. I think that is stated perfectly clearly in the clause. The second question was who would advise the State President. That is laid down in Section 16 of the Republican Constitution. In that regard there is no doubt either. It is the Executive Authority of this Government that will advise the State President.

I do not think the hon. the Minister clearly understands what we on this side are after.

You do not understand it yourselves.

If members of this Parliament, with the knowledge that they have, have certain misgivings in connection with this clause, then we can imagine how much more there will be misgivings in the minds of people who have not had the experience that we have had. If we in this House have misgivings, then inevitably there will be clashes in the Transkei. In that regard there can be no doubt. As the clause reads here, it does not say “when such a Bill or Ordinance which is submitted to the State President reaches finality” or “when it is finally turned down or finally accepted”, May I refer my hon. friend to what happens in the case of our provinces. I wonder whether it would not be better for the Minister to follow Section 89 of our Constitution in this clause of the Transkeian Bill.

What becomes of your sovereignty story now?

Here it is stated perfectly clearly that if after the lapse of a certain period the State President has not given a final decision, then the Ordinance lapses. That is the sort of provision that is needed here. Here it is only provided that the measure will be referred back. There is no reference to a final decision or to a period of six months or a year. It simply says that the matter will be referred back. They will then be able to argue again, and again submit the measure to the State President. The State President may then refer it back again. I would suggest with all due respect therefore that the Minister should follow the procedure here which is laid down in Section 89 of the Constitution of South Africa where a definite period is laid down—

If it has not received his assent within a year then it lapses. If the hon. the Minister wishes to avoid clashes he ought to insert that provision here. This is a practical suggestion that we are putting forward on this side of the House. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why such a practical suggestion cannot be accepted.

I asked the Minister another question which he has not answered as to whether this clause as amended since the first Bill came before the Territorial Authority has been referred back to the Territorial Authority, because I understood from the Minister that the Bill as introduced was requested by the Territorial Authority but we know that the two Bills are not the same. I want to know whether these amendments were submitted to the Territorial Authority.

Perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly, but the position is simply that we did consult them with regard to this matter.

About the amendment?

It is not a matter of principle and I am not certain that we were consulted specially about this amendment, but that is the way in which we should like to arrange these matters, that is to say, through mutual consultation, and then the results are twice as good.

I do not think the Minister realizes what amendments I am talking about. A Bill was introduced here with the same wording as that of a Bill passed by the Territorial Authority. Subsequent to that we have had another Bill on the Order Paper, a Bill which does not read the same way as the first Bill. The wording in this clause differs from the wording in the first Bill, and since the Minister has told us that this Bill is in accordance with the Bill as approved by the Territorial Authority, I would like to know whether they were consulted with regard to these amendments which are now being made.

I am not aware of any special request on their part that it should be framed in this way, but the basis of our consultation with them was the same. The words may not be precisely the same. We know that we have to deal with law advisers who frequently change the wording, but we did agree on the principle contained in this clause.

Sir, this is not a slight amendment. According to the original Bill, the language in which a Bill had to be submitted to the State President was the Xhosa language. That is not provided for here. I want to know whether this particular amendment. which is an important amendment, was put to the Authority after the Government had decided to make a change.

It has just been brought to my notice that this is purely an improvement in the language. There is no change involved here as far as the principle is concerned.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 41 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 42 put and agreed to.

On new Clause to follow Clause 42,

I wish to move—

43. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as in any manner abolishing, diminishing or derogating from those full powers of legislation over the Transkei as an integral portion of the Republic which has hitherto been vested in the Republic.

Hon. members have asked what sovereignty. This is a case of sovereignty, Sir. The object in moving that this clause shall be inserted m the Bill is to make it abundantly clear that the Bill which is now under consideration, when duly passed into law, shall, as the new clause puts it, “in no way abolish, diminish or derogate from the full powers of legislation which this Parliament has in respect of the Transkei”, I make no apology for moving it, Sir. I think such a provision is necessary. I regard it as a safeguarding provision which will make it perfectly clear to the people of the Transkei, as it will make it perfectly clear to the people of the Republic, that we are ensuring and safeguarding the sovereignty of this Parliament which this side of the House considers to be absolutely essential.

I want to say immediately that this new clause is not without precedent in the legislation of this country. There is a very clear precedent for this, Sir. I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the provisions of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act, No. 23 of 1949. That Act was passed by the present Government when the late Dr. Malan was the Prime Minister of this country. If hon. members will refer to Section 22 they will find that Section 44 of the principal Act was amended by the insertion of the following sub-section (1). The marginal note reads: “Saving as to right of Union to administer and legislate for the territory.” I am not dealing with the administration; I am dealing with the legislation. The provision is as follows—

I have changed the word “Union” to “Republic” and the words “administration and” have been omitted. The object of this clause is exactly the object which the late Dr. Malan had in including that provision in the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act. If the hon. the Minister would refer to the Hansard when that Bill was passed he will find that the question was specifically put to Dr. Malan why that clause was necessary. Dr. Malan, in his wisdom, felt it was essential to put this question of sovereignty utterly beyond doubt and that was the reason why that clause was included, notwithstanding the fact that under the mandate South Africa had full powers of administration and legislation. I submit to the hon. the Minister that if Dr. Malan thought it was advisable to include that provision in the South West Africa Act, where there was also a local legislature with limited powers, it is clearly necessary that a similar provision should be inserted in the Bill which is now before this House. I would say to the hon. the Minister that I very much hope that he will immediately indicate that he will accept this amendment because it will put beyond all question the problem which I know has worried a great number of members on this side of the House and I believe on the other side of the House as well as to whether we were not perhaps creating a dangerous situation. This clause has a very good precedent in our own legislation; it safeguards the sovereignty of this Parliament. I move this. Sir, with a full sense of responsibility and in the earnest hope that the hon. the Minister is going to put this matter beyond question by accepting this amendment.

I cannot urge the hon. the Minister too strongly to accept this amendment. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has made it perfectly clear why it is essential. If all the statements which have fallen like autumn leaves from that side of the House as to there being no question of the Transkei interfering in any way with the sovereignty of Parliament mean anything at all then the Minister should have no objection whatsoever to stating that in this Bill. If the Minister is sincere about what he has said about this Bill—and I am sure he is —there is no other course open to him but to accept this amendment. I do not want to repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. friend; they have been stated clearly and concisely; I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. But let us state quite clearly where the sovereignty lies.

This amendment is being moved with the sole object of making political propaganda. The object of the amendment is to enable hon. members on the other side to go to the hustings and say that the National Party refuse to accept this amendment, and the conclusion that the electorate will be invited to draw is that this Bill already confers upon the Transkei a measure of sovereignty which derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) will remain silent I shall demonstrate from the provisions of the Bill that I am perfectly justified in saying this. This amendment is designed to remove any possible misinterpretation that may be placed upon the Act. Clause 65 (2) specifically provides—

This is a far-reaching power which is being given to the State President so as to remove any doubt in the event of a conflict of laws and to determine the authority of the respective legislative bodies in South Africa. Why has this unusual course been followed? It is because this is an unusual political venture. The crux of the matter is this: The Opposition are perfectly correct in saying that the germ of an independent Transkei is contained in this legislation. We admit that, but it is perfectly clear that at this stage no independent Transkei is being created. It is because a germ, in order to grow, has to go through a germinating process, that provision is made in this legislation for the ordered and controlled growth of the idea of freedom within the Transkei. That is why we do not place an absolute limit in this measure by saying that in terms of this provision there is no question that the Transkei will ever be able to derogate from the total sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. We are placing the matter in the hands of the Executive Authority, under the control of this Parliament. That is the difference. This is also a fundamental difference therefore. The fundamental difference is that the hon. member wishes to make the whole of this measure unfruitful by laying down that there can be no growth towards self-government in the Transkei without an amendment of this Act. We do not want to exclude the possibility of a growth towards self-government.

The hon. member who has just sat down makes me wonder what has become of the National Party’s argument in the past that the courts should never have the testing right as far as constitutional matters are concerned. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) now relies on administrative arrangements when he knows perfectly well that if this amendment is accepted we shall be doing away with the testing right. We had one court case after another—we even amended our Constitution—to keep the testing right out of the hands of the courts except in certain cases, and now we find that hon. members on the other side refuse to accept an amendment such as this. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. member for Kempton Park who talks about self-government for the Transkei: If you wish to give complete independence to the Transkei, it will in any event require additional legislation in this Parliament unless, of course, the Bantu of the Transkei take over the Transkei by force of arms, a possibility which might well flow from this whole transaction. What harm could this amendment do? It simply states the position clearly, that is to say, that the courts will have no testing right; that this Parliament will remain sovereign. That is all it means. I thought hon. members on the other side would welcome this amendment and say that it is a good thing that the United Party spotted this and brought it to the notice of the hon. the Minister, because what does it amount to, Mr. Chairman? It amounts to this that when there is any conflict and this Government passes certain legislation which is to apply to the Transkei—something which it can do in any case at the moment—then the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa remains sovereign.

Have you read Clause 65 (2)?

Yes, I have read it. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will agree with me because I know how he felt about the testing right. I should be very surprised if the hon. the Minister did not accept this amendment because he would then be actuated by motives which I would fail to understand. Sir, agents of the National Party are going through the country and saying, “Show us one provision of this Bill that gives independence to the Bantu of the Transkei.” In making propaganda they are using a double-barrelled gun, one barrel aimed at countries overseas and the other aimed by National Party agents at the rural areas in this country. If this amendment is accepted then at any rate the position will be clearly stated and we shall know precisely where we stand.

There are some things which have been stated perfectly clearly in the course of this debate and in regard to which there can be no doubt at this stage. The first is that there is nothing contained in this measure which in any way derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament. I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) will concede that. He is the last person who ought to have any doubt with regard to this matter. He is a lawyer and he ought to know better. On the basis of that argument therefore the amendment moved by him falls away. We are not derogating from the sovereignty of this Parliament. At the same time, as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) has stated so clearly, we are here setting in motion, as I pointed out the other evening, a process of development which is recognized internationally. One of the important and fine principles of modern development is that it takes place on evolutionary lines. We are really keeping abreast therefore of this new development which is taking place all over the world.

There is another thing which has also become perfectly clear in the course of this debate and that is that we want to have nothing to do with any form of Colonialism because we feel that it has been abused in many cases. We want to have nothing to do therefore with anything that leads in that direction. I think by this time hon. members have realized that in framing this Bill we took many factors into account. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I personally devoted my attention to this amendment as far as South West Africa is concerned. In the light of the whole process of our development and in the light of scientific development we would be making a mistake if we inserted this amendment. It would amount to a renunciation of everything that we have said in the past. I take it that there is not so much uncertainty in the minds of hon. members on the other side that they do not know that what I am saying here represents the correct approach. I accept that there may be uncertainty in the minds of certain hon. members but I am afraid I cannot do much about that. I can assure hon. members that on this side of the House there is not a single person who has the slightest doubt with regard to this matter and the way in which we are approaching it and who feels that this is an amendment which ought to be inserted in order to put the position beyond all doubt. The position is stated here beyond any doubt. This is the current process of development in the world. I am sorry but it is not possible for me to accept this amendment.

I very much regret that the hon. the Minister has adopted this attitude and that he will not accept this amendment. The hon. the Minister tells us that this amendment will make no difference to the Bill which is before us. There I challenge the hon. the Minister. The acceptance of this amendment will put entirely beyond doubt a question which, in my view, is in very serious doubt. I want to say immediately that in this respect I am supported by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). The best provision which the hon. member for Kempton Park was able to quote in this regard was a clause which we have not yet reached, namely Clause 65 (2). That says—

That is to clear any possible case which may exist in respect of a conflict between one piece of ordinary legislation and another. The Bill which is now before us is a piece of fundamental legislation in that it is purporting to lay the base of a constitution to which, as the hon. the Minister has said, they would have to develop as the years pass. I want to say this to the Minister: I do not believe for a moment that we can support the view of the hon. member for Kempton Park. If the hon. the Minister is relying on that I want to tell him immediately that I am in complete disagreement with the hon. member, and I believe that he, having had an opportunity of considering the matter, will say that he was mistaken in the reasons which he advanced a few minutes ago. The provision contained in Clause 65 (2) deals with three things. Firstly “if any provision of this Act or any other law is found to be ambiguous…”. Now this is not a case of ambiguity. “… or to give rise to administrative difficulty in the application thereof in the Transkei…” That is not in issue at all. Sir. “… or any provision of this Act is found to be in conflict with any other law…” We are not dealing here with a question of the conflict with any other law. What we are dealing with is a question which has been the subject of a great deal of debate. Hon. members have been asking the whole afternoon what about the question of sovereignty. We on this side of the House have shown that we are in earnest in seeking to ensure that the sovereignty of this Parliament will be preserved and that we will not, perhaps unwittingly place it in danger. The Minister says he has considered the amendment in the case of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act. If the law advisers and the then Prime Minister considered it necessary to have that provision on which my amendment is based, we should clearly follow that precedent here. I warn the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite that if they vote this amendment down, they will be creating the impression in the minds of persons outside of this House that in fact what this side of the House says is correct, namely that this Bill is to some extent derogating from the sovereignty of the Republic’s Parliament. The amendment is in very simple terms—

The Minister says that is already the position. We disagree with him. I submit that it is no less than his bounden duty to tell this country and this Parliament to accept this amendment and to put this question beyond any doubt.

I should like to put it this way to the hon. the Minister: If he says, and he says he does, that this question is not in doubt then there is no reason whatsoever why the Minister should not accept this amendment. If he does so he will be declaring to the people of the Transkei and to the people of South Africa that this Parliament has decided at this moment to preserve its sovereignty as far as the whole of the area of the Republic is concerned. That, Sir, we on this side of the House regard as essential to the future safety of this country. I can only hope that hon. members opposite, who I am sure must have some doubts, will urge the hon. Minister to accept this amendment which he says will not alter the law but which, the Minister must concede, will put the meaning of the law absolutely beyond any doubt. I submit that that is the duty of the Minister to this country and I hope he will put his country first.

First of all I should like to have your ruling with regard to the admissibility of this amendment, and I should like to have your ruling in the light of the provisions of Clause 37 which we have already accepted. If you look at Clause 37 (1) (b) you will see that the power is granted to the Legislative Authority of the Transkei to pass laws repealing any legal provision, including an Act of this Parliament. If we accepted this amendment, then pro tanto it would be a negation of the provisions of Clause 37 (1) (b). It would also be in conflict with the provisions contained in Clause 37 (3) because there it says—

That simply means that if we accepted this amendment we would be rendering the other two clauses entirely nugatory and before I go into the merits of the amendment I should like to hear from you, Sir, whether that is in order. May I have your decision?

Will the hon. member move that this clause stand over so that I can give my ruling later on?

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 48.

This clause deals with the courts and provides that the existing courts will continue; it also provides for the establishment of courts by the new Minister of Justice in the Transkeian Government. I want to ask the hon. Minister for some information. Sub-section (4) deals with “the establishment of courts for the trial or hearing of cases of persons or between parties who are not citizens or any of whom is not a citizen of the Transkei or for any area not falling within the Transkei …” I want to ask the hon. Minister what happens if there is a party who is a citizen of the Transkei who is required in a case. Will he be compelled to go to this court which is to be established under sub-section (4) by our Minister of Justice? If he refused to come to the court, will our court have jurisdiction over him and can it compel him to come? Then I want to know with regard to non-citizens of the Transkei who may be called as witnesses in the Bantu courts to be established by the Transkeian Minister of Justice, will they be compelled to go and give evidence in those courts? If a Coloured or a White trader for example who is not a citizen of the Transkei witnesses an offence being committed, can he be compelled to go to one of the new courts that may be established by the Minister of Justice in the Transkei, and if so, and his evidence is not satisfactory, would that court be entitled to imprison him? I hope the hon. Minister will enlighten us and tell us exactly what the functions of these two courts are going to be, what their powers are going to be and how citizens and non-citizens of the Transkei will be affected by having dual courts. Will these courts have jurisdiction over all citizens and non-citizens, anybody residing in the Transkei? Will they be able to compel them to appear before such a court to give evidence? If the court is not satisfied with the evidence, will that court be able to take steps against the witness in the same way that our courts to-day can do? And furthermore, will the new courts to be established by the Minister of Justice of the Transkei in criminal cases have jurisdiction over a non-citizen living in the area of that court? That is outside the European areas.

I also want to say that we will divide on this clause because it is another symbol of sovereignty allowing that body to establish its own courts, and we will be consistent and vote against this clause also for that reason.

I want to put the position just briefly. As hon. members will see from the wording of this clause, the position is that initially the existing courts will continue to exist, and the position may possibly remain unchanged for a considerable time to come. To begin with the existing courts will continue to do their work in the same way. But we have already intimated that where there are Bantu who are capable of serving as Bantu Commissioners, for example in their own area, etc., we are going to make provision for such courts to be handed over to the Bantu in due course. That is one of the processes of development that we envisage there. But here we are laying down a very important principle and that is that when that does happen it goes without saying that the Republican Government will see to it that Whites will only appear before White courts; they will not appear before Bantu courts. In other words, the Bantu courts are only being instituted to deal with cases in which Bantu are involved.

And witnesses?

I am coming to that. I am talking about the principle now. I think that is clear. I have been asked what the position is going to be if a White witness is called to give evidence. In the case of witnesses too we would prefer to have such cases heard by the Bantu Commissioner. It is for that reason that provision is being made that a White magistrate’s court may be established for a certain area or for a few areas. We want to obviate unnecessary clashes where a person has any objection, for example. We can avoid such clashes if the case is heard before the White magistrate or Bantu Commissioner concerned. We should like to avoid the possibility of embarrassing any White person and of violating what has been the traditional approach so far in the Transkei in connection with these cases. I do not think hon. members have any cause for concern in this regard therefore.

I rather expected that that would be the Minister’s reply that the Bill will be applied in that way. But I would like to point out that sub-section (2) gives the Minister of Justice of the Transkei powers to establish these courts and to disestablish courts. Now the Minister says that he would prefer White witnesses to give evidence in one of the courts under the control of our Minister of Justice. But it is no good saying that he would prefer it that way. We want to have certainty. It is no good arguing after the Bill has been passed. It is no good then arguing with the Transkeian Authorities as to what powers their courts are going to have. Has the hon. Minister made it quite clear to the Territorial Authorities that their courts will not have jurisdiction over White people and Coloured people, and if he has made it clear why is it not in the Bill? This should be set out in white and black in the Bill so that one cannot have arguments afterwards. The Minister of Justice of the Transkei will have the power to establish courts. I do not think he needs any consent from the State President. He will have the power to establish courts and if a White man is then brought before such a court, it will not help him to argue that the Minister of Bantu Administration did not intend him to be brought before this court. The position must be made quite clear from the outset as to what powers they are going to have.

I do feel that it is clear what our approach is in connection with this matter. They know precisely what our approach is and they are perfectly satisfied. There is no doubt in this connection. It is not necessary to go beyond what is stated in this clause because the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Justice will continually be consulted.

Where do you find that?

When such a court is instituted the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development must be consulted. The hon. member need not shake his head. In that regard there is no doubt in the minds of the Bantu or in our own minds.

I do not think the hon. Minister has answered the point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. It is quite impossible for the hon. Minister, on the argument that he has used, to say that there is no difficulty about this matter, and then to say what he would prefer and what he would not prefer. It does not matter what courts are set up and who sets them up, and what you say as to what the courts should deal with—the problem is the cases that arise. In Native Commissioners’ courts, or the courts which we now call Native Commissioners’ courts, for litigation between Natives, there may well arise cases in respect of which there is an eye-witness who is a European. Now surely the hon. Minister is not suggesting that if there is an eye-witness who is a European that he should not go and give evidence in one of these courts? If he is suggesting that, then we must get this thing clear; whereas if he is not suggesting that, perhaps the hon. Minister could indicate to which court it is expected that witness is to go? It is impossible to say in each case whether there is going to be a European eye-witness or whether a European has been a witness to a contract, or whether a European attorney is going to be called to give evidence as to whether or not a contract was signed, or whether a European witness is a witness to the signing of a document. I think in all commercial transactions it must surely arise that a European will be involved somewhere, especially in relation to legal matters, and if he is called as a witness and he does not give his evidence properly, or he refuses to give certain evidence, then the court must of necessity (one would assume) have the same powers as any other court which has to deal with witnesses, and if he refuses to answer the question, the person presiding at that court should have the power which he has in a normal court to deal with the individual concerned, and if necessary to put him inside, until such time as he is prepared to answer questions. Could the hon. Minister indicate whether or not in a case where a European witness is involved, it will not go to those courts but will go to another court set up by the Minister of Justice of the Republic?

The hon. Minister has said that this clause was fully explained to the Transkeian Territorial Authority. I have got a copy of the record of the discussions in the Authority when this clause was passed, and all that happened was that Mr. Mills, the legal adviser of the department, said that these sections dealing with justice were very long and very intricate and that yet it was very easy to explain them in short. He said—

Sub-section (2) says that the Transkeian Minister of Justice will have the power to establish courts and to disestablish courts. He will have this power in terms of the existing laws. But if he wants to establish such courts in White spots, he will have to obtain the consent of the Minister of Bantu Administration;

Sub-section (3) says that the existing courts can be transferred to the Transkeian Government by the Minister of Bantu Administration so as to become your courts;

Sub-section (4) says that notwithstanding this, the Minister of Bantu Administration can establish a court in a White spot in any such White area;

Sub-section (5) says that if this is done, the jurisdiction of the existing courts is limited to that extent.

That is what the record says and that is all the explanation that was given.

What did Matanzima say after that?

He said—

Apparently nobody understood it. Not a soul understood it. And I do not think the Minister understands it. I would like to know from the hon. Minister: Mr. Mills said that sub-section (1) says that the courts at present functioning will remain functioning until they are changed by a competent authority. Will the Minister tell me what is a “competent authority”? Tell us. From the wording of this section as it stands, it is difficult to see which is a competent authority.

May I put this to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories: Where a court functions at the moment, who can abolish it if it has to be abolished? Apart from the questions which are before the House at present, with whom does the power vest to-day to abolish courts in any centre in this country? The Minister of Justice of the Republic, of course. He can bring about this change under the Magistrates’ Courts Act. The hon. member is trying to create a ridiculous situation.

No, why is it not stated here clearly?

The world is usually a much more complicated place than it appears to be on the surface.

Why does the Minister not say so then?

The Minister did say so, but the hon. member did not hear it.

Why is it not laid down in the Act?

After all the Act is not a text-book. Surely the hon. member knows that.

But we are dealing here with a Constitution.

Precisely. It need not be a text-book, and if the provision is inserted here that those courts will remain until they are abolished by the authority which is competent to abolish them, then one is first going to determine which authority instituted that particular court. One will then find that that authority is the Republic as it functions under the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice will then be able to abolish the court in the manner prescribed. Well, I cannot understand hon. members. It is becoming a question of wasting time now. Questions are being put here, the reply to which ought to be obvious to the hon. member having regard to his background. But apparently this has become a blind spot with him.

That is very unfair.

No, it is simply because the hon. member for Yeoville has not given this matter any thought. Hon. members opposite come along with awkward questions, or questions which they think are awkward, and then they try to put questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration who is not a lawyer.

Clause 48 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 49,

This is the clause which provides for the establishment of new courts, inferior courts, in the Transkei by the relevant authority. Again this is a derogation from the sovereignty of this Parliament that the arm of the law, the third arm of the state, the courts, should now be passed into the hands of another authority. What worries me even more about this, is that not only is that being done but that the type of court that is going to be set up there as envisaged in this clause, is going to be something apparently completely different from the sort of court that we have been used to, because it is provided that the Legislative Assembly may repeal the whole of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. One of the major causes of the difficulties that there were, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has indicated, was that there was no longer any appeal to a White magistrate. I believe that the complaints of the people in the Transkei, especially those in Pondoland, can be attributed to the removal of the appeal to a White man. It was not only the fact that he was a White man but that he operated in a system of justice which was the White man’s, the system of justice which they had learned to accept and which indeed they still respect. The moment that was taken away, there was an awful lot of trouble in those areas. This was one of the major causes of those troubles. And here we have the opening made for those people to do away entirely with that system, if they so please. I wonder if the hon. Minister will indicate whether he expects that there will be any derogation from the existing courts as established under the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944, and particularly whether he expects there to be any derogation so far as the rules under the Magistrates’ Courts Act is concerned for the conduct of proceedings in those magistrates’ courts, and especially in the civil courts. As I understand the position at the moment, the Native Commissioners’ courts, the inferior courts set up under the Native Administration Act, have an unlimited civil jurisdiction—so long of course as it is a case between Bantu and Bantu; they have no jurisdiction in respect of other matters. Does the hon. Minister envisage any change in that aspect of the matter? I see that later on there is a clause which is to set up a supreme court for the Transkei, and the supreme court of course will have unlimited jurisdiction. Does the hon. Minister in view of the subsequent clauses envisage that the changes in the law to be made by the Transkeian Territorial Authority will be such as to limit the jurisdiction of these civil courts? If the hon. Minister does not envisage that, perhaps he will explain what it is that he has in mind will be altered by the Transkeian Authority in relation to the Magistrates’ Courts Act and the Native Administration Act of 1937 in so far as it relates to these particular courts.

Here we are again having the old allegation that this is another case where there is a derogation from the sovereignty of this Parliament. The hon. member knows that I have replied several times as far as that point is concerned. We are dealing here with legal matters and the same arguments which applied previously are applicable here. No portion of the sovereignty of this Parliament is being taken away. The position as set out here is perfectly clear to me although I am not an expert in the legal sphere. The hon. member cannot make such a statement. His second proposition is that one of the difficulties in the Transkei has always been that there are Bantu courts and that many of the Bantu would like to be tried by a White magistrate. I want to make it quite clear that that is not a correct reflection of the position. I readily admit that there have been cases in the Chiefs’ courts where everything has not been above-board perhaps but I can say without fear of contradiction that this sort of thing did not happen on such a large scale as some people would have us believe. On the contrary, very large numbers of Bantu are anxious that cases affecting their family life in particular should be referred to their traditional courts. In that regard they are perfectly happy. We even have the phenomenon that there are such courts in the White city, without their being recognized, without many people knowing about it, where such cases are heard to the satisfaction of the people concerned. I concede at once that there are certain elements who always believed that they can get away with it on a technical point before a White magistrate. As a Bantu said to me one day, “when I know that my case is bad I go to the magistrate, but when I know that my case is good, I go to my own court”. There is that approach too, but at the same time I concede that our magistrates and Bantu Commissioners have acted in such a way that they have won the confidence of the Bantu to a fairly large extent. I feel therefore that here we have a special duty. We talked this matter over very candidly with the Bantu. We told them that when these courts were instituted that it is laid down that their jurisdiction will be limited to that of the ordinary magistrate’s court—we would have to see to it that not only their administration of justice, but also their procedure, conformed to the principles of our ordinary magistrates’ courts rules. That is one of the important tasks that we have set ourselves, and the Bantu agree with us. I admit that it will take time. There are various Bantu who are already qualified to sit on the Bench, who have the legal qualifications and who will ensure that the administration of justice and the rules of procedure are not violated. It is the duty of the White officials who will still remain in the Transkei for quite some time, to see that this development takes place in accordance with the principles of our modern administration of justice. The hon. member can be assured therefore that we shall keep a watchful eye on this and that it is our aim, not to go back to the old system but that that system should be modernized more and more and adapted to present-day circumstances. I can assure the hon. member that he need have no cause for concern in that regard.

A further question was what jurisdiction these courts would have; whether their jurisdiction would be unlimited. It is clearly laid down here that their jurisdiction will, be limited. It is further provided here that later on, when the time is ripe for it, attention will be given to the question of instituting a special court for the Transkei so that we can do away with the divorce court which exists in the Transkei to-day. This is a process which may develop, but I want to assure the hon. member that it is our policy to see to it that the people who sit on the bench have the necessary experience.

The hon. member may say to me immediately, “that if the Legislative Assembly decides that a number of courts should be instituted at once, what will your reaction be?” It goes without saying that we will give them the necessary guidance, and I have no doubt that they will accept that guidance. We realize, of course, that minor difficulties may present themselves, but I am convinced that our administration of justice will not suffer.

Clause 49 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 50,

This clause deals with the institution of the High Court of the Transkei. At present in the Transkei we have the Native Appeal Court and a Divorce Court, which can of course be likened to the High Court it is proposed to establish here. The Appeal Court deals with appeals from the Bantu Commissioners’ Courts. The Minister will know that the latter courts have unlimited jurisdiction in so far as the amount is concerned. That same court acts as a divorce court. Under this clause it is proposed to establish a High Court, which will not only replace the Native Appeal Court and the Divorce Court, but will also replace the Local Division of the Supreme Court, the Eastern Districts Local Division. It is proposed to establish this court by regulation, by proclamation. We object most strenuously to that. We say that if a new court is to be established, it should be done by Act of Parliament and not by regulation. We are authorizing the State President here to establish a court, and he will decide by regulation the persons over whom and the matters in relation to which that court will have jurisdiction. We are handing over power to establish this court for the Transkei, which can have all the powers of the Supreme Court over citizens and non-citizens of the Transkei. There will be nothing in terms of this clause to prevent the State President from giving that court unlimited jurisdiction, except with a right of appeal to the Appellate Division. Is it intended that this court will try criminal cases and replace the Eastern Districts Local Division, and perform the same functions as the Circuit Court, and that it will try serious criminal cases, or is the intention to keep the Eastern Districts Local Division functioning? Will this become a criminal as well as a civil court? We are opposed to this provision mainly because the court is being constituted by regulation, and this Parliament will have no say in the powers or jurisdiction of that court or the appointment or the remuneration or the tenure of office of the judges, and we do not know what type of judges will be appointed. Will they be senior magistrates or practising advocates? We think it is quite wrong that a court of this nature should be established by regulation.

I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to the important points raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). It is a most extraordinary thing to ask this House to give the Minister carte blanche to set up a High Court in the place of an existing Division of the Supreme Court, the Eastern Districts Local Division. As the hon. member has said, one is entitled to know at least what sort of Judges will sit on the Bench in this court. I notice that the court is to take over the functions of the Bantu Divorce Court and the Bantu Appeal Court. Now the Bantu Divorce Court has a president who is a Bantu commissioner, and in the Appeal Court the position is the same. Does the Minister intend, when he combines these functions into a Supreme Court, or High Court, for the Transkei, to take over the same sort of personnel that there was before in the Native Appeal Court and the Divorce Court? If so, I think it might bring about a rather interesting state of affairs in so far as the hierarchy of the rest of the courts is concerned. I think it is important that the Minister should give us an assurance as to what sort of jurisdiction this court will have, because the jurisdiction will be laid down by regulation. Will this court have jurisdiction over any White people in any matter, criminal or civil?

Another thing I should like to ask the Minister is what sort of rules of procedure will be prescribed, because the practice and procedure of the court is also to be prescribed by regulation. The existing position is that the Appellate Division is in control of all the courts in all the provinces inasmuch as its decisions are binding on all the other divisions. Will they be binding also on this High Court, and will the practice of this court be to obey the stare decisis rule, or not? In other words, will the Appellate Division continue to be the final judge of what the law is in the Transkei?

This matter raises another issue, as to whether or not the Minister has considered whether the Appellate Division is in fact a competent body to pronounce upon Native law and custom. The Supreme Court has often indicated that it is not able to do so. Native law and custom always has to be proved to it. The Native commissioners are steeped in this law, and it is true that appeals from them would go to the Supreme Court, but is the Appellate Division now to be called upon to lay down in respect of all these Bantustans a code of law relating to the Native law and custom which is to be binding upon them? I hope the Minister can give us some indication, and also why it is that he cannot put in this Bill the area of jurisdiction of this High Court, the matters in respect of which that court will have jurisdiction and the people over whom it will have jurisdiction. If the Minister feels he cannot go so far, why cannot he put in this clause exactly in what respects jurisdiction will be exercised over the White people in the Transkei? It is a most extraordinary thing, and I think the Minister owes the House an explanation as to why he asks us for power to set up this court but cannot tell us what sort of court it will be and what its jurisdiction will be, and its procedure. If the Minister is going to replace an already existing Supreme Court in that area, I assume that he will indicate, when he sets up this court, that the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court will continue to be applied; or is it his intention to rule that the practice and procedure obtaining in the Bantu Appeal Court or Divorce Court will apply? If so, this will be a completely different sort of court.

Nowhere since Union have we had an example in this country of a Supreme Court being established otherwise than by legislation. Indeed, even going back to colonial days, the establishment of the Supreme Court was considered to be sufficiently important to be done by Act of Parliament. After all, there is no body outside of this House which is as powerful as the Supreme Court. It is the only other body which has the power of life and death over the subject. Not only does the Supreme Court administer justice and decide disputes, but it also controls a large professional body, the practitioners who may practise within its doors. One would like to know who will be entitled to practise in this High Court, and from which body the Judges will be appointed, and of that calibre they will be, and where they will rank in the hierarchy of the Judiciary in South Africa. One would also like to know what its jurisdiction will be in regard to criminal and civil matters, and as it is apparently to take cognizance of Native law and custom an interesting point arises, because the Appellate Division has held that it may not take any cognizance of Native law and custom. It may take cognizance only of the Roman-Dutch law, the law of this country. Yet that body, under the Appellate Division, will apparently have to hear appeals from this High Court in the Transkei which may take into account Native law and custom. I have grave doubts as to whether the appellate Division, having been established by statute, and having held that it may not consider Native law and custom, can have those powers varied by mere regulations so as to entitle it to consider Native law and custom. In other words, I have grave doubt as to whether the regulations constituting the High Court of the Transkei will entitle the Appellate Division to reconsider its previous decision that it is not entitled to take any cognizance of Native law and customs, and one may have this conflict that the lower court is able to take into account that branch of the law which the Appellate Division has held that it may not take account of. The position is not clear. There is doubt on that aspect of the matter at least. It is one of the problems which arise when you try to establish a body of that importance and complexity by mere regulation. It seems to me that the establishment of a superior court is a matter of such far-reaching importance that a separate Bill should be introduced detailing with all these matters so that they may be subject to scrutiny and discussion before it becomes part of the law of the country. [Interjection.] Those are merely some of the difficulties that arise when one attempts to establish a court by regulation over part of the country, and when the powers which can be invoked in the regulation are set out in such a broad and general clause as this.

This is another excellent example of how hon. members opposite are trying to delay this legislation by sham arguments. Their first argument is that they want to know what type of court will be established; then they continue and emphasize the fact that it is undesirable to give wide and general powers to the Minister because we cannot imagine, according to them, what foreign court may emerge from these regulations. But just look how the Minister’s powers are defined. Clause 50 (2) provides—

The “status” definitely has to do with the jurisdiction of the court; “powers and jurisdiction” includes its own rules, but that is not all. As far as appeals are concerned we find another indication at the end of subsection (3) where provision is made for a right of appeal to the Appeal Court of the Republic and in respect of such an appeal it is provided that the rules of court applicable to an appeal from a decision of such a provincial or local division shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to any appeal from a decision of the said High Court. That is a second indication that this court which will be established by regulation will resemble as closely as possible a provincial or local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. That is first of all stated in definite terms and then on that assumption it is provided that the rules of court governing appeals applicable to existing provincial divisions shall mutatis mutandis apply to this court. In other words, this is a conclusive and clear indication that it is the intention of the Legislature that the regulations should create a court which resembles our provincial and local divisions and which will only be different from them in so far as it is necessary.

What jurisdiction will it have over the person?

I think that is a matter of policy in connection with which the hon. member should direct his question to the Minister and not to me. I am dealing with the general objections of hon. members in regard to the court. As far as the rules of court and the procedure are concerned, those rules of court are questions of regulation; it is not a question of legislation. The hon. member wanted to know who would be competent to appear before the court. That is not a matter for legislation alone; it is a matter of court rules and it will also be laid down by way of regulation.

Who makes the rules?

At the moment those rules are promulgated under the authority of the Minister of Justice through the State President.

Surely you agree that those rules are laid down by the Judges?

I am not discussing the question of who makes the rules; I am talking about the question of who promulgates them and gives them validity. That is the statement which I make here. In this case too, of course, the rules will not only be drawn up by Judges of this court but undoubtedly in consultation with the whole Bench of our country.

A further point has been made namely that an anomaly is being created in that our Appeal Court will have to apply Bantu law. Clause 50 (2) (b) reads—

It does not provide that the court itself should have knowledge of the Bantu law it applies; it does not in any way do away with the existing custom that evidence is led as to which Bantu law or custom applies in respect of a certain matter and that an appeal based on the Bantu law which comes within the knowledge of the court in that way can be lodged under this set up as in the past. This objection is just another instance of trying to make things difficult. Hon. members are seeing a stumbling-block in the road ahead because they do not want to follow that road. The State President is given power here to establish a High Court in the Transkei by way of regulation because the High Court of the Transkei must be a court which is adapted to the position as it exists in South Africa, but it must have an opportunity to adapt itself. The people under the Transkeian Government will constitute an influencing factor; the details will have to be worked out and they will have to be adapted to circumstances as the process of evolution takes place in the Transkei. This is another instance where expression is given to National policy; Parliament and the people outside get a picture of the situation; We start with a court which is exactly similar to a local division of the Supreme Court and it can gradually be adapted by way of regulation. I believe this is the only correct and reasonable approach to the creation of a Supreme Court in the Transkei.

One appreciates that the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has tried to answer these questions for the hon. the Minister because the Minister is not “’n regsgeleerde”. But I think the hon. member for Kempton Park seems to have forgotten that one of the questions that was asked from this side of the House was what sort of person this court would have jurisdiction over. The hon. member said that this was a matter of policy. Sir it is not a matter of policy; it is a matter of law. This is surely something which one is entitled to know before one can be asked to consider a clause such as this. This gives the Minister the power to set up a High Court of unlimited jurisdiction, a court which, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) said, will have the power of life and death over the people falling under its jurisdiction. Surely the hon. the Minister can say yes or no, that it will or will not have jurisdiction in respect of White people in any circumstances at all. The hon. member for Kempton Park ran away from the question. He said that it was a matter of policy. It is not. It is part of the constitution of such a court. It either has jurisdiction in respect of all people or it does not. The hon. member for Kempton Park says that the rest of it is just a matter of rules, a matter of detail. I do not agree. Take the question of procedure for example. What about civil procedure? Are the same rules of criminal procedure going to be followed as are followed in the Supreme Court in the Republic? I think this is a question on which we are entitled to have an answer. Take the question of evidence, for example. We have a Bill before the House at the moment relating to criminal procedure, amending an Act of ours which deals specifically with criminal procedure and evidence, an Act with about 350 odd sections. Are those rules going to apply in the Transkei? Are those going to be some of the rules to which this court are going to have regard, or is the hon. the Minister going to provide that it does not have to have regard to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1955? Sir, these are very important questions which I submit the hon. the Minister should answer before he can ask this committee to support a measure such as this.

The three hon. members who spoke on the other side once again asked the same questions and more or less saw the same bogies. An important aspect of the development of an area is, of course, the development of a court system. That is the reason we are giving such serious attention to this matter, not only as far as lower courts are concerned but higher courts as well. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine our coming to this House with a constitution without making provision in it for the establishment of a High Court in the Transkei? I think we would have made a laughing stock of ourselves in the eyes of the world, not even to mention how ridiculous we would have appeared in our own eyes. That is the normal course of development in any country in the world. Hon. members should therefore rather praise us for having been more far-sighted than they; for leading the Bantu of the Transkei along this road. Hon. members wanted to know why provision could not be made for this by way of special legislation. I replied to that question a moment ago. This forms an important part of our constitution; provision must be made in the constitution for the administration of justice. If we have to introduce legislation only at a later stage to provide for the establishment of a High Court we will have a lobsided constitution. I cannot understand how hon. members who are lawyers can object to our making provision in the constitution of the Transkei for the establishment of a High Court in the Transkei. Had we not done so, I think they would have had reason to criticize us. Surely the correct procedure is to make provision for that in the constitution itself. Hon. members have asked a number of questions. You can, of course, ask questions till to-morrow morning in connection with a matter such as this. Clause 50 was specifically drafted in great detail so that no legally trained man of repute can have any doubts as to what is envisaged in the legislation. There can be no doubt about that. In the first place what we have in mind is a court which will more or less have the same status as our provincial divisions. I do not think hon. members can have any doubt about that; it is stated clearly and specifically here. I cannot imagine how it can be stated clearer. At the same time it is provided that there shall be a right of appeal from this court to the appeal court. That, therefore, removes all doubts which hon. members may have had. An appeal can be lodged to the appeal court. If hon. members should perhaps think that we shall create an inferior court in the Transkei, this clause is the guarantee that the administration of justice will not take place on an inferior basis. This very clause is the guarantee that we are going to establish a court which in respect of both the procedure to be followed and its status, will more or less be the same as the provincial division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The question was also asked what jurisdiction this court would have. This court is being established for the Transkei and it goes without saying that it will adapt the Native Laws which operate there to the Roman-Dutch law which applies in South Africa. It has already become evident in other parts of Africa that Bantu law does not differ from English or French law to such an extent that it cannot be adapted. What has happened in other parts of Africa in this connection is really encouraging. A book was published recently—it is in our library—which gives a fine comparative review of how Bantu law has been adapted in other parts of Africa to the French, English and other legal systems. I am frequently asked whether it would also be necessary for a White person to go and give evidence in the Transkei, etc. I have already said that our approach is not to detract from the existing system. All these things will, of course, be laid down by way of regulation. It goes without saying that as far as it is reasonably possible in practice the existing system in South Africa, of which we are very proud, will not be upset adversely. There are the regulations which have to be formulated and there is this guarantee that they will be formulated by the State President, in other words, by the Minister concerned and the Cabinet. That is a guarantee to hon. members that nothing inferior will be created. But if that should happen hon. members always have the right in future to criticize the Government even in this House. The objection raised by hon. members in that regard, therefore, is really not a real one. I just want to give this assurance that this court will not be inferior.

Another question was what kind of person would be appointed to the Bench. I want to give the assurance immediately that they will not be stupid people.

Will they be judges or magistrates.

That is why I say this High Court will have the same status as our provincial divisions.

But will they be judges or magistrates?

It is difficult to say at this stage, but they will be experts; they will be people of the type appointed in our provincial divisions to-day. Hon. members are seeing ghosts. They know themselves that if there is one country where the administration is closely guarded it is here, in spite of all the suspicion which they are continually sowing overseas. I do not think there is another country, perhaps with the exception of England which guards its administration of justice as closely as South Africa and hon. members need not be worried therefore. I repeat that this clause was specifically drafted in great detail so that it will be clear to anybody who reads and analyses it that a court established on this basis, must of necessity be a good court. This court will have the necessary status and the persons appointed to it will be experts who will see to it that the pattern in the country in regard to White and non-White is followed also in that court. This court will be established to hear cases affecting Bantu in particular. Hon. members need not be concerned about this.

Clause 50 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 51,

This clause set out to establish a Transkeian Revenue Fund into which all moneys accruing to the Transkei Government shall be paid. It therefore sets out to vest financial control and authority in the Legislative Assembly which thus far has vested in this Parliament, or by direction of this Parliament, in the Cape Provincial Administration. This is therefore another instance where there is a diminution of sovereign authority so far as this Parliament is concerned and we on this side of the House will vote against the clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 52,

This clause is designed to define the source and origin from which the Transkeian Government is to derive its revenue. Let me say at the outset that it will indeed surprise me if in this case the hon. the Minister can also tell me that the Transkeian Representatives also asked for this complicated formula which is included in this clause of the Bill. It is indeed extremely complicated. A great statesman who is much admired throughout the world gave a description of Russia which I think is very applicable to this clause. Sir Winston Churchill has described that country as follows: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” I think that is a most apt description of the whole of this Bill, but particularly so in regard to this clause. As the clause stands it is most generously productive in words, but what of money? I doubt if the hon. the Minister can say how productive, in terms of money, this clause is going to be by the time it is implemented. If ever there was a case where this House should have before it a Fact Paper, not just a White Paper, this certainly is one, because we are simply being asked here to pass legislation completely blindly as to what the outcome is going to be. This clause is in fact the prime mover to generate the power for this new machinery of government which is being created. It stands to reason that without adequate money there can be no adequate administration. The Minister has, however, chosen to leave this House and everybody else completely ignorant as to what the flow of money is going to be and what the flow of power is going to be in terms of this clause. Where, for instance, is capital finance to come from? The clause is completely silent in regard to that. I think the Minister should indicate where capital finance is going to come from if this new territory is going to stimulate some form of production which will establish an economy not entirely dependent on the export of its labour.

I realize that I might be seeking enlightenment where none exists or where none is intended to emerge. This complicated clause holds within it the germ of conflict and hence it will certainly be the most fruitful source of doubt and uncertainty in the administration of the Transkei. It introduces a form of dualism in financial administration. The word “dualism” in that context is the problem of power between two constitutional authorities. The Minister will know where the conflicting authorities are as far as this Bill is concerned and between whom this conflict is going to arise. I realize, of course, that paragraph (1) (d) is going to be the sort of stranglehold over the one authority. It is for that very reason that this problem of dualism is going to emerge almost at once. Fifty-three years after the establishment of Union this Parliament is being presented with marked regularity with financial relations Bills. If that is the position after 53 years how soon will financial relations Bills have to come before the Transkeian Parliament to deal with financial provisions in this complicated form?

The hon. the Minister intends moving an amendment and I respect him for doing so because he will certainly be saving the officials many headaches. Under the clause as it stands it is virtually impossible for any official to provide a certificate as to the outcome of the financial aspects of this problem. I respect him for having removed that obligation from officials to do so. His amendment does away with this question of certification as to what is to emerge in the form of money under these complicated provisions. As I have said this is the clause which is the prime mover, the generator, in this new machinery of government. I think the Minister owes this House a careful and comprehensive explanation of the various matters which I have raised in so far as to what this financial provision is going to produce. I hope he will give the House that information.

I should like to refer to just one aspect of this clause namely sub-clause (1) (a) (ii) where provision is made for the income-tax of companies. It says here that it has to be paid by “any citizen or by any company which is recognized as a private company in terms of the relevant Act or Ordinance and is managed and controlled in the Transkei and in which Bantu persons have a controlling interest”. We have been told that no company can operate in the Transkei unless it is a purely Bantu company. Must we now assume that we are going to have the Transkei developed by White capital? It has been the policy of the Government, throughout, that White capital should not be invested there and that the whole of the Transkei must be developed by Bantu capital and Bantu technical skill. The question is, what is the definition of the type of company that will control a business in the Transkei? This is how it is defined in sub-clause (3) (a)

1. (a) shares of a value in excess of half the aggregate value of all the shares in the company; or
2. (b) shares entitling the holders thereof to more than half of its profits or assets; or
3. (c) shares entitling the holders thereof to a majority or preponderance of votes.

How can one define that, Sir? Any person who has any knowledge of companies knows that you cannot put your finger on the shareholder because the registered shareholder may be a nominee; it is often a bank. Supposing a White person goes to a bank, it may be a bank established in the Transkei or a bank with branches in the Transkei, and appoints that bank as his nominee? I think it is quite impossible to carry out this provision for the purpose of taxing private companies in the Transkei. How can you say, when it comes to company law, that you are going to separate the shareholders who are Black or Brown or White? Very often you cannot separate foreign shareholders who belong to another country. I think it will be impossible to put this into effect in the Transkei. I should like the Minister in his reply to tell us. Is the plan now to develop the Transkei with White capital or with White and Black capital together? A famous South African financier has told us that there is a method which they use in Malaya which he would like to apply in this country, a method of going into partnership with the people of the country. That is the method which the United Party is advocating. Now the hon. the Minister comes along with a Bill which seems to assume that. I should like him to tell us whether the Nationalist Party has now departed from its original policy.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has raised an important matter in connection with this clause. As usual he asked whether this was one of the suggestions which emanated from the Bantu. He tried once again to belittle the Bantu. The hon. member knows, and the Bantu admitted it themselves, that they still lack experience in this connection. This formula does not emanate from them although the broad principles were discussed with them. They themselves admitted that they could not draw up a formula in such a way that it would conform to modern financial requirements. We consequently approached experts in that sphere. We approached the Auditor-General and his staff in particular. There was very close cooperation with them in that respect. The hon. member has all sorts of difficulty and objections in connection with this matter. It is perhaps a sign of old age. The Auditor-General who died, Mr. van der Walt, was really the person who gave special attention to this matter because he was so very interested in it. This is to a great extent his personal creation. The present Attorney-General has, however, also given his personal attention to this matter and he drafted the amendment which I am going to move. The hon. member was quite right when he said this would save the officials a great deal of work. I can give a number of reasons why it will save the officials a great deal of work. We must remember that moneys will in future go to the Transkei which formerly went to the various Provincial Administrations. This is a complicated process which entails a great amount of work and even then you cannot say with certainty that everything is right. I have decided, therefore, to move an amendment because this amendment provides that the Minister of Finance shall determine, in consultation with the Auditor-General, what portion of the amount which was transferred to the Transkei from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, should be paid over to the Transkei. I think this is a very wise step and I am glad to see that the hon. member sees his way clear to accept that. The hon. member says correctly that it is a complicated clause. I agree, but fortunately we have people who can deal with complicated matters. I just want to give a short résumé of the moneys which will be transferred to the Transkei. I think it is perhaps necessary that I do so. In the first place the following will be transferred to the Revenue Fund of the Transkei—

1. (1) Ordinary personal tax payable by a Transkeian citizen.

In this connection I just want to add that this refers not only to the Transkeian citizen inside the Transkei, but also to the Transkeian citizen outside the Transkei. Here we are doing the Bantu a great favour, because one of the main grievances of the Bantu in the White areas is that he pays tax and that that money goes into the coffers of the White man. In this way that grievance will fall away. In future he will know what happens to the tax he pays; namely, that it is used to develop his own area. This has been a source of, I can almost say, racial hatred, and this clause does away with that. This is a very important policy principle.

Then you have the following taxation—

1. (2) The Native Taxation and Development Act No. 41 of 1925, which provides for a general tax of R3.50 Additional general taxation is based on income. The local tax of R1 payable in Native locations and tribal levies imposed in terms of Section 15.

The Native Trust and Land Act No. 18 of 1936 in terms whereof the payment of certain rentals and proceeds from the sale of certain products are prescribed. Proclamations No. 227. of 1898 and No. 241 of 1911 refer to the introduction of the quitrent system in certain districts of the Transkei.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), therefore, imagined the ghost which he saw when he spoke about companies, etc. It states clearly what a company is. I do not think the hon. member expects me to go into that. The reply here is much clearer than the reply which I can give him. I was not a teacher and I think the hon. member will agree that I cannot put it better than the way it is stated here. Then the following—

1. (3) All administrative revenue and fees and fines arising from matters administered by the Transkeian Government.
2. (4) An annual amount which will have to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and which will correspond with the amount which the Republican Government spends on the Transkei at the moment in respect of those matters which are being transferred to the Transkei.

In order to determine the correct amount the amount which is at present spent there must be taken into account. It is in this regard that my amendment comes into the picture; namely, that in future it will be done by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Auditor-General. I can assure hon. members that this matter has been very thoroughly considered. The principles were discussed thoroughly with the Territorial Authorities and they are happy about it. We ensure something basic here; namely, proper financial control. The Bantu welcome this. We will probably still have to give guidance to the Bantu in regard to financial matters for a long time. I can assure the Committee that this formula was drawn up in co-operation with the Auditor-General and the Minister of Finance and that it has been approved of by our best financial experts.

I accordingly move my amendment as follows—

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister firstly for admitting that this is a most complicated provision. I could see that it was a complicated provision without the big volume on which the Minister relied throughout his reply. I am also grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he gave us. But the question which I asked was what the clause was going to produce in the form of money, not in words. The Minister has not told us. He has given us, I won’t call it a rigmarole, a long list of matters which will be productive of money. If ever there was a case where we were entitled to a Fact Paper this is one because what are the facts; what is going to be produced in terms of money during one single year? If the hon. the Minister will look at that big book of his he may find it there but he certainly has not told us yet. If you are introducing legislation of this nature that is the first question on which the Minister should have satisfied himself. I hope therefore that when he gets up again he will tell us what those items are going to produce in the form of money in a single year according to this complicated formula which he has tried to explain to us.

May I ask a question? Did the Colonial Government of the Transvaal know in 1903 what the taxes for that year would yield?

I think the hon. member possibly has as much knowledge about that as I have. All I can say is that I am pretty certain they knew more about what it would be than what we know in this case. What I do know however is that in every other area in Africa where any Colonial State has become independent all its financial aspects had been worked out quite comprehensively and, I assume, with a great degree of accuracy. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) just begs the question and does not answer it.

The second thing which I asked the hon. the Minister was where the capital finance was going to come from under this arrangement. The clause itself makes no reference to that. Is it to come from outside the territory or from inside; is it to come from outside South Africa or from inside? No state can develop any form of economy without the outlay of money and the outlay of money of the size that will be required is usually in the form of some capital finance, not merely revenue finance. That was the reason for my question. I think this House is entitled to have information in regard to both the aspects which I have raised.

I quite understand that under sub-clause (1) (a) (iii) death duties can be assessed. I also understand that under sub-clause (1) (d) the Republican Government has complete control; they can give as much money as they think is necessary. They are in complete control; as we say in Afrikaans, “hulle het die hef in die hand”. The point I want to make is this: Will it be possible for White capital—I am speaking of private companies or even a public company—through White shareholders to be invested in the Transkei for the development of that territory?

What has that to do with the Bill?

Everything. The financial expert on my left has come to light and I hope he will get up and explain this to us. My second point is this: Will the Xhosa living in the Transkei be able to invest his money in the Republic? Will he be able to buy shares in a private company or in any other company to help to develop this part of the Republic? Can he be a shareholder either directly or through a nominee? I think that is a perfectly simple question. We have been told for years, especially by the hon. the Prime Minister, that White capital may not be invested in the Transkei. I now want to know whether it will be possible for White capital to come into a company with Black capital? Following upon that, if the capital has to be Black capital, can we have capital from other Black States? I think it is very necessary that we have an explanation of this. It is very important for the development of the Transkei to decide how capital is going to be organized. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth South (Mr. Plewman) has spoken about the Government Capital Account controlled in the Transkei which is something different; I am speaking about private capital invested through companies and I should like an explanation from the Minister.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has asked two questions. The first was what amount would be paid over to the Transkei in cash according to this formula. He wants to know the amount at this stage already. Well, he was an Auditor-General and if I were to give him the answer now I am sure he would laugh at me because it would be most irresponsible on my part to state at this stage what amount would be paid over to the Transkei. This amount will have to be calculated when the time arrives to do so. It will have to be calculated properly. I want to assure the Transkei, however, and everybody interested in this, that it will not be less than the amount which is spent to-day on the development of the Transkei in every respect. As a matter of fact, I personally think it will be more. It is somewhat unreasonable on the part of the hon. member, therefore, to ask me to give the amount at this stage already. If the hon. member would only exercise a little patience he will see the amount which will be given to the Transkei in black and white one of these days.

The hon. member asked me another question. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) also raised it, namely, what was the position in regard to capital finance in the Transkei. Will White capital be allowed and will Whites be allowed to form companies there. Our policy, as far as this is concerned, has so often been explained that I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the reply. Our policy is to encourage the Bantu in the Transkei to undertake their own development and our policy is to preserve the wealth of the Transkei and to develop it for the Bantu of the Transkei and not to allow the wolves into the Transkei.

Who are they?

Those people who only look around to see where they can make money to fill their own pockets. We shall not allow them in the Transkei. Those are matters, however, which will be sorted out in future in close co-operation with the Bantu of the Transkei. The broad principles of our policy have been clearly explained in the past and hon. members need have no doubts about that.

I have no desire to delay the proceedings, but I think it would be an excellent thing if the hon. Minister could have some assistance from his colleagues in the Cabinet. I think the hon. Minister of Finance should be available in this debate. It is now expected from the Minister of Bantu Administration to cover the whole field of government, and I think that is not quite fair to him. I think we should have other Ministers here to reply to our questions.

I think the hon. the Minister has still left the House very much in doubt as to how the economy of the Transkei is going to develop sufficiently to absorb the obvious deficit which will have to be met year by year in the Budget of the Transkei. One of the main concerns at all times in regard to the Government’s policy of Bantustans has been: Where will sufficient finance come from to enable the Transkei to function as a self-governing state, or a sovereign state, with an economy which it will develop sufficiently to meet the demands of a state of that nature. The hon. the Minister gives us a rosy picture of a wonderful future because of the great wealth of the Transkei, and he says that with patience and tolerance all this great wealth will eventually evolve and the Transkei will itself be able to provide the funds that are required. But he says his great objective is to prevent the wolves from coming into the Transkei. He does not want capital to come in to the Transkei to develop its economy for fear that those who invest that capital, particularly if they are White people, will try to fill their pockets yearly with profits. Can the hon. Minister tell us how any economy does develop without the investments giving profits to those who invest? If the hon. Minister is looking for a socialist state where the state will provide the capital and where the state will have complete control over all economic development, and where there will be no private enterprise at all, he should …

Order! I do not think that point is under discussion. The hon. member is discussing the economy of the Transkei now.

That is right, Sir, and I want to refer you to Clause 52 (1) (d), which says that the Republic of South Africa must provide such additional moneys as are necessary to meet any deficit in the budget of the Transkei.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this discussion has nothing to do with the clause.

Order! This is not a point of order. I am dealing with the same point at the moment.

Sir, I am obeying your ruling with the utmost regard. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is to be much more explicit than he has been and say clearly to this House that, until the Transkei’s own economy is able to provide the moneys necessary to run its administration, the funds of the Republic of South Africa will be burdened until such time as they can develop their economy to meet their deficits. Is that what the hon. Minister wants the House to know? Because the world, and even the self-governing state-to-be, wish to know how the moneys will be found in order to maintain their administration. The Transkei itself wants to know, for instance, how it will be able to find the money necessary, the necessary investment money, in order to bring about a return from the economy to meet the expenditure of the state, in the form of taxation, in the form of levies. …

Order! That point is not under discussion. The hon. member is now trying to point out where the money must be found, but that is not under discussion now.

May I read the clause in order to satisfy the House on the point—

(d) such an additional sum of money as may be appropriated by Parliament for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Transkeian Revenue Fund for the due performances of the services and duties assigned to the Government of the Transkei in terms of this Act.

I want to know from the hon. Minister for how long is this additional sum of money to be found by this particular Parliament and by our Consolidated Revenue Fund. Surely, Sir, that is relevant.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that under this clause.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) was quite out of order.

That is a reflection upon the Chair.

I ruled him out of order.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) asked a question in connection with companies, and now I should like to say that I am convinced that the hon. member is more realistic and practical than the impression he created here. Where you have those companies in Bantu homelands, all of us know that when a company is established it is established with the underlying idea that more capital will be collected from different persons, because there is not a single person who is so strong financially to be able to run such a business, and where the non-Whites in their homeland are not so well provided with capital, they will all have to be brought together in one or more companies to take over the existing businesses or to establish new ones.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the economy of the Transkei.

No, Mr. Chairman, I merely wished to explain that under sub-section (3) reference is made to “controlling interest” in a private company, and it is provided there what the relationship should be in regard to shares. Under that sub-section we shall find that the Bantu in his homeland will have the majority of the shares. Such a company will be established, inter alia, to take over some of the existing businesses, and some of the present businessmen in the Transkei may retain a minority interest in this company. For a year or two or three you may still give such persons an interest in that company, so that the transfer will take place gradually. We may also have the position that the Bantu Investment Corporation will advance funds to such Bantu companies, and that they will hold a minority interest in order thereby to enable, inspire and encourage those Bantu to build up a proper business there. Surely it is obvious that it will be for a very short while only. Therefore the hon. member ought to realize very clearly that this is only for the immediate future, and thereafter only the Bantu shareholders will have an interest in it.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) asked the Minister whether the definition of “private company” permitted White capital to be invested in the Transkei. The clause is quite clear. It refers in 52 (1) (a) (ii) to “any company which is recognized as a private company in terms of the relevant Act or ordinance and is managed and controlled in the Transkei and in which Bantu persons have a controlling interest”. Then we go to 52 (3) where “controlling interest” is defined, and it says—

1. (a) shares of a value in excess of half the aggregate value of all the shares in the company.

Well, somebody will own the balance of the shares. If the Bantu hold more than one-half somebody will have to hold the balance. What we are trying to find out is: Can White capital join with the Bantu in developing the Transkei when private companies are controlled in the manner set out in 52 (3), which I read—

1. (a) shares of a value in excess of half the aggregate value of all the shares in the company; or
2. (b) shares entitling the holders thereof to more than half of its profits or assets; or
3. (c) shares entitling the holders thereof to a majority of preponderance of votes.

In each case there is a “majority”. There remains a minority. May the minority be White or not? That is what we are trying to find out. If they cannot be, then this subsection is completely redundant.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit to you that Clause 52 (c) deals with the annual grant to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that requires to be examined at this stage and in this Committee in the first place, rather than the economy of the Transkei. I accept your ruling, Sir; but, Sir, your knowledge of economics will confirm that in considering the nature and the extent of this annual grant, in trying to fix some sort of perspective in this matter, one should be able to examine it. If you agree, Sir, I wish to put it to you that in order to try and get some idea of what this Consolidated Revenue Fund will have to pay to the Transkei, of necessity you will have to examine those opportunities for the generation of the economy in the Transkei itself.

That is not under discussion. The amount which has to be paid is not under discussion.

Sir, but the principle of an annual grant itself, referred to in this clause, is what I wish to discuss, I do not presume to be able to discuss the actual amount, for it would be impossible for me to make an estimate, but the very fact that it is required of the Committee to approve of an annual grant to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on certain conditions, in the nature of things obliges one to touch on the opportunity or lack of opportunity of the Transkei itself to, shall I say, relieve this Consolidated Revenue Fund of the annual grant.

That is not under discussion.,

May I ask you a question, Sir?

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I accept your ruling. Sir.

Then the hon. member must discuss the clause or resume his seat.

In discussing this clause, I want to ask whether we can discuss the principle of an annual grant in the first place?

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling and confine himself to the clause.

Then I can only say that it was foreseen at the time that this legislation was introduced that an annual grant from the Consolidated Revenue Fund would not be paid for all time, that the time would arrive when this territory would not have to require the taxpayer of South Africa to contribute through the Consolidated Revenue Fund to its requirements. Since that is an assumption which I think it is fair to make, at some stage it was envisaged that the Consolidated Revenue Fund would be relieved of any burden in regard to making a grant to the Transkei. It was that assumption that led the Government to believe that either the Transkei was immediately to become viable of itself, or that that would eventuate in the foreseeable future. One of the two must be correct. I am not discussing in detail the economy of the Transkei. I hope the hon. Minister will deal with this point— that in the consideration of the entire scheme for the setting up of this Transkei Legislature and all that is entailed as set out in this Bill, it must have been assumed that at some stage or another there would have to be a halt called as far as any contribution from any fund of the Republic of South Africa towards those people is concerned, because I do not assume that the Government intended to create a permanent poor relation of the Republic of South Africa in the form of the Transkei. If that is the position, then the only point I have got to canvass with the Minister is this: Will he say to this House e.g. that in his opinion, within a certain period of years it will not be necessary for us to worry about this clause which does worry us now?

Order! That is not under discussion at all.

I am not going to be more demanding on the hon. Minister, nor am I going to ask him to deal with the complicated arithmetic which arises from the clause itself. I want to come to quite a simple bit of arithmetic. The hon. Minister admitted that I put two questions to him, but he only answered one, and what I rise for now is to ask the hon. the Minister to answer the second question that I put to him, which was: Where is capital finance to come from? I am now talking about Government finance and not private finance. Where is capital finance to come from? The clause itself makes no provision for it, but surely the hon. the Minister and his advisers must have given consideration to this.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 59,

This clause gives powers to the State President by proclamation to direct that any public property or land which vests in the Government of the Republic or the Provincial Administration of the Cape or the South African Native Trust will vest in the Government of the Transkei, and in terms of this clause the transfer takes place, or can take place, without any compensation, or without any payment by the Transkeian Government. In regard to the property belonging to the Government, or the South African Native Trust, the Government of course is giving its own property away. With regard to property belonging to the Provincial Administration, I should like to know from the hon. Minister whether the Provincial Council was consulted and whether the approval of the Provincial Council has been given, or the approval of the people of the Cape Province to this power which is now taken by the State President to give away property belonging to the province? Sir, in the Transkei you have the schools belonging to the province, you have libraries, and you have provincial road properties, and hospitals, and these properties have been acquired and the buildings erected thereon at considerable expense and cost to the taxpayers in the province of the Cape. With the giving away of those properties in the urban areas another important question arises: Will this property fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of the Transkei? You see, Sir, if the property is transferred to the Government of the Transkei, I suppose the implication is, as was said by one of the officials in addressing the Territorial Authority, that the property will fall under the jurisdiction of the Transkei. But when we discussed Clause 2, which lays down the boundaries of the Transkei, the Minister made it quite clear, and so did members on his side, that the only property which will fall under the jurisdiction of the Transkei were the properties set out in Clause 2, namely the properties in the nine regional areas of the Transkei which form the area over which the Transkeian Government will have jurisdiction. Our fears in regard to the extension of the boundaries of the Transkei were allayed by the hon. Minister in referring to Clause 3, which provides that the boundaries can only be extended by the President on a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Assembly. But in terms of Clause 59 if the State President is now to give away provincial property and other Government properties which at present do not fall in the area covered by Clause 2, then it will mean that the boundaries are going to be extended without any reference to this Parliament. I can find no provision in this clause, or in Clause 60, for such extension of the boundaries for the placing of this property under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Authority, but the official, as I was saying, addressing the Authority said that by implication the land would come under the new Authority. I suppose that that is what is intended, because the Government would hardly have the new government owning property in the Transkei proper without giving it jurisdiction over that property, and before we continue our discussion of this clause, I hope the hon. Minister will tell us exactly what is intended and who will have jurisdiction over this property once it has been transferred.

Before the adjournment the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) was dealing with Clause 59, and particularly in regard to certain lands which are now to vest in the Government of the Transkei but only after a proclamation by the State President. I want to take that matter a little further. It is not only lands, but other public property. The hon. member referred to assets such as buildings which might be deemed to be fixed to the soil, but other public property is not limited to fixed assets or landed property; it may be movable as well. The first point I wish to put to the Minister is whether that is intentional, and what are the other public properties which will so vest, because the question of compensation does not come into the picture anywhere. I think it would be welcomed if the Minister would advise us, in so far as movables are concerned, what public properties are contemplated and which might belong e.g. to the Provincial Administration. The Government of the Republic obviously can give away what it likes.

The second point I wish to make is this. I would ask the Minister whether when this landed property vests in the new Government of the Transkei, does that involve the dominium of the soil? Presumably it does, because if it vests in that manner it means presumably that the dominium which now vests in the Government of the Republic will vest in the Transkei Government. But land is not one of the matters in regard to which the Legislative Assembly there can legislate. I therefore do not understand how land in the Transkei can vest in the new Government when it is not permitted by par. (10) of the Schedule to deal with such land. Perhaps the Minister would explain the position. There are obviously certain matters in regard to land which will have to be dealt with by the new Government, and the failure to have it in the Schedule seems to be a contradiction which is rather difficult to appreciate.

Clause 59 is really an empowering clause. It says that the State President may do certain things by proclamation. I have been asked what the real object of this is. One of the important objects is that Trust lands in due course, when the State President considers it necessary, will be transferred to the Transkei Government by proclamation. It is self-evident that they will receive the dominium over such lands, and will be able to pass laws in respect thereof.

Does it say that?

That is the principle. It is a promise that has always been made. Hon. members will recall that when the 1936 Act was passed, the promise was made that this land will be acquired for the Bantu. Therefore nothing is being done here that is really in conflict with the principle of that Act. It is merely that the land will now be transferred to that Government, and therefore there is no contrast really.

Now I come to the other problem put by the hon. member, and that is what the position will be in regard to provincial property. I want to say at once that at this stage there is no intention as yet to have provincial property as such transferred to the Transkei. It is possible that something of this nature may happen in the future, but it is obvious that the requisite steps will then have to be taken. Take the case of hospitals. That is one of the things the Bantu themselves realize and they said they did not see their way clear to taking these over now. It may be a long time before they will be able to do so. Therefore I do not see that in the near future hospitals may be transferred to them. What may possibly happen is that they will be charged with the maintenance of certain roads, which the province might welcome. But at the moment the transfer of provincial property to them is not being contemplated. I repeat it is mainly an empowering clause, so that these things may possibly happen in the future without it being necessary to come to Parliament to seek authority for it.

Now the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has asked how it affects the borders of the Transkei. They are actually not affected much. As regards Native Trust land, that is part of the Transkei. So there will be no change in that respect, but there may possibly be small pieces of land, such as the land upon which a hospital is built, in the Bantu area, which belongs to the province. I am not aware of such an instance at the moment, but it is possible that something of this nature may happen. But it will be very little, and it will not affect the position much. I repeat that it is mainly an empowering clause.

The Minister has referred to Trust land being taken over by the Transkei and he said it would fall under the jurisdiction of the new Parliament. He said it would not increase the boundaries of the Transkei, but, of course, although it does not extend the boundaries externally it does extend them internally. I may just mention the farms round about Umtata, for instance. If those farms are taken over they will fall within the jurisdiction of the new Government. I do not think the provisions in this Bill allow even the released areas to be added to the Transkei without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If one reads Clause 2, which fixes the boundaries in terms of the regional authorities, and Clause 3, to add to those boundaries, you have to have the consent of both Houses of Parliament. In Butterworth, e.g., there are some farms in the released areas. I submit that for those farms to be added to the area of jurisdiction of the new Government it should be necessary to get a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But let us leave out the released areas. I do not wish to split hairs about the released areas. I am taking Umtata itself as the best example. The Minister has quite rightly mentioned that hospitals are not likely to be transferred at this stage, at any rate, because they are not being taken over by the Transkeian Government yet, and by the time they are transferred there will have been negotiations with the Provincial Authorities. The same applies to schools. The White schools are not likely to be handed over just yet. But the Minister mentioned roads. In terms of Schedule A the new Government will take over provincial roads. I do not wish to deal with Schedule A in detail now. I shall deal with the policy of handing over the roads later. I am just mentioning that in terms of the schedule they will take over provincial roads. The Minister must know that there is a big provincial roads depot in Umtata, in the centre of the town. If the Transkeian Government is going to take over the roads, surely it will want the equipment and the ground and the buildings in which the workshops are situated. But a better example than roads is the Bunga building itself. It is right in the centre of Umtata, and the officials assured the Territorial Authority that that building would be its own, for Bantu occupation. Now if that Bunga building is zoned for Bantu occupation, it will be taken out of the Municipality. If it then becomes Bantu-owned property, will that property come under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government or not? [Interjection.] What I want to ask the Minister is this: These provincial properties which are transferred to the Transkeian Government — will the mere fact of transferring ownership to the Transkeian Government place those properties under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government? Because I contend that in terms of Clause 2 it cannot be done without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But the Minister says that Trust land can be transferred to the new Government, and I contend that in terms of this Bill that cannot happen either without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Does the Minister intend coming to Parliament for a resolution of both Houses before any of these properties which are transferred to the new Government fall under the jurisdiction of that Government? Again, I want to ask the Minister: Has he consulted the provincial authorities with, regard to the transfer of property? Admittedly hospitals will not be handed over yet Schools will come later, but there are other properties which will go at once, and I mention this road camp. Has the Minister consulted with the province with regard to the transfer of these properties, and will the province hand them over without any compensation at all?

Before the Minister replies, I should like to tell him that this clause contains a principle to which this side of the House is completely opposed. It is the principle that an area or land or property of the Republic will be applied—will be purchased or given to a territory which, as the Minister admits, will ultimately be sovereign. This side of the House is not prepared to give away any land belonging to the Republic.

You only want to give away the whole country.

We are not prepared to give away land to a territory which we know by the admission of the Minister, will become independent. According to the 1936 Act, we all agreed to purchase land for these people. That is correct. We supported it. It was part of the legislation of the United Party Government. But there was never any question of that land eventually being given away or the Republic being dispossessed of it. Under the 1936 Act all of us understood that land would be bought, but as an integral part of the Union of South Africa. As far as we on this side are concerned, millions of morgen may be purchased as long as that territory remains an integral part of the Republic. If that does not happen, we cannot support it, for then it is in conflict with the principles of this party. We believe in the preservation of the Republic and its borders as we have them to-day.

Something has now come to the notice of this Committee very prominently. The hon. member has pointed out the great conflict between us. He and his party wanted the Bantu to acquire land in the very heart of the White areas, over and above the land acquired under the 1936 Act for occupation by the Bantu.

Where is that stated in the clause?

It is not in the clause, but it is your policy. As recently as yesterday the Leader of the Opposition pleaded for the land-owning middle class Bantu on the Reef. Where is that stated in the clause?

Order The hon. member must return to the clause.

The hon. member says they do not want to give away land belonging to the Republic, but he is prepared, if possible, to hand over to Bantu ownership every inch of land in the Republic.

Where do you get that?

Surely elementary logic tells one that if you want to give the Bantu ownership of land in the industrial areas, you make it possible for them to buy every inch of land in South Africa. Where is the basis of segregation of 1936 then? Then the entire basis of segregation falls to pieces.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that this clause merely refers to land within the Transkei, and not in the Republic.

Yes, but the hon. member has said that no land of the Republic should be given away.

Is the Transkei not within the Republic?

Order! The hon. member is quite out of order. He should now discuss land within the Transkei.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) raised an objection in principle, that here land in the Transkei will be disposed of to the Bantu, and he based it on the fact that in terms of its policy the party does not wish any land to be transferred to the Bantu in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I cannot hear myself. I say the attack made by the hon. member is of such a nature that he tried to build up a forum for himself, so that he can go around the country and tell the story that, in terms of this clause, we are giving away pieces of land belonging to the Republic, and here there is no question of giving it away. It will be land that in any event will have had to be given to them in the process of consolidation under the 1936 Act. But the hon. member will not see it in that light. He wants to tell the country that in consequence of this clause, we are giving away land left and right. I say that is a misrepresentation and a distortion of the history underlying this clause. It is not a question of giving away land, but of exchange.

Is it exchange?

What is wrong with exchange as long as you do it within the limits of the 1936 Act? Or do the hon. members not wish to make any change at all in regard to the released areas? Then I challenge them. They are always asking us where the boundaries are, but will they be prepared to say that they confine themselves to the tentative borders indicated for the released areas? But we shall not receive a reply because they are always speaking with two, ten or 12 voices. No, the hon. member who is now assuming the leadership of the United Party will aggravate the confusion in the party. But the hon. member will learn still, He and the hon. member for Drakensberg think they can go to the country and say that we are now fragmentizing the Republic.

Hear, hear!

There has never been greater applause for an untruth than now, but the hon. gentlemen will not succeed in putting this matter to the people in such a distorted manner. [Time limit.]

The Minister, in dealing with the dominium of the soil, said that I was right in my assumption that in terms of this clause the dominium of the soil would pass to the Government of the Transkei from the Government of the Republic or the Native Trust or the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of such properties as it may own. I may say that the Provincial Administration does not own the dominium of the soil of its own property in the records of the Registrar of Deeds. All land owned by the Province is held in the name of the Minister of Lands, so that this really covers that point. Then the Minister said that it followed naturally that the Government of the Transkei could dispose of that land. When I looked at Part B of the First Schedule and saw in Item 9 that the Transkei Parliament would have power to pass laws in regard to land settlement, the registration of deeds, and surveys in the Transkei, I was not sure that it followed that they could in fact sell the land. The Minister has cleared up that point by saying yes, it followed from the fact that the land vests in the new Government. May I then put this to the Minister. Is it clear, then, that the Government of the Transkei will have the right to sell that land to certain people who qualify for it? Clause 37 prohibits this Parliament from interfering in their laws, and if what the Minister says is true, that they have the right to sell the land, we cannot interfere with their jurisdiction in these matters. I would like the Minister to make that quite clear, that under Clause 37 they have the unfettered right to legislate in regard to these matters and to sell this land.

The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) is now answering his own question, and attributing words to me which I did not use. I did not say here that the legislative assembly of the Transkei has the right to go and sell this land. What I said is this: That the full right to and control over the land as acquired by the Native Trust will be transferred to the Transkei in terms of the promise made by this Government, and the Transkei will then control it.

Not only control, but they will have dominium over it.

The hon. member knows as well as I do what that means, namely that this land has been acquired for the benefit of the Bantu people of the Transkei, and the Legislative Assembly now gains control of it. It is virtually ownership that passes to them. They will see to it that that land is controlled in the interests of the Bantu people of the Transkei. But they have no right to go and sell a part of the Transkei to someone outside or something of that nature. Where does the hon. member get the right to make such statements here?

Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether it will be possible for the Government of the Transkei to alienate some of this land to individuals, i.e. to pass ownership in respect thereof to subjects of the Transkei or to pass ownership to a tribe? In other words, a right such as that the Minister of Lands has under our Land Settlement Act.

The fact of the matter is that the Government of the Transkei will have the right to alienate certain land for public purposes in the interests of the inhabitants of the Transkei. Indeed, every government has such a right. They then also have that right, but it must be in the interests of the people of the Transkei. Suppose they wish to erect a building at a certain place, for which they will require land. Suppose it is in the interests of the people of the Transkei that such a building should be erected. In that case they will have the right to do so. That is obvious. You cannot deny them the right to erect a public building or a school. That is an inherent right they possess. However, they do not have the right to sell land to somebody outside. Nobody will permit that.

Where is there such a provision?

It is the normal thing. Do not let us be childish, but let us at least be reasonable. Does the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) really suggest now that he holds the view that we should now insert a provision here to the effect that the government of the Transkei shall be debarred from alienating any land in the interests of the people of the Transkei? Must we insert I a clause here that this government then will have no right to sell any land to anybody outside? Surely that is ridiculous. It is obvious that such a thing cannot be done. It will not be done; no government will permit it. One can understand what a furore there will be in the Transkei if the Government were to be so foolish as to do something like that. But that is not the kind of thing you will go and put into the constitution. Surely it is ridiculous. Let us be reasonable in this matter. The hon. member for South Coast has asked a fair question in regard to certain properties that could possibly be transferred by the province—I do not say “will be”. I want to give an assurance that in that case the province will be consulted very fully. The hon. member for South Coast has asked me another question, namely whether there will be compensation. It is obvious that there shall be compensation. Surely we cannot expect that everything will just be given as a present. The hon. member mentioned the example of the implements of the provincial administration at Umtata. He wanted to know whether those implements would also be handed over. Surely it is self-evident that we could not even expect that. If the province were to decide to hand over those implements to the legislative assembly of the Transkei, they would be only too grateful. But there is nothing in this clause that implies that it will be compulsory for the provincial council to hand over those implements. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that there is a building in the White area in which these implements are being stored. Suppose the province wishes to give it to the government of the Transkei as a present, surely then it is a matter that has to be considered. Consideration must be given to its situation etc. These are matters that will have to be considered. But there is no obligation upon the province under this clause, to transfer those premises to the Transkei.

On the State President, and not on the provincial administration.

Here the State President must take the provincial administration into consideration. Surely that is self-evident. At the outset I said also that where such cases may occur—I do not anticipate that such cases will suddenly occur in the near future—the interests of the provincial administration will have to be taken into consideration fully. In fact, that is the normal way of doing things. I do not think I can make it clearer. To say that by implication it means that we are just simply going to hand over everything to the Government of the Transkei, and that when we open our eyes tomorrow, the legislative assembly will have sold the entire Transkei to Russia, surely is ridiculous. And yet that is the implication seen in this by the hon. member for South Coast.

You then sell our territory to the Transkei?

Now look here, let us at least be reasonable in this matter. That is not a reasonable proposition. To ask that such a provision be inserted in the constitution, is simply to make yourself look ridiculous. It need not be done.

What about the Bunga?

The Bunga is a different matter. That building has been erected in the Transkei. We therefore have to consider the possibility of zoning it in such a way that they will still have the use of it, but in the same manner as to-day. There is very little difference. They have the full use of it and there is nothing in that which is offensive to the Whites or anything of that nature. That is a matter that can be arranged in consultation with them.

The hon. the Minister does not seem to understand that as far as we are concerned, crown lands are sacred; our State lands are sacred to us and if any Government wants to dispose of or do any work on such lands, this Parliament contests it with seriousness. Does the Minister imagine that these Transkei Natives will regard this land in the same light as we do? It is slander when we give property to our children; we do not expect them to guard and protect that property in the way their parents have done. It hurts us when realizing that we are handing over control of land to people who are poorly qualified for that responsibility.

I am sorry to see that hon. members from this side of the House have to drag information out of the Minister. Why does the Minister not inform the House that all the agricultural farms, all the agricultural implements, all the buildings, cattle etc. will be transferred to Transkeian control. We might as well say it so that the public can be informed. You are not ashamed of your policy are you? The Minister is so guarded that to me it appears that he is ashamed of his policy. We do not like it and that is why we are fighting for this crown land to remain the property of our Government. The Minister is not open. We have been busy all day long dragging information out of the Minister. His legislation covers a wide subject. Let the Minister say that the Government is not only giving away more crown land, but also all Government property in the Transkei; we are handing over these possessions as a present Tell us that; the hon. the Minister should inform the country. Otherwise, we are satisfied that the Government is not happy with regards to the policy it is carrying out to-day. It has now come to a stage where it realizes it has reached a position of no return. We can see fear on the faces in the Government benches in regard to what they are now doing.

Really, hon. members opposite should also be a little bit reasonable. If the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and the hon. member for Albany would only show reasonableness towards themselves and towards the hon. the Minister by merely reading Clause 59 (1) and (2) properly, they will see that safeguards are possible for their supposed fears. Further to what the hon. the Minister has just said, I should like to say that in Clause 59 (1) it is expressly provided that the State President may by proclamation make possible the transfer—

The Minister and the Trust will in due course decide about this when advice thereanent has to be tendered to the State President. With reference to these conditions that may be determined in the proclamation in respect of such transfer, let us read what is provided in sub-section (2). After this has happened, what then? Then—

Are the conditions of that proclamation then not lawfully applicable to it? We know very well, and the hon. the Minister has also said so, that hon. members opposite construe this matter of land ownership as it suits them. The hon. member for Albany has confirmed that. They want to go and cause a political outcry with it outside. If they would only read carefully what is provided here, they would be completely reassured that the land to be transferred ought to be dealt with sensibly. The other questions put by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories really relate to Clause 60, in other words, to the zoning system.

We are now more surprised than ever before. For the record I should like to read exactly what is written here, and I wish to do so because the hon. the Deputy Minister has omitted a certain word. Here it says—

He can give an order: he may issue an instruction. We know the State President acts on the advice of his Ministers, the Executive Council. My hon. friend says that of course they will negotiate with public bodies such as the provincial administrations. But why does he not say in this Bill that he will do so? Why does he not say here that compensation will be paid to these people? One of my hon. friends opposite—I think it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp—said that we are dealing here with Trust land belonging to the Government. But it does not belong to the Government as such; it belongs to the people of South Africa. No government has the right to give away the land of South Africa.

But let us proceed. My hon. friend also says that in fact there will be compensation. But again I ask why does he not say so in his Bill? In sub-section (2) it is provided—

That is to say, without the payment of transfer duty or stamp duties. Why does he say that here, but in sub-section (1) he does not mention it? Why is that so?

My further point is this. Of course I cannot reply to my hon. friend for Krugersdorp, because he was out of order. All I can say to him is that the Transkei is still part of the Republic of South Africa this evening—I do not know about to-morrow. And if it were to depend on this side, it will remain a part of the Republic for ever. But now the hon. the Minister gives us an evasive reply when we ask him whether the new Government, the Transkeian Government, will be able to acquire ownership of that land, and whether it will be able to alienate that land. Can they obtain title to that land? In terms of sub-section (3) it is as clear and plain as daylight, is it not? It reads as follows—

Now I should like to call my hon. friend, the hon. the Deputy Minister as a witness.

Do you admit that these Native Trust lands are being held in trust for the Natives; that the Government is the trustee of those lands, and is now merely transferring them to the Government of the Transkei? What is wrong with that?

I am glad the Chief Whip is asking me that question. What is wrong with that is, firstly, that he is so worried already that he is now asking me this question, and secondly, that this Government is out to give away this land—to give this trust to people who will ultimately be independent. In any event, we have asked the hon. the Minister whether the Government of the Transkei will now be able to sell that land; can they expropriate it? The Minister has given an evasive reply to that, and I should now like to call the hon. the Deputy Minister as my witness.

We were discussing legislation in regard to Alexandra the other day. He then said that the Natives who are removed from that township, will acquire ownership in this area …

In the homelands.

It is immaterial whether it is the homelands or whatever it may be. He said the Natives will acquire ownership. Do not let us conceal it, as the hon. member for Albany has said. Come let us tell the people candidly what we intend doing, namely that under this clause we are going to give away land to a state that has self-government, and which will become independent some day, as this Government itself has admitted. They are giving away our territory, the Republic’s land, the land for which your forefathers and my forefathers fought and suffered. That is what this Government is doing under this clause. This side cannot support that, and we will not support that. I shall most certainly go and tell the people outside. Hon. members opposite need not be afraid that we will not do so. We will do so. We shall tell the electorate that this Government is expropriating the land of South Africa, and giving it away and fragmentizing it.

I wish to deal for a moment with what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said here. H’s objection new is that we are handing over these trust lands to the Transkeian legislative assembly— an assembly that represents the people of the Transkei. I merely wish to say that it is laid down in the Act of 1936, as the great principle, that those lands that are acquired for the Transkei, are acquired for the people of the Transkei.

But as part of the Union of South Africa.

It is a principle laid down in that Act. Any plea from that side that we should not give effect to that principle is immoral in my view. It is absolutely immoral in our view, and we shall never associate ourselves with that. The hon. member may say what he pleases, but the Transkei is still part of the Republic of South Africa to-day. That land of the Transkei is being held in trust for the people of the Transkei. It is my view that it will always be held in trust by the legislative assembly of the Transkei for the people of the Transkei. No government of the Transkei will dare to sell parts of the Transkei haphazardly as hon. members are suggesting. Any plea that we should not hand over the land so that the government of the Transkei may preserve it in trust for the people, is immoral in our view. We cannot associate ourselves with that. If it does that, it will have committed treachery against the Bantu people of South Africa. If that is the viewpoint that they may never handle their land in their own area, if it is the viewpoint that the Transkeian legislative assembly may never have control over those lands, then the White man has made himself guilty of the greatest breach of promise imaginable. This side will never be party to such a thing. It is our moral duty to hand over the land to those people.

The further we go with this clause, the more curious the situation becomes. Here we have to deal with a clause which provides for the transfer from the Government of the Republic to the Government of the Transkei of certain land. To what is this land to be transferred? When we look at Clause 2 of the Bill we find that the area of the Transkei is defined in a very unusual way. It is not defined by reference to any boundaries—because those boundaries are flexible—but it is defined by reference to the authority which has power over a certain tract of land which is undefined: the Pingo Regional Authority area, or the Pondo Regional Authority area, or other authorities of that kind. It is to one or other of those Regional Authority areas that these pieces of land referred to in Clause 59 will be transferred—in other words, any land transferred from the Government or the provincial council in terms of this clause, will have to be fitted into the area of jurisdiction of a Regional Authority in the Transkei. There is no other entity in the clause to which it can be transferred.

It will be transferred to the Government of the Transkei.

Let us have a look at the proviso to Clause 59. I have always understood it to be a cardinal principle of the policy of the opposite side that freehold tenure is to be given to Bantu in a Bantu area. I take it that that is a cardinal principle of their policy.

Yes, certainly.

How on earth is that going to be done in the Transkei if we are to give any meaning at all to the proviso of Clause 59 (1)? It says—

That means that any of the land so transferred must be used for the communal benefit, the public good, of the tribe concerned. That is totally inconsistent with any notion of freehold tenure of any kind whereby the individual is given the exclusive rights to a piece of land.

That is nonsense.

It is quite impossible under the provisions of this proviso as it reads now for any land under the jurisdiction of a regional authority, and there is no such other land in the Transkei, i.e. it is all under the jurisdiction of one or other of the Regional Authorities, to be given under freehold tenure to any single tribesman in the Transkei. Now, in view of the categorical assertion by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, namely that it is a cardinal principle that freehold tenure is denied to the Bantu in the White areas, how on earth is it going to be possible in terms of this clause to give them freehold tenure in the Transkei?

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will give us an explanation of this.

I did not know hon. members opposite could wax so lyrical about Trust land m the Transkei. Nor did I know that in these days it is regarded as holy land. We must get this matter in the proper perspective. Why was the legislation of 1936 passed? Net because the then Government felt that the Bantu homelands were too small for the Bantu, but they felt that the Xhosa should have a real homeland. That is why the land was acquired with a view to the resettlement of the Bantu in the White areas. That is why we are able to get rid of the superfluous Bantu in the White areas, and to resettle them on the Native Trust land.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has adopted such a moderate attitude here. He is better informed than any other member on that side about the realities of the Transkei. That is why I appreciate the fact that he adopted that attitude. As regards these trust lands, let us give it to the Bantu for it is their due. Then there is the further matter regarding ethnic grouping. Every Bantu in the White Republic of South Africa belongs to an ethnic group. Therefore he must return to that particular ethnic group. That is within the framework of the legislation.

When the hon. Minister replied just now he kept on saying that such and such a concept was laughable. But I am not concerned with what is laughable or not; I am concerned with what is in this Bill. Let me take him back to the first time he replied after the supper break to-night. He was then asked whether “vesting” in terms of this clause meant “dominium passed to the Government of the Transkei”. To that he replied “Yes”. He said that very clearly; I do not think he will deny it. He said that dominium passed from the Government of the Republic or the other bodies in the Republic, to the Government of the Transkei—therefore dominium—eiendomsreg”. Then I asked whether in view of that, they would be allowed to sell the land. Now I understand the Minister to say that they can use it for certain purposes in general. But the clause with which we are dealing is related to the First Schedule and there is no ambiguity about the language in that Schedule. Under Clause 37 the Transkei Parliament can make laws even to the extent of repealing laws made by the Parliament of the Republic in regard to matters set cut in Part B of the First Schedule.

If we, in other words, pass a law in connection with land affairs which is in conflict with their ideas, they can repeal it. In paragraph 9 of the First Schedule the following matters are mentioned in this connection—

What does “registration of deeds and surveys” mean except title deeds? What does it mean except pieces of land which have been surveyed and transferred? Under Clause 37 provision is made that if the Transkei does not like conditions laid down by this Parliament, they can repeal our Acts of Parliament in that respect. Now, why does the hon. the Minister not come forth, as the hon. member for Albany asked, and admit that vesting means that the dominium will pass to the Government of the Transkei. Of course they have the right to sell under Part B of the First Schedule and to make laws in terms of paragraph 9 while we, in terms of Clause 37, cannot interfere with them. They can sell to whom they like. Matanzima is not going to be concerned about who the Minister thinks he should sell land to, or whether he thinks that the land should be sold at all. He is not going to ask the Minister; he need not under Clause 37. He can even pass legislation repealing legislation of our own Parliament if he does not like if.

Why does the Minister not come out openly and say that we are permitting the Transkei Government to get the dominium over certain soil of South Africa and to sell it to whom they will? And that without any let or hindrance from us in this Parliament? Why does the Minister not say so openly? If he says it is laughable, then will he please show me where I am wrong. Where is the barrier? The first time the Minister spoke, he spoke about “beheer”, But it is not control—the land vests in the new Government …

Under conditions.

… under the proclamation of the State President …

And its conditions.

But that is land in respect of which they can make laws.

And also subject to sub-section (2) relating to the obligations of trust.

That then is a simple matter for the hon. Deputy Minister to answer. What are the conditions? What is the State President going to be advised in regard to the conditions to be laid down? Was it told to the people in the Bunga when they had meetings with the Government in regard to the question of the taking over of their land? Were they told that there were going to be conditions and that they were not going to be allowed to dispose of that land as they saw fit?

They apparently understood this better than you do!

The minutes of the meeting do not indicate that that was done. If I am wrong, let the Minister stand up and say that he is going to recommend to the State President that he inserts such conditions with regard to the land which is going to vest in the Government of the Transkei to the effect that they will not be able to sell that land freely and dispose of it as though it was their own? Do not let this clause go forward with the ostensible object as the Minister himself said that vesting means “eiendomsreg” went to the people of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister nods his head, but how can it be “eiendomsreg” if there are going to be conditions preventing that “eiendomsreg” which we purport to give them under Clause 59? Let the Minister come out and tell us frankly what kind of title this is that is going to be given to the Government of the Transkei.

The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) is quite correct when he says that the property shall thereupon vest in the Government of the Transkei. That is very clear and there is no dispute about it. That is laid down in the Bill. There is therefore no argument about that. But as was correctly pointed out by the Deputy Minister, the position is qualified by the proviso contained in Clause 59 (1). This is also perfectly clear.

It is provided that the boundaries of any regional authority referred to in Section two shall not be altered except with the consent of the regional authority concerned and the land within any such regional authority area shall continue to be administered for the settlement, support, benefit and material and moral welfare of the tribes and ethnic groups residing therein at the commencement of this Act. …

Sir, this ground cannot be alienated to strangers. The purpose for which it is transferred to the administration of the Transkei is stated in the Clause.

I now come to the hon. member for Zululand. He said that it was nowhere provided that there could be freehold title. I wish to refer him to the paragraph which I have just read where it says that the “area shall continue to be administered for the settlement…” We have a Land Settlement Act and under that Act property is allocated to different settlers… [Interjections.] I am defining the world “settlement” to make the position clear. “Settlement” could include the granting of freehold title. So there is authority in this Act, if the State President so wishes, he can in certain circumstances provide that land be allotted under freehold title under this Act. I do not say that is the intention now but circumstances may arise in future when these terms may be provided that they can hold freehold title in the Bantu areas. I am making that point because the hon. member for Zululand said that there was no provision for them to hold land under freehold title. I am showing that the provision is here; there can be land settlement under this provisions of this special grant to the Transkei Administration. I must emphasize again that the terms under which this ground is allotted are strictly controlled by grant of the State President. The position was made very clear by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and as the hon. the Minister has stated the land remains portion of the Republic of South Africa.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) that when he reads the word “settlement” in the proviso to sub-section (1) and proceeds to satisfy himself that that ipso facto provides for freehold title, lie completely ignores the use of the word “settlement” in the Native Resettlement Act where, under the use of the word “settlement”, people in Meadowlands, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will confirm, are given, not freehold title, but a sort of a lease of 30 years on a property. This sort of circular argument obviously is not going to convince anybody. We on this side of the House have made a serious attempt to delve into this legislation. I think we will be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the further and the deeper we delve into this legislation, the more hon. members opposite, including the Minister, are studying their own Bill and coming forward with a sort of improvised, ad lib of-the-cuff answer. That is what it amounts to, Sir.

You are talking nonsense.

Now I know I am on the right track, when the Deputy Minister says I am talking nonsense! The argument that the proviso to sub-clause (1) satisfies the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), namely, the question of freehold title, is obviously a very superficial one, because nowhere does it refer to freehold title. It says nothing of the sort, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister’s attention was drawn to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in regard to another matter, had said that those people who lost their freehold title in a certain place called Alexandra, would go to their homelands and get freehold title there. [Interjections.] He said that. Why is there all this kind of double talk about the explicit right of a man to have freehold title in what is called his heartland or his homeland? It says here “the State President can provide…” The hon. member for Omaruru said it could, of course, embrace freehold title when we talk of “settlement”, I do not want to press the point, however, because “settlement” obviously does not mean freehold title, and freehold title does not mean settlement, in either official language.

I want to come to another matter. This is obviously a very important clause and we must try, if it is humanly possible, to get a straightforward answer from the very amiable but very evasive Minister of Bantu Administration or his Deputy… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) must please stop talking.

[Inaudible.]

Order! That also applies to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling).

Mr. Chairman …

Order! If the hon. member does not want to listen to me I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

A great deal of play has been made of the phrase in sub-Clause 59 (2) “but subject to any existing charge, obligation or trust on or over such property or otherwise lawfully affecting the same”, The hon. member for Omaruru referred to an argument which had been raised earlier in regard to what was obviously intended, according to the hon. the Minister, in terms of the 1936 settlement. But the hon. member ignores completely the charge that was made from this side of the House that it was never envisaged in that 1936 settlement—if I am wrong, and if the hon. the Minister will point to the legislation which proves that I am wrong, I shall sit down and hold my peace—that any such land would be alienated from the body politic of the Union of South Africa as it then was. Right or wrong? True or false? Mr. Chairman, I am not inclined to make ambiguous statements. If I am wrong, then the hon. the Minister must get up and say so. If I am right, then it confirms the worst fears and suspicions that we on this side of the House have about this particular Clause, and this Bill. It is perfectly clear that it was one thing to embark on the course, which no one has disputed or said it was wrong, of providing the necessary land for the proper settlement of the Bantu people of South Africa—and another thing to come with this Bill. That was an agreed policy, Sir, traditionally so—and for once, I think, the word “traditionally” is used quite correctly. But to come along in this day and age, and to say in effect that the policy now is to give that land away to another authority, be it independent, semi-independent, about to be independent, a self-governing non-self governing authority, give it all the names you want, Sir, that settlement is no longer what it was intended to be, and the hon. the Minister knows it very well.

Finally, if it will make any difference to the hon. the Minister, I lend my voice to the appeals made previously by hon. members on this side, particularly the hon. members for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to the hon. the Minister to give us an explicit answer, and not in consecutive sentences to make what he calls a “stelling”, and then to give us a “waarborg” and then a “versekering” and then talk about “konsultasie”. (Laughter). I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has succeeded in maintaining his good temper, and that he is laughing. I appeal to him to give us a simple, straightforward answer to our questions.

Permit me to say this only: After many years the City Council of Johannesburg has succeeded in getting rid of that hon. member (Mr. Gorshel). I wonder how we are going to get rid of him. I should like to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) who has again referred to the question of freehold title, and to what I said the other day in connection with Alexandra—and other hon. members, whether they think that the land the Trust holds in the Transkei, is the only land the Bantu could hold under freehold title in future? Throughout the years property in the White towns in the Transkei have been transferred in the name of a Bantu. Are hon. members not aware of the system under which Bantu in recent years could buy a property from a White person in terms of Section 6 of the Urban Areas Act, with the approval of the State President, if it fell within that area where the State President has to give his approval? Are hon. members not aware that it is the intention under Clause 60, to which we have yet to come, to further implement that zoning system so that Bantu may acquire freehold title there? Hon. members, in their stupidity …

Stupid impudence.

No, the other hon. members opposite are stupid. It is only the hon. member for Hospital who is impudent. Does the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) not know that the persons to whom I referred (which is really not in question here) may purchase property in the zoned parts of the White towns in the Transkei quite apart from the property referred to in Clause 59; property that is transferred subject to conditions and obligations set forth in sub-section (2). The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who was not here just now when I spoke, will not believe me. The hon. member for South Coast also asked whether the Bantu were consulted in this connection. Hon. members may read in the report of the proceedings what was said in this regard. I should like to say to the hon. member that what is provided in this clause, was inserted at the express request of the Bantu. I should like to read to him from the report of the Recess Committee they signed in March 1962, and in which they asked that their requests should now be inserted in legal terminology in a Bill. In paragraphs 44 of that Report, they say this—

There they are asking for “reservations as the Republican Government may determine”. And now this hon. member comes along and in his excusable ignorance he asks whether they know about it and whether they have asked for it.

What are the conditions?

I have just said what those conditions may include while the hon. member went to drink coffee. I am not going to peel my potatoes twice. If he wishes to participate intelligently in this debate, and if he wants to take the liberty to criticize us, he should be here to follow the whole debate and not expect us to repeat things for his benefit. I refer to the proviso in regard to the borders of the territorial authority areas into which hon. members opposite have read all kinds of other things with the richest fantasy imaginable.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant).

Mr. Chairman, you must excuse the hon. member for Turffontein. He is now living in a time of very high expectations in regard to Railway matters in this country. You should remember the hon. member for Wynberg is no longer with us and the hon. member for Turffontein has high expectations. In regard to the borders of the territorial authority areas. I should like to refer hon. members to page 33 of this report of the proceedings of the Territorial Authority. There they will see how the Secretary of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. Young, explains to the Bantu, with reference to an interview between himself and the Paramount Chief Botha Sigcau, why that proviso had to be inserted, namely in order to satisfy the Bantu in respect of their traditional rights and customs in connection with their territorial authorities. As he expresses it here, to mention an example—

It is to prevent that kind of arbitrariness, for which the Bantu may not even have a justifiable fear. That is the reason why that proviso was inserted.

What about title deeds?

That hon. member dreams about freehold title. Hon. members must learn to read what is provided in a clause, and not read what they desire to read in it for political purposes.

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 60,

Clause 60 provides for the zoning of village management board areas by a committee appointed by the Government. It is by this process that the towns and villages in the Transkei will become Black. At the moment those towns and villages remain White because under the Group Areas Act land cannot be transferred to Bantu without the consent of the Group Areas Board. The Government has given a pledge to the Transkeian authority that they will appoint a committee which will zone the different villages and towns so that they can gradually become Black. In terms of Clause 2 of this Bill the area of jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government is described as nine regional authority areas. As the villages go Black I presume they will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us how it will be done. Will he come to Parliament and get a resolution of both Houses requesting the State President by proclamation, to add those areas to the domain of the Transkeian Government. There is nothing in Clause 60 which says that once an area has been zoned and it has been bought by Bantu it will automatically be transferred to the Transkeian Government. It leaves the matter in the air. Sub-section (3) says that such a proclamation may also provide—

So it will be taken out of the jurisdiction of the municipality. It can be put under the jurisdiction of some other body which can be created by the State President. But I want to know whether it will then also fall under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government or will it remain under the jurisdiction of the Government of the Republic? This is a most important Clause. It brings about in the first place the living or creeping death of the villages in the Transkei, because once you start zoning a village you will not be able to sell any property to anybody else but an African. An African can buy in a zoned area but no European or Coloured is going to buy in an area outside a zoned area knowing that their area is going to be zoned until the whole village is Black. The Minister’s officials must have told him by now that it is difficult to sell property in a village in the Transkei to-day. Once you start this process of zoning from one end you will kill the village completely. You must either open up the whole village for occupation by Bantu or you must close it and set aside a portion for permanent occupation by Bantu and European. But to tell the people that you are gradually going to zone, a form of creeping paralysis, will absolutely kill the rest of the village. Having zoned an area in a village or a town like Butterworth or Umtata is it the intention to take that area out of the jurisdiction of the municipality or village management board? I rather think it is. The law says “dit kan gedoen word

Why do you ask then?

“Dit kan gedoen word” but will it be done. I shall tell you, Sir, why I ask: Is it the intention for instance to zone one street in Umtata for business purposes?

We shall zone your house first!

I wish that Deputy Minister would keep quiet or get out. He has contributed nothing to this debate, Sir, nothing at all. How the Government could ever pick a man like that to be a Deputy Minister, is beyond me. The more we hear him talk in this House the more puzzled we are. I am talking to the hon. the Minister: the Minister is in charge of this Bill. Take Umtata as an example. Rumour has it that the Government requested the Municipality to zone one side of a street for business purposes. The understanding was that if they did it would be taken out of the jurisdiction of the municipality and the municipality objected to that proposition. What the Minister must appreciate is this: These municipalities have incurred certain liabilities; they have raised loans to provide various services, such as sewerage, electricity etc. and once you zone an area out of the jurisdiction of such a municipality that municipality loses the security of that property. What is more. Sir, is that the public bodies or financial institutions which have advanced money to such a municipality lose their security. With this threat hanging over the heads of municipalities and village management boards it will become increasingly difficult for them to raise money at all for those sort of services. If the financial institutions know that at any time an area may be zoned for Bantu occupation by this Committee and taken out of the jurisdiction of the municipality or village management board they will not be prepared to advance any money. Apart from that there is the existing debt which has been incurred by such a municipality. Is it fair to zone a portion out of its jurisdiction and to leave the remaining ratepayers to carry the responsibility of the debt incurred by such a municipality. The Minister may say that it need not necessarily be taken out of the jurisdiction of such a municipality but what we object to is this provision which says it can be done. Why was it necessary to insert that provision that it could be taken out of the jurisdiction of the municipality? There is no objection to areas being zoned for Bantu occupation, especially in the bigger towns. Why cannot it be left under the jurisdiction of that municipality and allow the Bantu owners the full rights which other ratepayers enjoy? Once an area is zoned and taken out and placed under the jurisdiction of some other body, you are going to have two local bodies controlling different property in the same area. [Time limit.]

I want to point out that under Clause 69 (3) (a) it would be possible to deal with the commonage associated with one of these towns or villages. As I know the position in the Transkei some of those commonages carry very large timber plantations and so forth. It seems to me that this is an extremely far-reaching power and I hope the Minister will tell us quite frankly why provision is made for this power and how he intends to use it.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has referred to creeping paralysis. Now I should like to ask with all due respect: In how many of the townships in the Transkei does creeping paralysis not apply already? To what extent have residentially mixed communities of Black and White not already come into being? On the other hand, the hon. member objects to the fact that one area is now set aside for the Bantu while another area remains White. What is going to happen when that Black area also becomes part of the White township? It will mean a mixed municipality. So that is unpractical. The Black area will have to do its own administrative work, and the White area will have to do its own work. The Black area cannot be incorporated into the White area. We know that the two groups will never be able to co-operate.

That is the big difficulty which faces this Government. This Government will not allow any mixed councils. They will not allow Africans and White people to sit on the same council. The objection of the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) was that you would have to have mixed councils. They object to that but they have no objection whatsoever to putting White and Coloured traders under the jurisdiction of a Black Government. As long as it is one colour ruling another colour, it is all right, but you cannot have two colours collaborating! I want to continue with the discussion of the position in municipalities and the question I raised on an earlier clause. Clause 59. It deals specifically with the Bunga building. The Bunga building is situated right inside Umtata, and in terms of this clause it may be zoned, and in fact they were given the assurance that it would be zoned. When discussing Clause 59. I asked how it was proposed to transfer this property to the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government, and the Minister has not yet answered me. He must tell us how he intends doing that. The Government official who attended the meeting of the Territorial Authority, addressed them on this clause when this question was raised, and he said that the implication of it was that it would fall under the Transkeian Government. Later on he said that with the zoning “we anticipate in this law a different thing, because we need not only zone the portion of a town, but the grazing fields as well, and if such an area has been zoned whether it is only part of the town or the whole grazing area that can fall to the Transkeian Government”. We must insist upon the Minister giving us a reply: How is it proposed to put these zoned areas under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government. Is the Minister going to give us the assurance now that it can only be done one way and that is that he will have to come to this Parliament and get a resolution from both Houses under Clause 3 before the State President can act, or does he propose as soon as an area is a zoned area in any town or village, zoned for Black occupation, and is taken out of the jurisdiction of that municipality or village management board, that then automatically it will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government? The point was raised by us when we discussed Clauses 2 and 3, and the Minister more or less gave us the assurance then that a Bantu area would not be extended without the permission of Parliament. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he is not extending the outside boundaries of the Transkei by adding small areas to the jurisdiction of the Transkei, when he is in fact extending the boundaries once he goes beyond the regional zones. But the White and Coloured people in the Transkei want to know whether property will now be transferred from any municipal or village management board area at the whim of the Minister, with the State President’s approval? Or will he be compelled to come to this House before he tampers with the property rights of the people living in the so-called White area? I stress again that this clause is the clause which is feared most by the White people living in the Transkei outside the Bantu areas. The traders have their difficulties which are not affected by this clause, but this is the clause which worries the rest of the White people, and I would like the Minister to give us a statement now as to what his policy is going to be in regard to those areas.

I knew that if only we waited long enough, the hon. gentlemen would really plead for what they wanted. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not make it evident in his first speech, but he has now come to light with it. The hon. member has pleaded here for two things. He wants the little White islands to remain there for ever. That is the first thing he pleads for. But let the hon. member remember now that that of course is a policy they advocate, but the Government which is implementing its policy by means of this legislation is not in favour of that kind of situation. Secondly, the hon. member pleads for it to be possible for small areas, small municipal areas, to come into being where White and Black will sit together in one municipality. Of course he is merely being consistent there, for that is their policy for the whole of South Africa.

He did not say that.

Let the hon. gentlemen now understand clearly for once that what they are preaching and what they would like to see in this legislation is the existence of White spots that could progressively expand later on, accompanied by further integration, which will also further extend territorial integration, whilst our policy is the opposite. Whereas they wish to promote the principles of integration on the Witwatersrand, and now in the Transkeian Territory as well, we are going in the opposite direction with this kind of legislation. And will the hon. gentlemen now understand that you cannot use legislation of this nature in order to implement the principles of the United Party? That is impossible, because they are as far apart as the East is from the West. How does it avail the hon. gentlemen to plead for the continued existence of small White islands in an area which as surely as there is a sun shining in the heavens cannot exist there for ever, and when it is only a question of time before those people who are White citizens of the Republic of South Africa will have to move to the White areas of South Africa? That is the position and we are not running away from it. We are now opening up channels for a policy opposite to that advocated by the hon. member, namely, the continued existence of small White islands, or even the possibility of Blacks and Whites serving together on municipalities.

Of course the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not say anything of the sort. The hon. member put a perfectly clear case to the hon. Minister. Under Clause 2 the areas controlled by Regional Authorities are set out and the Bantu areas within those Regional Authorities are the areas that form the Transkei for the purposes of this Bill. Take the area occupied by the Bunga building in the middle of Umtata. You can have the areas of the commonages which are the property of the people in the town, in respect of which they have got their grazing rights, and so forth, that is theirs. It would appear under Clause 60 (2) that “after consideration of the report of a committee appointed in terms of sub-section (1)…”, the necessary steps can be taken by the State President, by proclamation, and having done that under (3) (b) “any such area or portion of an area” in such a White town, whether it is on the commonage or in the town itself” which has been reserved for occupation or ownership by Bantu persons shall under such circumstances as may be specified… from a date to be determined in the proclamation become a released area or a scheduled Native area or a Bantu area for the purposes of any law …”, one of the laws being this Bill that we are now dealing with. Those areas can become a Bantu area. The question is a simple one: Is it automatically on becoming a Bantu area in terms of such a proclamation, added to the existing area of the Transkei under the Native Government, or has the procedure laid down in Clause 3 of this Bill to be followed, that is the Legislative Assembly for the Transkei must pass a resolution and both the Houses of Parliament in the Republic must pass a resolution? Is it automatic or must the procedure of Clause 3 be followed before that land can be taken from the control of the White municipality and added to the land of the Government of the Transkei.

I think the whole section is very clear, and there ought to be no doubt about it. Now I should like to say at once that in the Transkei we have that position, that you have a large number of small towns with tremendous commonages. Those commonages have not been bought by the Whites. The town has been proclaimed there, and the Whites bought their plots, but a portion of the area has been proclaimed as a commonage. What is happening now in many instances? Some of the city councils now lease these commonages to the Bantu for their cattle, and in this manner they are making money out of the Bantu. We think that is a complete injustice. Hence the principle we uphold that that is really Bantu property. Now it is quite correct, as hon. members say, that at the moment of course it still is a White area. We have to take into account that a process will be followed here where things will develop systematically, and we have to face up to the fact that some of these little towns will disappear in course of time. Indeed, that process is in progress already. In several of the little towns there are instances now already of Whites who are pleading strongly that they could rather leave. Now in the Transkei Bantu towns will also have to be developed, and to develop separate Bantu townships we think is going to be somewhat senseless. That is why we see the proper solution in this, that some of these smaller towns that are already in existence, and which may within a comparatively short time, or now already, accommodate only a small number of Whites, who will later on be keen to sell there, it will be a sensible policy not to go and establish new towns, but rather to get hold of those towns and then develop your Bantu township there. In some cases, as in Umtata itself, there is of course the Bantu location where the Bantu township could develop further. But I am now thinking particularly of the smaller towns. Now our approach is that the best method that can be adopted here is that we should appoint a committee which will zone those towns in collaboration with the Whites of those towns. That was the intention a long time ago already, that we would zone the town, and that a part of those towns would then be placed at the disposal of the Bantu. I repeat that it will be done in collaboration with the Whites there. Then the Bantu will have the right to buy their land in the zoned portion. The hon. member referred to creeping paralysis. It is possible that it will develop and that many of the people there will feel that they would rather get out completely. That is a possible development we shall simply have to take into account. That is why we are making provision for that.

Now the question hon. members are putting is this: What is going to happen when such an area has been zoned and the Bantu have bought their land there; is the Minister of Bantu Administration now first going to come to this Parliament to seek the permission of both Houses of Parliament that that should become part of the Transkeian territory? That is quite a fair question. Our attitude is that it is not necessary to come to Parliament to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament for such a process.

Why not?

Because those parts already lie within the Bantu area. You have a different process here if you have a process of becoming Black, then the sound procedure surely is that as a part that lies within the Bantu area becomes Black, to that extent it will automatically fall under the Transkeian Government. I think it is put very clearly in Clause 3 (b). It is provided clearly that according as the Bantu acquire it, it will automatically pass to the Transkeian Government.

Now there is another problem to which hon. members have rightly referred, and that is the question of the administration of such an area in the interim. We think a joint municipality will not work, for clashes will always arise. That is why we think it will be better, when such an area has been zoned, that the Bantu there should have their own kind of council, and that there should be the closest co-operation with the White council. They get their own council, but there will be the closest co-operation with the municipality as regards general services. In this respect no harm need be done, and if in future harm is done in this way as regards the general services of such a community, then it is obvious that we shall have to give attention to such a matter and we shall have to see to it that unnecessary unpleasantness does not arise in respect of the public services for that area. Now it is already said that there are authorities who no longer can obtain the necessary loans for the extension of services or the maintenance of those services. I must honestly say that such instances have not yet been brought to my notice. But if such instances were to arise, it is obvious that the Government will have to devote its attention to it in order to see to it that the normal development takes place so that no part of that community will be detrimentally affected in any way. But I should just like to assure hon. members that we appreciate that there is a duty towards those White communities. Without making all kinds of wild promises, as is so frequently demanded from us, we certainly want to have full regard to the possibility of such a process, because it has been anticipated for a long time already that such a process will take place. How rapidly it is going to come or how slowly it is going to come, we cannot determine. It is a process that will have to develop by itself, but there it is the task of the Government to see to it that the process will develop in such a way that it will not be to the detriment of that community, whether it be White or Bantu. I think I have now put the matter very clearly, and there can be no doubt about the possible process that will be followed in the future.

One question the hon. Minister has not answered is in regard to the separate bodies which can be created to control zoned areas which are taken out of the jurisdiction of the municipality. Take for example a street in Umtata which is zoned for Bantu occupation and is taken out of the Umtata Municipality. Is it the intention then to create a separate municipality, or a village management board, or another public board to control such an area? If so, how is it going to be done? Who will do it? Will the Transkeian Government be responsible for the creation of such a body, or will it be done through the province, and who will control such a body? Will the Administrator exercise control over that body or will it be the Transkeian Government? The matter is important because of the fact that I can see that certain areas in Umtata will probably be zoned very soon if that is going to be the policy of the Government to do the zoning and to take them out of the authority of the municipality. The Minister will know the Ncambedlana area where the Bantu own property at the moment. Must the municipality take it now that it is to be the policy to take such areas out of their jurisdiction or is it going to be the policy rather to leave them in the municipality as long as possible? What is to be the policy of the Government? Then in regard to the position of the remaining White people and Coloured people who are property-owners in the areas, if an area is zoned and taken out of the jurisdiction of a municipality, is the municipality to be compensated in any way for the rates which it will lose? Because, as I pointed out, there are existing loans and obligations undertaken by these municipalities, and it is not fair on the remaining owners that they should remain liable for those loans etc. and to have to shoulder the whole burden. Does the Government intend now to compensate municipalities for areas which are taken out of their jurisdiction? I want to say this to the hon. Minister too that once you start zoning, you are going to stop all development in the towns. Ratepayers, municipalities are not going to be keen to raise loans for new projects under circumstances like this when they do not know who will have to pay for them in the end. Because in terms of Clause 2, property will be handed over without compensation, apparently. The Minister must bear that in mind. Does the Government intend offering anything to municipalities and small villages to encourage them to give additional services, to supply water and light and sanitary services, and so on? Because under circumstances now pertaining, all development will come to a stop in those areas because the people themselves will not be able or willing to do it. Has the Government considered that question? Are they going to help these bodies because the Minister himself says that the villages will probably become Bantu villages. Instead of establishing Bantu villages elsewhere, is he going to encourage existing villages to supply services to attract Bantu into the existing villages?

I would like to carry the point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories a little bit further with regard to what is to happen to existing local authorities who have in some cases very heavy commitments taken in relation to the number of their inhabitants who have to face the financial responsibilities of these commitments. I take two examples, the example say of a comprehensive water scheme, water works with a reservoir, the reticulation system and everything that goes with it, which has been developed and planned to service the whole of the area. If you are now going to take out, somewhere in the reticulation system, a portion of that scheme, what is going to be the result? You cannot cut a scheme of that nature up into parts. It has to remain as one entity under the control of one authority. There can’t be two masters in a case like that. Nor can there be two masters in regard to a similar scheme for the supply of electricity in the area. There can only be one authority unless you are going to court disaster to the scheme. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has pointed out that the local authorities have had to finance such schemes under the Laws of the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province, by what is in virtual fact a bond on the property of every ratepayer in that area. A special rate can be levied to meet the financial obligations in respect of the refunding of the loan. Now you are taking away from them, or you can take away from them, a large proportion of the fundraising part of the scheme, and you can impose on them considerable additional financial liabilities in regard to the administration of the scheme operated as two separate entities. In practice only the people who are left in the White areas will be the people who will be responsible to foot the bill. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that it would stop development because local authorities would not be keen to carry on with any development. I go a stage further. No matter how keen local authorities would be, there is no financial institution in this country with any grain of intelligence which will be prepared to back up a local authority by finding funds for such projects and schemes. Under the conditions now proposed, we are faced with this position that although he is most amiable and I have not the slightest disagreement with him as an individual, the hon. Minister has the knack of being able to convince himself that everything is just as he sees it through a pair of rose-coloured glasses. Unfortunately we can’t use those rose-coloured glasses. We don’t believe that they give you a true picture, and the people in the Transkei who are going to be affected, certainly won’t be able to see anything rosy as far as their prospects are concerned. What the hon. Minister’s explanation really amounts to is that the Government are going to use the existing White spots, the existing White Townships, built up by White industry, by White finance, by the labour of the White people who have helped to develop them, the Government now are going to use them to create their Black villages and save the Government the trouble to develop those Black villages themselves. Never mind what happens to the White population. They can eventually deal with the new Black States to be set up. What a policy! If you want to call it a policy! What a pipe-dream it is to bring to the House and to expect us to support a measure such as that! We are expected to throw over the people who have been responsible for the development, people without whom the Transkei will not continue to develop. Here you are cutting the ground from under their feet. You are going to take away from the people of the Transkei, to whom you are holding out all these wonderful hopes, one of the fundamental requirements they will need: The brain, assistance and guidance of the White people who have helped to build up what there is to-day. What is going to happen then? When you destroy the municipal edifice, the local government edifice, the very first thing that will suffer will be public health. How are you going to maintain public health in your smaller areas, or even your larger areas such as Umtata when you divide up the area into separate local authorities, one of whom is providing the services and paying for it, and the other using a portion of those services without responsibility. What are you going to do about sanitation in those areas? It is one of the most necessary requirements that have to be carried out. These things don’t just happen. They have to be organized, planned and provided for. And they are very costly, never showing a profit. The local authority responsible for the maintenance of public health in that area, will have created in its midst, a festering sore because it will not be properly controlled; the people concerned at the present stage will just not have the ability to control it. The Minister shrugs his shoulders and says “Alles sal regkom”, but the trouble is that by the time it will come right, everybody in that area will be half dead as a result of disease and trouble, whilst the remaining portion—the White areas, will be financially ruined, and the Transkei itself as a whole will have suffered. I wish the hon. Minister would try and get down to realities and give us some information as to what the Government proposes to do under this particular clause that we are dealing with, to hold the balance evenly between the people at present in charge—the local authorities—and the people that he wants to gradually put in charge of a section of such local authority area. It has been rightly called a creeping paralysis, because once it is started neither this Government nor any other Government will be able to stop it. There is no future to look forward to as far as the White spots are concerned. The bigger ones may survive a little longer, but for the smaller ones the outlook is completely hopeless if this policy is to be adopted. The hon. Minister has ample common sense and he knows the Transkei. Surely he can’t believe that what he tells us is really going to happen. Let him come down to realities and tell us what his Government, is going to do to turn his dream into a reality without damaging the existing structure that has been built up in that area.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is really a very great pessimist. It is true that we should be realistic, but that is what the hon. member is not. The hon. member now accuses me of dreaming all kinds of dreams etc. But I am accusing the hon. member of seeing all kinds of ghosts. Let us now be realistic for a while. Then we have the fact that it will be senseless to go along and build new towns for the Bantu in the Transkei. I think every decent person will concede that the normal process will be to use the smaller towns where you can build up your Bantu towns. I have already said that there are many of the Whites in the smaller towns who are very anxious already to sell their homes. Why should we now go along and pursue a wrong policy and create things that will be quite unrealistic? Therefore my reply is that those Whites can be reassured for we shall of course do everything in close co-operation with them. For instance, there is the Group Areas Act that could be used for it. The Group Areas Board there, falls directly under the Minister of Bantu Administration so that we can have sound cooperation with those people in this respect. I have frequently said that I expect many of those people to continue to live there for generations. I admit that for many years the Whites in the Transkei will be needed. No one realizes it better than I. I also wish to admit that it is our duty and our task to see to it that development takes place in such a way that it will not be to the detriment of any section. But every case will have to be dealt with on its merits. That is why this Clause is drafted in this way. It is an empowering clause and it offers the possibility for the developments that have to take place. It is the policy of the Government to work in close co-operation with the Whites there, and hon. members really have no reason to see ghosts or something of that nature. I also anticipate that at many places it will take a considerable time. Without being over-optimistic I should like to tell hon. members that it is going to be the normal process of development, a process of development that will give satisfaction to the Bantu, and at the same time will also satisfy every decent White person in the Transkei. But at the same time it will also bring prosperity to the White man in the Transkei for a long time. There need be no doubt about that. We must realize that this process of development there will also be to the advantage of the Whites there.