I move—

I second.

The House divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

When the House adjourned last night the hon. the Minister had replied to the hon. the member of Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in regard to certain points he had made. The position is that my hon. friend had referred to the creeping paralysis, and had put a question to the Minister about land in the smaller towns and villages of the Transkei which as the result of the operation of a committee appointed in terms of Clause 60 (1), might result in a declaration being issued which would lead to the virtual excision of certain areas from the area of jurisdiction of a municipality, village management board or local board. My hon. friend had raised the question of the public debt of such a local authority, the responsibility for it, etc. The Minister said that in his experience it was already the case to-day that in a number of smaller villages a large number of people were anxious to sell, and I think he said that was the normal course. I think the picture he wished to paint was of people in the smaller villages selling, which would allow a proclamation to be issued in terms of this clause which would have the effect of ultimately making those towns or villages purely Black—occupied purely by Bantu. The question with which we were concerned was whether the Minister would say on whom rests the responsibility for the public debt of such local authorities. This is taking over these towns piecemeal. Where the local authority has incurred public debt for streets, etc., and there is a diminution of the White inhabitants, and the Bantu increase, where does the final decision rest for that public debt?

The Minister dealt also with the question of the economy of the Transkei in this regard, because these towns to-day carry the whole economy of the Transkei, and I do not think anyone will deny that. When these areas are finally handed over, on what will the economy of the Transkei rest?

Since yesterday the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) have tried time and again to raise bogies under this clause, but if they will read the clause carefully they will see there are no grounds to support their point of view. They want a decision from the Minister in advance on certain matters. They expect the Minister to give a decision on principle in respect of every matter, and that is not the object of this clause at all. The object is that every specific instance will be investigated ad hoc; that certain arrangements will be made ad hoc. and those arrangements will be incorporated in the proclamation to be issued under (3), such as, e.g., on the debt incurred by a town for the construction of streets. If one part of the town were to be zoned for non-Whites, then they want to know what would happen to the debt in respect of the streets in that particular area. But all these are things that the Commission will determine ad hoc.

Where is that provided for?

It falls under the proclamation, and the proclamation says that—

Why pretend that this is such a strange thing? Why raise these bogies? It is absolutely unnecessary. Nobody can say in advance what has to be determined in a particular town and at a particular time. That is why the clause specifically provides that a Commission shall be appointed and after it has investigated the matter ad hoc and has decided that transfer should take place, the State President will lay down the conditions in the proclamation. But why raise all these bogies in anticipation? It does not require any intelligence to invent a lot of problems and then drag them across the floor of the House. It is an easy matter to put forward hypothetical cases, as the hon. members are doing now, while the clause in fact eliminates those very dangers by making provision for a commission to inquire into every case.

Order! I want to repeat what I said last night also. The reply given now is a repetition of answers to questions that were repeatedly put yesterday. I want to ask hon. members to advance new arguments.

I do not propose covering all the ground covered by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), in the light of your ruling, but I want to say that in so far as he may be prepared to rush headlong into the dark. I am quite sure that the ratepayers of the various villages in the Transkei are not prepared to do so. Without covering the ground which you ruled, Sir, has already been covered, surely it is not asking too much of the Minister to give an outline of the general principles which will govern this situation, such as was dealt with by the hon. members for Transkeian Territories and South Coast.

Order! The hon. member is repeating arguments.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause 60 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 61,

In this clause provision is made for the officials and employees of the Transkeian Territorial Authority to join the service of the Transkeian Government, and similarly all Bantu officers in the employ of the Republic who are employed in the Transkei. They are given no choice in the matter but a statute is passed which transfers them, whether they like it or not, from the service of the Republic in the Transkei to that of the new Government. They are Bantu. I cannot deal with the question of White people because that clause follows later on. It is quite clear that in this clause we now have the kernel of the Government’s policy in the Transkei, the policy of “Skop die witman uit”. I think we must voice our objection to the forcible transfer of Bantu under these circumstances. What guarantee have we that the Bantu there who have given loyal service to the Republic want to be transferred? Why are loyal servants thrown overboard and turned over to a completely new Government which, in the initial stages at any rate, can be expected to experience all kinds of difficulties, which may make it extremely difficult for these servants to retain their position? Public servants in our service are dealt with in a certain manner, and while I cannot discuss another clause which is still ahead of us, they will remain public servants of the Transkei merely at the whim of one man. Clause 65 deals with it. I think this is something we have no right to do and Parliament ought not to be asked to do it. Before we take power capriciously to take a group of public servants who are Bantu and to tell them that they are no longer in our employ but must serve a new master, we should voice our protest because this is a shocking thing.

The hon. the Minister probably knows that the Bantu employees of the Territorial Authorities and others working in the Transkei in the employ of the Republic are most unhappy about this provision, about being transferred to the Transkeian Government. What worries them, quite rightly, is whether their salaries will be paid, and it is not only the public servants who are worried. The matter was raised by councillors themselves, and the matter was discussed as to whether these servants would not suffer by being transferred to the Transkeian Government. The Government official who answered questions said it was up to the Transkeian Government; if it reduced their pay there was nothing to be done about it, but he also pointed out that their salaries might be increased. But what worries those servants is that they may not get any pay at all. During the discussion one of the councillors was rather upset to see that the Transkeian Government could be sued for damages caused by the negligent acts of its employees, and he wanted to know who would pay it, because he feared that the new Government might have to face so many actions that they might not be able to pay the damages. It was a real worry of these people in the Transkei as to whether the Government would be able to pay. We know that the Government has already undertaken to give to the Transkeian Government the deficit between revenue and expenditure, because there will not be sufficient revenue to carry on the ordinary Government of the Transkei. Now supposing the Republic refuses to pay the deficit because it has some argument with that Government, these public servants will not get their salaries. They resent being forced willy-nilly from the service of the Republic into the service of the Transkeian Government.

I wish to raise the element of compulsion contained in this clause. From the point of view of the Government, I can understand that it is logical for them to think that the persons who are in the Transkei should be the most suitable people to work there. But I say it is utterly wrong that without the consent of the persons concerned they will be transferred willy-nilly to the employ of the Transkei Government. The contracts of these people are with the Republic, and they can rely on their pension rights. In terms of the provisions before us, it is quite clear that there is compulsion, because the provision is that all officers employed by the Territorial Authorities and all Bantu servants in the employ of the Republican Government in the Transkei shall be transferred to the Transkeian Government. I submit to the Minister that it is quite wrong, where persons have a contract of employment with the Republic, without their consent or even without consultation with them, they should be transferred to the employ of the Transkeian Government. I think it is utterly wrong. It is just another of those things which show the Government’s attitude in the matter. They will carry this thing through and sweep all contrary opinion aside.

It is a very unrealistic approach, to say the least of it, that we are getting here from hon. members opposite. It is not only unrealistic, but it is as unreasonable as they have been here in recent times. I think, it is really ridiculous. Here you have the position, in the first place, that a number of Bantu are already in the employ of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei. Well, there is no objection to them. But there are Bantu in the Transkei who are in the employ of the Republican Government.

Yes, we are referring to them.

If their services are no longer required, the Republic will simply have to discharge them.

Disgraceful.

It simply shows that hon. members do not know what they are talking about. The fact of the matter is that the services of those Bantu are being used in the Transkei; they are in the employ of the Republic for work that is done in the Transkei. They are not people from outside who are sent there. Their services are being used in the Transkei, and the work they are doing there must in future be done by the Transkeian Government; in other words, to be consistent we would have to retain their services and keep them idle in the Republic. Surely that is ridiculous. It is self-evident that they are serving that territory, and it is obvious that they will be taken over by the Transkeian Government. It is their own Government; it is their own people. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) says the great danger is that they might not be paid. Can you really believe, Mr. Chairman, that a person with the slightest sense of responsibility can come here and make such a statement? Surely it is a reflection upon the Bantu of the Transkei. Does the hon. member wish to tell me that the impression he has gained of those people throughout the years is that they do not pay their servants? Take the Territorial Authority. Is it proper to suggest that they are so dishonest? The assurance has already been given here that as regards revenue the Transkei will receive no less than it is receiving at the present time. In other words, the money will be there to pay the salaries of those people.

But what assurance is there?

But what is more, those people are getting not only the opportunity to be transferred to the employ of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei, but they are getting this opportunity that they will be amongst the first who will go over; they will therefore be senior officials. They will therefore have opportunities which others will not have. I want to predict here— I am convinced of it—that they are going to receive better salaries there.

Where will the money come from?

I have no doubt that the day will come, and come soon, when those officials will be very grateful to us for having taken this step. It is ludicrous to come and suggest here that there is a danger that they will not be paid. One might as well say that all of them may die. No, one does not expect such irresponsible statements from a responsible Opposition. Do let us at least show some degree of responsibility. I am satisfied in my own mind that these people are not being rendered a disservice by this. On the contrary, we are here following a pattern that we have been advocating all along, namely that those people should serve their own national community. I have frequently said that in my view it is immoral to take the cream of the manpower of that community for your own service. I think it is immoral, for they are the very people who have to enrich their own community. It is in the interests of that community itself that those people should serve their own community.

The hon. the Minister has given a rather extraordinary explanation in regard to a very important clause in this Bill. I do not want to repeat his compliment by saying that perhaps it is also old age that has affected him. We are dealing here with an aspect of the legislation which relates to the operative side of administration, and we are dealing with persons who are unconnected with political considerations and who therefore deserve and are entitled to have their interests and rights protected. It is from that point of view that we raise the matter from this side of the House. The hon. the Minister has dealt with one class of person, but in fact the clause deals with three categories of persons. It deals firstly with the category of persons who are officers or employees of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. It is quite obvious from the wording of the clause that there are both Bantu and non-Bantu persons falling within that category, and I think the hon. the Minister should give us the numbers. He should tell us what the establishment is as regards both Bantu and non-Bantu who are affected in the first category of this clause. Then we come to the second category which relates entirely to Bantu, that is to Bantu who are actually members of the Public Service of South Africa but who happened to be serving in the Transkei at the present moment. The hon. the Minister seems to take up the attitude that if they can no longer be employed they must be discharged. That is how I understood him to deal with the matter. But there is much more involved than that. There will have to be an abolition of office in such case, and the Minister should deal with it on the basis that there will be an abolition of the offices in respect of persons who are on the existing establishment of the Public Service of South Africa. It is this Parliament and this Government to whom such officials look to preserve their interests and their rights. If the Minister is correct then it follows there is to be abolition of office merely because a man wants his right preserved. I ask therefore what notice these people are to get, because the law simply says that from a moment when the first Cabinet is formed this state of affairs may come into operation. That is surely extremely disadvantageous to the persons concerned. They do not know from what date this is going to happen. Sir, the hon. the Minister always appeals for reasonableness. The Minister must be reasonable too and tell this side of the House what notice these officers are going to get that there is to be abolition of the offices which they occupy and which they have filled presumably quite satisfactorily and well. He cannot just deal with the position in this off-hand and cavalier fashion in which he has stated it in his reply. It seems to me that the appropriate time to deal with this matter is not from the time when the first Cabinet is appointed but from the moment a Public Service Commission is established in this territory. The next clause deals with the establishment of such a Public Service Commission. Surely that is the body, a body which is independent and impartial. which should deal with this, not the Minister himself, who cannot be impartial and independent in matters of this nature. That seems to me to be the body that should deal with this matter; that seems to be the appropriate time to implement a measure of this kind, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with that in his reply. The hon. the Minister took great exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who raised this question of certainty and asked whether all these officials would be paid. And he said he was sure that they would get even better pay than they received at present. Sir, the Minister must remember that officials work for pay, not for promises. What the hon. the Minister has told us now simply amounts to making promises, but promises are not sufficient in a case like this. Officials who give their service want to be assured not of promises but of pay. The hon. the Minister should at least tell the House firstly, what the numbers are of persons involved in the first two categories I have dealt with and, secondly, what globular amount of salary is involved, so that we on this side can know something more about the details involved. But instead of that the hon. the Minister in this cavalier fashion seems to throw to the wolves—to use the term he likes —persons who have served the State faithfully and presumably very well. Then there is a third category about which the hon. the Minister has told us nothing, namely the officers or employees who are to be employed in connection with matters in respect of which the power to make laws is assigned to the new Legislative Assembly. Will the hon. the Minister tell us why they are put into a third category? What does it mean? Who are these persons who are to be employed at some later date? The provision in the clause itself does not indicate who they are and how they are going to be treated. They cannot be treated in the cavalier way in which the Minister has dealt with them here. They are not there yet apparently; they are still to come, and I think the hon. the Minister should be a little bit more considerate and a little bit more patient, as he always appeals to us to be, in considering the details of this clause. I hope therefore that he will answer the questions which have been put to him with greater consideration than he has given to them thus far.

I move—

The hon. the Minister has not yet, had an opportunity to reply.

The Committee divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause 61 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 62,

This clause is an enabling power granted by this Parliament to a Cabinet still to be formed to establish what is called a Public Service Commission consisting of three persons to carry out the administration and control of their Public Service. I accept that they will have for their guidance the type of regulatory powers vested in the Public Service Commission of South Africa, but I think the hon. the Minister should make it perfectly clear what he has in mind in a provision of this nature as to who will carry out these duties. I know that he cannot bind the Cabinet which is still to be established as to what should be done, but I think he should take this side of the House into his confidence and tell us precisely how he contemplates this body will be established and what type of experience will be expected from these three persons who are going to be appointed. Are they going to be experienced public servants; are they going to be men experienced in law or what type of experience has the Minister himself in mind with regard to the members of this body which is to carry out a very essential service if there is to be satisfaction in a newly created Public Service in the Transkei.

I wonder whether you would qualify.

I think the hon. the Minister should deal with this aspect of the matter at this stage.

Mr. Chairman …

What could you have to say?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to call the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to order.

He keeps on interjecting.

And he makes the most foolish remarks.

Order! Will the hon. member continue.

Mr. Chairman …

Move the closure, Pottie.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I shall ask the next hon. member who interjects to leave the Chamber.

Why?

Will the hon. the Chief Whip withdraw from this Chamber please for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

I am sorry, I am not prepared to withdraw my remark.

Order! I warned hon. members that I would order the next hon. member who interjected to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon. member immediately thereafter interrupted and must withdraw from the Chamber.

Whereupon Mr. Higgerty withdrew.

Clause 62 put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Barnett and Hughes) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

Clause 63 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 64 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 65,

I want to apply myself particularly to sub-section (2) of this clause which is surely one of the most curious provisions we have had to discuss in this Parliament for many a long year. Sub-section (1) reads—

I leave the question of the competent authority for the moment. I merely wish to stress that this law and laws which are in force in the Transkei, as defined in Section 2, are to remain in force. Sub-section (2) reads—

I say, Sir, surely this is one of the most extraordinary provisions in any law we have had for years and years. When there is a conflict between two laws, one of which is the Constitution of the Transkei or a law already in force in the Transkei, the State President may issue a proclamation setting aside the conflict and that proclamation then becomes the law! Not only can this proclamation of the State President set aside the conflict but also the ambiguity and, as far as the Department is concerned, an administrative difficulty! They do not come with an amendment to the law, they do not repeal it, they go to the State President and ask for a proclamation! What will this mean in practice? I make bold to say that it means the State President can issue a proclamation which will amend a law, which will repeal a law in fact, and which will create a new law for the administrative benefit of the officials of the Department who have to make that law work. I repeat, Sir, surely we have not had such a far-reaching provision in any law. I do not know why the Government did not make this clause, with a short preliminary foreword and something to end it oft, the whole Bill; why did they not leave it to the State President to issue proclamations dealing with the whole question of the Transkei if the Government is prepared to go as far as that in this clause? I repeat: By proclamation the State President can repeal our laws, and what is more, he can substitute others. There is no limit to it.

Sir, I hope the Minister is going to tell us very precisely what the reason was for putting in this clause. Is the reason simply that the Government does not know what is going to happen when this Bill becomes law and that they want to make provision timeously for an umpire, namely the State President, who will do what they tell him so that they can get out of all legislative difficulties that may arise? There will be administrative difficulties as well as legislative difficulties. In other words, Sir, the Government is taking this line: “We do not know what is going to happen when this law is put on the Statute Book; we may find ourselves up against all sorts of troubles; we may find laws in conflict with one another; we do not want to have to go to court to show that these laws are legal and right; we may find administrative difficulties; so let us get rid of all these difficulties at one hit and just give the power to the State President to issue proclamations to settle all our troubles even to the extent of amending laws.” I think it is an incredible provision to put into any law.

In terms of the second part to the First Schedule certain powers are entrusted to the Transkeian Authority. One of those powers is the protection of life, persons and property. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this: In regard to sub-section (1) of Clause 65 which provides that “all laws, which immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, were in force in any of the districts mentioned in Section 2 shall continue in force until repealed or amended by the competent authority”, subject, of course, to the provisions of this Act, what is going to happen if the competent authority decides to repeal Proclamation 400 which applies to a number of districts of the Transkei? Who is going to be the competent authority? Is the Transkeian Authority going to have the power to say: “We are going to repeal Proclamation 400 because we ourselves, in terms of this Act are entrusted with the protection of life and property”? I think this is an issue upon which the hon. the Minister must give us a clear-cut reply. Only limited police power is given to the Transkeian Authority. We know all the trouble that has surrounded the application of Proclamation 400; I do not want to digress and go into all these details. We also know that there is considerable discontent in the Transkei because of Proclamation 400. I think the Minister should tell us whether the Territorial Authority now has the right, or whether they may be considered the competent authority clothed with the power of the protection of life, persons and property, to repeal Proclamation 400? And if they decide to repeal Proclamation 400 what is going to be the Government’s approach? Is the Republican Government going to find itself in conflict with the Transkeian Territorial Authority if they decide that they do not need Proclamation 400 for the protection of life, persons and property? They will have full right to decide that. I therefore ask the Minister what does “competent authority” mean in this clause? I think the Minister should give us a clear-cut reply on that issue.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes how far the provisions of sub-section (2) of this clause go? After all, Sir, when this Bill becomes law people will acquire rights because of its provisions. They will regulate their conduct one way or another in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. One knows, and I am sure the hon. the Minister knows, that time and time again ambiguities arise in any legislation and if one is an individual governed by a particular section of an Act and one’s rights are involved, very often to the extent of a great deal of money, one goes and takes competent legal advice to ascertain what one’s position is. You say: “Look here, if it means this then I am greatly affected by it, I may lose thousands of pounds; whereas if it means that then I am in the clear.” In those circumstances one goes to senior counsel and takes an opinion. If counsel advises you firmly that you are on the right side of that piece of legislation, you are in the clear and you may carry on with your activities. Of course, if somebody disputes that right the only place he can do so is in a court of law. Where you have been advised that you are in the clear the usual position is that you are able to vindicate that right in a court of law. So from the beginning, Sir, you as the individual who is subject to the burden of any particular section know where you are, there is clarity and you stand to lose nothing because you realize that there is eventually a back-stop against which you can place your back if you are attacked, that back-stop being the courts. You are on the right side of the law according to what you have been advised.

What is the position here? No matter how well drafted a piece of legislation may be, there will always be ambiguities. Half the time of the courts is taken up in clearing up ambiguities in legislation of some kind or another. What is one’s legal adviser to say? Is he to say “Go to court” if an ambiguity arises under this clause or under this legislation or is he to say “Go to the State President or his advisers; apply as much pressure as you can in whatever direction is open to you (I mean legitimate pressure) and try to get a proclamation made to amend the law to remove the ambiguity in your favour”? The other side is going to do exactly the same. And the hon. the Minister, as the man who is going to advise the State President in this regard, is going to have queues of people at his door lobbying in an attempt to get advice given to the State President in favour of the individual who is doing the lobbying. That is the practical outcome of this, if such a power exists. There will be many ambiguities. There are, as we have pointed out, many ambiguities at the present time. I do not blame the draftsmen for that entirely. Many situations dealt with necessarily require legislation which is of an ambiguous nature. What criterion is going to guide the hon. the Minister in solving those ambiguities by way of proclamation? Is he going merely to act ad hoc and decide in accordance with what he wishes the situation to be, in which case there will be a great many grievously dissatisfied people, or is he going to yield to the greater pressure and come down on the side of the fellow with the biggest army? I use that figuratively. Is he going to come down on the side of the man with the greatest interest or the man who is a political friend or the man who is in control of a circumstance which can be to the hon. the Minister’s political advantage? All these things, Sir, are possible ways out of the dilemma. How can this clause work satisfactorily? Surely there is no better provision than the one which has existed all these years: Let the courts solve any ambiguity which may exist. A clause such as this can only arouse suspicions as to what is the intention. Not only will it arouse suspicion, Sir, but in this particular clause I see the seed of tremendous trouble and concern to whoever has to administer this Act in future.

This is a most unusual provision, but I think it is a practical provision. My first question is this: When does an ambiguity, inconsistency or administrative difficulty arise? As I read this clause, the stage at which an ambiguity, inconsistency or administrative difficulty becomes evident is that stage when a case is taken to court for interpretation, when there are two parties who take the two conflicting points of view in respect of the matter to a court of law for decision. Hon. members will see that it is not compulsory for the State President to give these interpretations by proclamation. He may do so. As hon. members will see, the jurisdiction of the courts is not excluded at all. Normally, where the jurisdiction of the court is not excluded. I submit that the interpretation of laws will in the ordinary course of events come before the court. Indeed, what happens in practice, in criminal cases, for example, is that the parties are not aware beforehand of the fact that there is an inconsistency. It is only when the matter comes before the court that there appears to be an inconsistency.

With the exception of a certain category of cases to which I shall refer in a moment, I should like to give my interpretation of this clause in this way, that the ordinary process of interpretation of laws will continue before the courts. And where the Court gives that construction and the State President, as advised by the Minister of Bantu Administration, feels that it is an anomaly that was not intended, or which should be explained further, he will act by way of proclamation and put the matter beyond any doubt.

Then there is a second category of cases where this clause may be invoked, and that is where the initiative will be taken either by the Legislative Assembly or the Cabinet of the Transkei, or by the Minister of Bantu Administration of the Republic. When either of these two authorities comes up against a legal difficulty in their administration. I can imagine that that legal difficulty could then be raised by the Bantu Government of the Transkei on the one hand with our Government, or on the other hand, that our Government might commence negotiations with the Bantu Government of the Transkei and that the Minister of Bantu Administration, after the negotiations have been concluded, might advise the State President to issue an explanatory proclamation before there is a lawsuit. In other words, in all cases I believe that when private and individual interests are involved, the interpretations of laws will be dealt with by the courts in the ordinary manner. In certain cases it may happen that after the court has given its interpretation, and after attention has been drawn to the lack of clarity in the laws, the State President may issue an explanatory proclamation. The other category will be those cases where the authorities foresee a particular problem.

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the application of this clause in practice. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat was good enough to give us his opinion as to how the Bill will be applied in practice, but that only remains his opinion, and it is not authoritative as yet. I am particularly concerned about the possible application of Clause 65 to bring about a solution when there is a conflict, an otherwise insoluble conflict in terms of Clause 40. The hon. the Minister will recall that in terms of Clause 40, the State President has the right to veto a Bill of the Transkeian authority, and then to refer it back for seven days, but nowhere in the Bill, save perhaps in this clause, is there provision as to how such a conflict is to be resolved in the absence of an agreement between the State President and the Territorial Authority. Under this Bill it is possible that such a sustained conflict may be an administrative difficulty in the highest sense of the word. It may be interpreted thus, and then the State President, where he refuses to sign a measure coming from that Legislative Assembly, may at the same time use his powers to make his own law to replace the Act of the Legislative Assembly. That seems to me to be the position. I cannot believe that that is how the draftsmen of the Bill and the hon. the Minister’s Department themselves saw it or how they wanted it. But there it is. It can in fact be used in this manner. There is a conflict, there is an administrative difficulty, and no other method is provided for in the Bill for resolving the difficulty. That is all that remains. I hope that the Minister will clarify this point and that he will take steps to prevent this clause in fact being used in this manner to thwart the will of an elected body.

Hon. members attach some doubt to this clause, and it may perhaps be susceptible to a degree of doubt, but I should like to give hon. members the assurance that not the slightest consideration has been given here to applying this as a result of conflict, particularly on certain legal matters between the Transkeian Territory and the Republic, not in the least. On the contrary, this clause has been drafted particularly from the point of view of certain administrative difficulties that may possibly be avoided and settled. I should just like to mention an example. We have a Department of Water Affairs, e.g., and certain work has to be done. Now there is also a Department of Lands in the Transkei. Without there being any conflict between the Transkei, which has its Department of Lands, and ourselves, who have a Department of Water Affairs, some outsider may perhaps come along and cause trouble in regard to certain matters, and then there may be doubt as to where this resorts. Such a doubt may possibly arise. It has always been the custom of the State Department to issue such regulations, and therefore we think, and the members of the Territorial Authority do too, that in this way we shall prevent unnecessary difficulties from arising. In this way they may possibly be eliminated. Now there is a possibility that this may be construed as being able to be used in relation to legal conflicts. That is not so at all. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has already pointed out that in such cases it goes without saying that no Government will be so foolish as to take such a step. Then such a case will possibly go to court. But now the viewpoint is that there will be the closest contact and consultation between our Government and the Transkeian Government, and as far as smaller Acts are concerned, they may possibly advise that the interpretation should be this or that, and then it will be necessary first to go through the whole process of court proceedings, whereas that could easily be eliminated in this way. The same applies to administrative matters. Here co-operation must be the basis, and here it is being made easy for the Transkeian Government and for the Government of the Republic. It is mainly an administrative rule, but a rule that will also make it easier to eliminate possible clashes by means of consultation.

Now hon. members say they have never yet seen such a provision in a constitution. Possibly that is quite correct. But hon. members should surely have regard to one thing. They should also see how constitutions have developed in other parts of the world. A constitution is a growing thing and particularly in the transition period one has to make provision for eventualities. That is why this clause is really a clause that may be used here and there in your process of growth, but it is also possible that it may never be used. The Transkei may feel that a case may arise which could lead to all kinds of unnecessary expense, and that it could easily be eliminated by simply rectifying the matter. The same point of view may be held by the Government of the Republic. Your basis. I repeat, is close contact and consultation. The hon. member for Turffontein has asked what we mean by “competent authority”, The hon. member will know that at the present time there are laws of this Government in the Transkei; there are laws of the Provincial Council, and there are also the laws that they will pass. Provision is merely made here for those laws to continue to remain in force. Take an Act on health, for instance. It goes without saying that that Act on health will remain in force until the Provincial Council revokes it, or until the Provincial Council perhaps resolves to transfer it to the Transkei, and then there will have to be new legislation. That is all that provision is made for here.

Does that also apply to Proclamation 400?

The hon. member is so concerned about Proclamation 400 now, and he is making all kinds of submissions about it, while he knows nothing about the matter. His submissions are completely unfounded. It is obvious, too, that in such a case the Legislative Assembly will be recognized and if they think it is in the interests of the Transkei that the proclamation should continue to apply, it will merely continue to apply. When that proclamation was issued, there was the closest consultation, which will continue in the future. When I asked them whether I should revoke the proclamation, they unanimously resolved that I should not do so at all.

I appreciate the explanation of the hon. Minister, but I think one can only wonder at the restraint exercised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) when he described sub-section (2) of the clause as “curious”. I think it is a masterly understatement to say that this is “curious”, despite the explanation that the hon. Minister has given. If sub-section (2) had simply read “if any provision of this Act is found to be ambiguous …”, one could have gone some way in accepting the explanation given by the hon. Minister, but once it stands in this clause “if any other law is found to be ambiguous or to give rise to administrative difficulty”, it can be amended or eliminated by proclamation by the State President, then it opens the door to a very different position from that described by the hon. Minister. I want to say to him that it is not enough for the Minister to say, as he has often said to us in this debate, that no Government will be so “dwaas”, so foolish as to do this, that or the other. Surely he understands, as a Minister of the Cabinet— far better than I can hope to understand—that what is written in the law is the law, and not the sagacity of any interpretation by this or any other Government in the future. Nobody can foresee who will be more foolish than this Government, if that is possible. Then he goes on to refer to the fact that there will always be the closest contact and consultation between this Government and the Transkeian Government. He has told us that repeatedly, but that again is no explanation why in our legislation, for the first time, there is a provision which, to put it at its lowest, opens the door to government by regulation or proclamation, which is by common consent undesirable in any democratic country, whether in the Transkei or whether in the Republic of South Africa. Furthermore, he admitted that probably it was correct to say that this is the first time that such a proviso has been inserted in legislation in this country. I must assume the correctness of the statement of the hon. member for South Coast, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that this is in fact the first time. And what is the position at which we have arrived? That in the creation of this independent-to-be Transkei, in the rush, as it were, to create this would-be-independent state, we have adopted a method here in regard to this particular sub-section (2) which completely changes the legal system and the legislative system of South Africa. One would have imagined that whatever the significance of this future state in the Transkei might be to the rest of the Republic, it is not necessary for the entire system of legislation in South Africa to be geared to what will happen in the Transkei or what should happen in the Transkei— for every wagon in South Africa to be hitched to this star of the Transkei. I know the hon. Minister has said that the people of the Transkei are the most advanced, the most intelligent, the most reasonable, the most ethical people in the world (according to his description of them), and one can only marvel that such wonderful people do inhabit the earth! Let us assume that that is so, that they have all the virtues which the hon. Minister has gone out of his way to ascribe to them; it is still not enough to say that they are the most reasonable people, and that they will never create a situation in which they will say that certain legislation as applied to the Transkei is ambiguous, and that it is necessary for that legislation to be changed. That is only an assumption, Mr. Chairman, and I think anybody in South Africa, and certainly in this House, is entitled to object very strongly to any such provision which makes “any other law”, not only this particular Bill if it becomes an Act, subservient, as it were, to the needs and to the desires and to the interpretation of any future Government of the Transkei, in consultation with the Government of the Republic; I recognize that there will be such consultation, but there will also be the pressures to which other hon. members have referred. What kind of situation are we heading into where the Government can say at any time, without any reason, that the application of “any other law” has become difficult in the Transkei, or that it has become something which is ambiguous in regard to the application of the law in the Transkei and that therefore it must be changed? If it stopped there and the Minister would come forward with the necessary legislation to amend an Act then, of course, that would be normal procedure; but, obviously, the difference here is that behind the scenes, as it were, this difficulty which may have arisen in the Transkei is used as a base or a basis for a regulation, a proclamation to be issued by the State President (that is by the Minister e.g.), which can completely change any law which—coincidentally or incidentally—has reference to the Transkei, whereas it was never designed for the purpose of being applied to such a semior would-be-independent state, but which was and is still at that time the law of the Republic of South Africa. For these reasons, and with great respect to the hon. the Minister, I think that we are entitled to a much better explanation than he has given the Committee up to now. Finally, I want very briefly to deal with the explanation which was given by the hon. member for Kempton Park. Referring to the fact that it was still open to the courts to interpret the law and to decide whether it was ambiguous, etc., he again did not attempt to give the explanation which we are entitled to receive. “Ambiguity” is one thing, and “difficulty”, which may be alleged by the Administration in the Transkei, is a completely different thing. In other words, as the result of some inconvenience—not a defect in the law, or even in the application of a particular law—the State President can take certain action to change completely what this Government and what this country has seen up to that time on the Statute Book. Thus I ask once again that the hon. Minister should make a serious attempt to tell us why it is necessary to provide for a contemplated change in “any other law”, which in essence means every law on the Statute Book of the Republic of South Africa, merely because it has been found to be ambiguous, or because it has been found difficult to apply in the Transkei. There must be a genuine answer.

I am afraid that I cannot share the fear of hon. members opposite in regard to the object of this clause. I think the reason why I do not share their fears and their suspicions is because our approach differs from theirs. We should remember that we are concerned here with the creation of a totally new relationship, a new relationship in respect of the administration of justice, a new relationship on the executive level, a new relationship on the legislative level. We are establishing an embryo state here which, as the hon. the Minister has said, will have to develop in the course of time. That is why this clause is of great importance to me personally, for with the creation of a totally new relationship between the Transkei and the Republic, with the creation of totally new levels of cooperation within the Transkei, and considering that you are dealing with human beings with human frailties, we shall necessarily encounter snags. Every constitution in the past has experienced that. The constitutional development of older countries never developed without encountering certain snags that had to be overcome, and to me the significance of this clause is that the very best person, the very best power, is being used here to solve such difficulties as may arise in this process of evolution of a young state in its infancy, and that is the State President. Indeed, I should like to point out that in terms of the Transkeian Annexation Act of 1877 and other Acts, the State President has since those days and right up to the present, had the power to make laws, to amend laws and to repeal laws in the Transkei. So it is not such a terrible burden that is now here being placed on the shoulders of the State President. But when I listen to the hon. members opposite, I inevitably come to the conclusion that the trouble with them is that they approach this whole matter with suspicion, and they will see this sting in this clause as they see it if they approach the whole matter in that state of mind. But that will disappear if they approach it in the right manner, and if they realize that it is a fact that the Transkei will come into being, and secondly that we have to accept that, and thirdly, that it is necessary for us to resolve and clear up all the difficulties that may arise in the future in respect of the administration of justice, or in respect of legislation, or in respect of the administration, in a spirit of goodwill, by eliminating as many points of friction as possible. For that purpose this clause is of the greatest importance to me in respect of the future evolution that must inevitably take place, and I keenly support the insertion of this clause.

The hon. Minister tells us that this clause might not even be used, but the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) on the other hand says that he regards this as one of the most important provisions in the Bill.

In respect of one matter.

I understood the hon. member to say that he regards this as “van uiterste belang”, and I understand that to mean that it is of very great importance. Mr. Chairman, it is an axiom of law in all systems that follow the Roman Dutch Law and the English system, which after all is the basis of the law in the world, that it is of cardinal importance that the law should be certain. That is regarded as one of the foundation rules in respect of any system of law, and here we have a provision which I am extremely unhappy about which provides that by proclamation the State President (and that really means the Minister) car, if the law is found to be ambiguous or to give rise to administrative difficulties, alter the law by proclamation. I want to say that I share with hon. members on this side deep concern that there should be a provision such as this in this Statute. Sir, there is provision for legislation. If a matter is one of very great urgency, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with by legislation. That is the way to start a new state, not by introducing unsound principles in law, teaching people who are supposed to be advancing in civilization to start on an unsound basis! Therefore I say that this provision is most inadvisable. Very often there have been ambiguities in the laws of this country. What has happened? People who had to deal with a situation have had to wait sometimes not for one session but several sessions before Parliament had time to deal with the matter. But to introduce a provision of this sort does nothing more than to introduce uncertainty into the position. I say to the hon. Minister that above all things in the circumstances of this Bill, which of course we do not like, we at least would like to see it on a basis of sound legislation and we feel the hon. Minister is making a mistake in putting in this provision, and I can only hope that this debate will ensure that this provision will never be used.

I wish to adopt the attitude assumed at the beginning of his speech by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He stated that it was a cardinal principle of any system of law that there should be certainty. It is my contention that this clause is absolutely necessary for certainty in the law. Now I should like to illustrate this point for him with some practical examples. Agriculture, e.g., has been entrusted to the Transkeian Government, as well as animal husbandry. Sub-section (1) of this particular clause provides that the existing laws shall continue to apply. Now there may be an outbreak of anthrax in the district of Umtata, for instance. The Act that relates to that is still in force. The Act provides, inter alia, that in such cases the Government Veterinary Surgeon may then proclaim a quarantine and that he may cause the cattle of the whole district to be inoculated, and he may take further measures to combat it. But under present circumstances there is no State Veterinary Surgeon in the Transkei. Who must now go and apply that Act in the Transkei? Who has to go and proclaim quarantine there? Who has to see that the cattle are inoculated? Such administrative difficulties may arise. The hon. the Minister has mentioned the example of Water Affairs which has also been granted to the Transkeian Government. There are certain laws under our Water Affairs Act which confer certain powers upon the Director of Water Affairs, but at present in the Transkei there is no Director of Water Affairs. Who must now go and apply those laws there? Let us take the other example of conservation of land. There are certain powers that have been conferred upon conservation committees. Most probably such conservation committees have not yet been established under the new Government. How is the law to be applied there? So you can find one administrative difficulty after another, where certain Acts passed by this Parliament, and which are in force in a state such as ours which has developed considerably and in regard to which we have established organs, and for which we have created the administrative machinery, remain in force as Acts in the Transkei where the administrative machinery for the application of those Acts is not in existence as yet. Accordingly there must be provision for certain steps to be taken to deal with such a state of affairs, and this clause has been inserted for that purpose. There is no need to be suspicious and to think, as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) seems to think, that we are, as it were, granting new rights to the State President through the back door, so as to obtain certain dictatorial legislative powers. The hon. member has not read the Bill. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has in fact already pointed this out, but Clause 70 (3) makes it very clear that the existing right of the State President to make laws for the Transkei, which he had in the past under those annexation Acts, will continue to remain in force. There is no attempt at all here to grant rights to the State President through the back door. He had those rights in the past, and will have them in the future, even without this legislation. Therefore the motives attributed to us by the hon. member for Hospital simply do not exist. This clause is there only to overcome the administrative difficulties I have just outlined.

I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Possibly there may be isolated cases of laws that are made applicable to the Transkei and which are not clear in their definition. It may be necessary to issue a proclamation in such a case. But this clause goes very much further than that. This clause is a blanket provision covering the whole Act and our whole system of law. It reads “if any provision of this Act or any other law is found to be ambiguous …”, In order to fix our ideas, I should like to take a clause in respect of which we yesterday discussed ambiguity. Ambiguity was found in Clause 52 when we were dealing with financial provisions. If we have to deal with income-tax, raising money, and distributing money, surely it is contrary to the whole meaning of Parliament that we should give anyone the right by proclamation to govern finance. It is an elementary principle; it is the reason for the establishment of Parliament; and here we say in this simple little sub-section that if any provision is found to be ambiguous, then by proclamation in the Gazette, the State President may say what it all means. Surely that is an abrogation of the rights of Parliament? I think the hon. Minister should give us some explanation. Is he going to apply this clause to the interpretation of Clause 52 to which we found no interpretation yesterday?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is concerned as to whether Clause 65 (2) will be able to be used to resolve the difficulty that may arise under Clause 40. I should like to point out that subsection (2) of Clause 65 provides that: “If any provision of this Act or any other law is found to be ambiguous or to give rise to administrative difficulty in the application thereof in the Transkei, or any provision of this Act is found to be in conflict with any other law… This sub-section refers only to laws, while Clause 40 deals with Bills. Accordingly this provision cannot be used at all in relation to Clause 40. This sub-section only deals with laws, in other words, Bills that have already been passed. It has no relation at all to Section 40, and it cannot be applied to resolve the difficulty of Section 40. That is the first point.

Then I should like to point out that the other argument in regard to the powers conferred upon the President under Section 65 (2)—this provision is read somewhat erroneously. You have to read in that that he may only intervene, when there is ambiguity or something that gives rise to administrative difficulties, by then removing it. As is said here, he cannot make new laws or amend laws. It reads clearly that he can only do this according to how necessary he considers it to eliminate any ambiguity, conflict or administrative difficulty. He can only determine how it should apply; he cannot make new laws or make changes. It is a power to interpret that he receives here, and it is not to make amendments.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised a point which leads me to the conclusion—and I say this seriously—that the very first occasion upon which the Minister will be asked to exercise his discretion under this clause will be in respect of the interpretation of this very clause, because there is an ambiguity in it. Let us begin with the first line of sub-section (2). I read only the opposite words. It says that “if any provision of this Act (the Transkei Constitution Act) or any other law is found to be ambiguous… the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette, determine the extent to which and the manner in which such other law shall apply in the districts referred to…”. In other words, whereas the opening line deals with ambiguity either in this Act or in some other law, the remedy given to the State President allows him to exercise his powers only in respect of the other laws. I am quite sure that was not the intention of the Minister, and that is also what emerged from the speeches from the Government benches. But that is not what the clause says. The remedy is given only in respect of determining the extent and the manner in which such other law—not this Act—shall apply in the districts referred to. There, right in the beginning, there is a discrepancy between the wording of the clause and the clear intention as expressed by speeches from hon. members opposite. I do not have to go so far as to say that that is a clear interpretation, but it is sufficient to say that there is an ambiguity, and what are we to do? Are we to go to a court of law for an interpretation, or do we ask the Minister to issue a proclamation through the State President in order to clear it up? I believe that this is yet another example of a hurriedly drafted piece of legislation hurriedly put through the House, saying something contrary to what is intended by the Minister.

Now, to deal briefly with some of the earlier speeches made, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) expressed the view that in the case of ambiguity in the law governing private rights of individuals, those things would be cleared up in the courts, and it would only be matters at governmental level for which this clause would be used. But that is not what it says. One might wish that that were the situation, and it might be desirable, but that is not what the clause says. Then there is the added difficulty namely when is a piece of legislation ambiguous? Ambiguity is so often in the eye of the beholder. Who is to decide whether a thing is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the Minister using this power? All I am trying to show is that it is virtually impossible of implementation, or at the least it is very difficult, and it is totally unacceptable.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) to the fact that I did not refer to Clause 40 at all.

I did not say so.

Wash your ears.

On a point of order, will you order the hon. member out of the House, Sir?

What did the hon. member say?

I said he must wash his ears.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I ask whether you are going to order the hon. member out of the House? He has deliberately gone against your ruling, and I ask you to treat him in precisely the same way as you treated our Chief Whip.

Is that the first interruption?

It is the first interruption of that nature. Up to now there have only been perfectly orderly questions.

The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, I submit that your ruling was perfectly clear.

Order! I have already indicated that that was not the first interruption.

As I understood your ruling you said that you would not permit interruptions of that nature again, and the hon. member has gone contrary to your ruling, with respect. As the result of an interjection by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), you ordered him to withdraw from the House.

Order! I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, at what stage does your ruling stop?

Well, there were several interruptions.

We have been particularly careful not to interrupt, because of your ruling, and this was the first interruption. We were not told that we could now interrupt again. We took it that the ruling still stood, and that the first person to interrupt would be ordered out of the House.

When did the warning stop? Is your ruling no longer applicable?

Several hon. members have interrupted since I gave my ruling.

Without reflecting on the Chair, that was for you to deal with. But I say they were perfectly legitimate questions and this was the first interruption.

Order! The hon. member cannot argue with the Chair. I have given my ruling.

Is your warning of no more effect now? Can we now interrupt again?

I will indicate to the hon. member when interruptions can be made again.

Are we now allowed to interrupt again?

I am not here to answer questions. Will the hon. member resume his seat?

I was about to say that regardless of the alleged imperfection in my hearing, I heard very well what was said this afternoon on that side of the House, and I do not need to be advised to wash my ears, because Hansard will prove that what I said I heard was in fact said! But on the Government side there is such a hopelessly mixed-up state about this Bill that they no sooner utter a sentence than they conveniently forget it; and I will remind you, Sir, of some of the things they said. In discussing this clause— and I hope the Minister is now applying his mind to the answer we are asking for—he had the assistance of the hon. members for Ventersdorp and Heilbron, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp, replying to my speech, said that in terms of the Annexation Act of 1877 the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa always had the power to amend the laws, etc., and presumably the State President still has that power—completely side-stepping the argument which I and others on this side advanced; that regardless of what may be said about this Bill, it cannot be said about any other law, because that is in fact an innovation, a new departure. Strangely enough, the hon. member for Heilbron comes back with the same argument, but this time he fortifies himself by pointing to Clause 70 (3), and he says, naturally the State President has always had this power to make changes in the laws; but when you read this clause, you see very quickly that there are only certain laws to which Clause 70 (3) refers and which apparently have some direct reference to, and were in fact devised to deal with the situation then, and that might in the future arise in the Transkei. So I say that even in the second case, whatever one might expect from a fellow sea-lawyer like the hon. member for Ventersdorp, the hon. member for Heilbron sidesteps the argument that in terms of Clause 65 (2) it is perfectly clear, no matter what anyone has said up to now, that the State President can by proclamation change the application of a law which in its original concept had nothing to do with the Transkei. Surely the hon. member for Heilbron will not deny that. He then contents himself by saying that it only refers—and this was the argument used by the hon. member for Omaruru—to the determination of the extent and the manner in which such other laws shall apply in the districts referred to. Surely it has not come to his attention that in determining the extent to which a law—any other law; not the Transkei Act— can be applied in the Transkei, the State President may determine that the extent is nil; in other words, it does not apply to the Transkei at all. Is that not a change in our legal system? One minute there is a law which is of effect in the Transkei, because it is part of the Republic, and the next minute, as the result of the State President applying his powers, he can determine that this law has no application, and that it ceases to exist as far as the Transkei is concerned. Is that not a change in our legal system? Further, in regard to the manner in which such a law shall be applied to the Transkei, the State President decides that the manner of its application shall be something totally different from the manner in which it is applied in the Republic. So far hon. members opposite have made four attempts to explain the meaning of this clause. But when the hon. member for Heilbron says that we must not think, as I suggested, that this is a back door to tampering with legislation—he did not use that word, but I do—I say specifically that it opens the door to tampering with the existing laws of the Republic on the pretext that they may be ambiguous, or, even worse, that there may have been some administrative difficulty in applying them in or to the Transkei. What a lame excuse! Surely at this stage the Minister should give us a specific answer to the questions we have repeatedly raised.

I rise simply to ask the Minister to reply to the important points raised on this side of the House. The hon. member for Zululand has pointed out a grave weakness in the clause. Will the Minister now reply to these points?

I have replied to all the questions. I cannot help it if hon. members will not listen. I have stated very clearly what our object is. We are concerned with a transition process here, and the whole object is not to use this section in season and out of season. I have said clearly that this section will be applied only when in the first place administrative matters occur that can easily be disposed of in this manner, often at the request of the Transkei, or even at our request. Secondly, it will be mostly the minor laws that will not be completely consistent, and in this way the difficulty can easily be ironed out. There is no intention at all to abuse the section. It is purely a useful section for this process of development. I could of course rise and deal with all these ghost stories, but I have already stated what our approach and our intentions are, and the hon. member for South Coast could at least take my word for it.

Clause 65 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 66,

I want to deal with sub-section (2) particularly. Both (1) and (2) make it clear that a person can get a licence to drive a vehicle licensed in the Transkei, and that person, with the licence so obtained, and with the vehicle so licensed, can come into the Republic and need not take out either another driver’s licence or another licence for his vehicle. The position then is that we have a uniform Motor Vehicle Ordinance which has been adopted by all four of the provinces, but it does not apply to the Transkei for a period of six months. Roadworthiness and safety now go by the board, because the vehicle is licensed in the Transkei, and in terms of a Republican statute, as this Bill will become, there is no provision for care being taken in regard to those matters, like roadworthiness. And in regard to the drivers, supposing the Transkei provides that a man who can read and write Xhosa shall be entitled to get a driver’s licence—something which I think is quite likely—and then he goes out into the Republic, there is nothing anyone can do about it for six months. He cannot read our signs, or read at all, but even if he can read and write one of the official languages in the Transkei, which is Xhosa, he can still get a licence and drive for six months in the Republic. What kind of menace does the Minister contemplate setting loose on the roads of the Republic? I can hardly imagine anything more calculated to cause road accidents. And I want to point out that in such a case, as far as I can see under this clause, the man does not even come under the jurisdiction of our courts. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that question. What do we do if the man has an accident in the Republic? He will say that he is not concerned with our laws. Even if his vehicle is completely un-roadworthy, there is nothing we can do about it. I hope the Minister will make some kind of adjustment here before he lets loose such a menace on our roads, not by accident but by apparently deliberate intent.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has again used one of his provocative, offensive arguments. [Interjections.] He cannot just say anything here and expect to get away with it without being exposed by us. There is nothing strange in this. If somebody, e.g., were to come from Rhodesia with a motor-car licensed there, have you ever heard of anything so absurd as that that person should obtain another licence when he arrives here? How many thousands of Bantu are there in South Africa with transport licences and driver’s licences? The hon. gentleman has never objected to that. But when he is resident in the Bantu homelands, and he is competent to obtain a motor driver’s licence there, then, according to the hon. member, when he arrives here we find that he is a person who cannot even read.

Come to the clause.

What about Basutoland and Swaziland?

The hon. member in his arguments is being offensive to every inhabitant of the Transkei as well as to the Government. He has never been so insulting to the Bantu resident in South Africa itself, and who are in the same boat, as regards knowledge of language, as the Bantu resident in the Transkei, but he must now necessarily leave no stone unturned to see whether he cannot find something there which he can use in being offensive to the future citizens of the Transkei and their authorities.

Where is that provided for in the clause?

Perhaps the hon. member is already so blinded by the hatred he has developed for the Transkei, that he is no longer even aware of what he says in Committee; that he does not even realize to what level of offensiveness he has sunk time and again. There is nothing emanating from that territory from which the hon. member does not try to extract all the venom possible. I do not think the hon. member’s party will feel very flattered in future about the attitude he has adopted here. You can imagine how ashamed the hon. member will feel when he travels through the Transkei a year or two after this Act has come into operation, and he then has to account for the offensive language he has used here. I want to appeal to the hon. gentlemen opposite, if it will do any good, that in this process of releasing the Bantu from tutelage, we should not say anything which in the future may be thrown back into our faces. This language and this kind of argument of the hon. member for South Coast could very easily recoil on us. I think that if he is not careful, it might recoil upon him personally some day, or to put it in his own words, he may find that it may recoil on him if he is not very careful.

I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has lost sight of one important fact and that is that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Clause 66 are entrenched in this Act, and no matter what the provisions are in the Transkei in relation to a licence to be granted to an inhabitant of that territory,, we will have to change this Act if we are not satisfied that the standard of their driving is equal to the standard of our driving. It does not apply to the Transkei only, it applies to any country in the world where standards differ from ours. But there is another facet, in reverse; we are not only protecting our position; we want to protect the position of the people in the Transkei, because the way I read sub-section (1) of this clause the position in regard to the Transkei is very much worse because there a person outside the Transkei who goes into the Transkei requires no licence at all. The clause does not say that he must have a licence from the Republic and then he can drive in the Transkei. It simply says that a person coming from outside into the Transkei shall not be subject to any law made by the Legislative Assembly in respect of the registration of vehicles or the licensing of drivers. What is even worse is this; it says that if a car owned by somebody outside the Transkei is taken into the Transkei, then for six months the person owning that car may drive that car, or it may be driven for him by a person registered in the Transkei without any law made by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei being applicable to that vehicle or driver. In other words, if the hon. member for Krugersdorp takes his car to the Transkei and he wanders around there and finds some Xhosa who has never before driven a car, he can say to him, “get in and drive my car,” and that Xhosa is not responsible for any accident, or commits no offence, because in terms of this sub-section he does not require a licence.

Can you read or not?

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has changed his appeal to me; he usually says “nonsense now he wants to know whether I can read. That question is just as intelligent as the remark “nonsense”. But Sir, what is worse still is that legislation in regard to this particular provision cannot be passed by the Transkeian Parliament; it can only be passed by this Parliament, so we are depriving the Parliament of the Transkei of making their own laws in regard to the regulation of licences and who shall drive cars. The hon. member for Krugersdorp must not say that we are just making remarks which are going to recoil on us. We are trying to protect the position of both the people of the Republic and the people who are being taken away from the Republic and put in the Transkei.

I think the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) is now completely at sea, and in view of what he has just said I definitely gain the impression that he has not read the clause. I think the remark of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) that he cannot read is just about correct, because one would have thought that if he was able to read he would find the terms of this clause very clear. Let me now explain in simple language for the benefit of the hon. member what the position is: We are concerned with two matters here; in the first place, with drivers’ licences and in the second place, with the registration of motors. In the first instance, where a person possesses a driver’s licence in the Transkei, and then travels about in the Republic for a day, or for two or three days, or for a period up to six months, it will not be necessary for him to take out an extra licence here. It would in any event be foolish. That is not something that is applied in any country in the world. If a Rhodesian or a Frenchman or a Portuguese with a valid licence were to come here for a day, we do not require him first to take out a licence here again before he drives a motor-car. That would create an untenable position. If that hon. member goes to London with his South African driver’s licence, he will not be required to take out a driver’s licence there on the very first day. He will only have to take out a driver’s licence there if he intends staying for longer than a certain period. The same applies to the registration of a vehicle. If a vehicle is registered say in Cape Town it is surely obvious that if that vehicle is taken to the Transkei or to Rhodesia or to Britain, it will not be necessary, in the case of a tourist, to go and register that vehicle immediately in another district.

It is only feigned ignorance.

It is complete ignorance on the part of the hon. member for Parktown. If the hon. member for Parktown does not understand the position yet, then it leads one to think he does not want to understand it. What is being made applicable here in Clause 66 is merely the longstanding legislation already existing in many countries of the world. It can only be applied in this manner, and I do hope that the hon. member for Parktown will not expose his ignorance further.

In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and by the hon. member who has just sat down regarding Rhodesia, I must point out that in those cases it is a matter of reciprocity. We do it with them because they do it with us. But if we were dealing with any other country and we felt that the standard of their licensing was not satisfactory, we would not necessarily agree to reciprocal arrangements. In the case of the Transkei, the drivers there are licensed and tested at the present time by people who have been tested by our authorities. We are now allowing that authority to go out of our hands, and those people will now be tested by authorities appointed in the Transkei.

What about Swaziland?

The same applies there; it is a matter of reciprocity. In this case we need not let this authority go out of our hands. We are doing it deliberately for an area which is right in the centre of our territory, an area which abutts on main roads of our territory. There was no necessity to give this power away. I maintain that this is one of the difficulties and dangers which we are beset with when we have a state within a state and especially a state within a state which, as has been admitted in this discussion, is progressing towards independence. We in the border areas know what we are talking about when we complain about the types of drivers who come over into our territory and these are people who have been tested by our own authorities. They have had their training and their practice in areas out in the bundu where they see very little traffic. We know how many accidents take place when they go on to our main roads. We know how many buses go over cliffs. Ask the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). Week after week Native-driven buses go over precipices through bad driving because those people are not accustomed to driving under the conditions which we have in our territory. I feel therefore that we could easily have kept these powers, and even at this stage I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. If he does not do so, it may very well happen that circumstances will arise that we will all regret. We will only know what types of drivers are coming into our territory when they have had an accident. If they get along for six months without an accident it is all very well but it is only when they have accidents that we will realize that these people were incapable of driving under the conditions existing in our territory. Time and again the authorities of the different provinces, the Administrators and the various traffic authorities, have got together with a view to trying to thrash out uniformity in tests, uniformity in driving and uniformity in regulations. We are now going out of our way to create another authority which will make it more difficult to obtain uniformity and, Sir, this is only one of six more authorities which have been promised for the future, and quite a number of those six additional authorities will be authorities over territories which are divided up into many sections. We are now embarking on something which is going to lead to a great deal of trouble. I feel that with this sixfold possibility of multiplying these troubles we would do very well to drop this clause and leave the testing of these drivers and everything pertaining to traffic throughout the Transkei and the other six Bantustans later on, in our own hands. I would like to say that this clause also focuses attention on the fact that the Transkei state traverses one of the Republic’s main strategic and economic routes, and when complete independence is obtained, this fact will provide a powerful weapon against the Republic.

I must say candidly that I am very sorry about the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite in regard to this matter, and particularly about the manner in which they have put this case. I am referring particularly to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The hon. member is one of the people who is so fond of saying that he works for good racial relations in South Africa, and here he comes along and casts a reflection upon the integrity and the competence of the Bantu, a reflection which, to say the least of it, is a filthy one. I do not think it behoves the hon. member or any member to make this type of humiliating, contemptible statement about any nation in the world, even if they are Black. The hon. member has said that death is now released on the road, and I do not know what else. Why? Only because the Bantu of the Transkei are now also being given the opportunity to issue licences there and to register motor vehicles there. Does the hon. member really want to tell me that it is his deep and honest conviction that the Bantu in South Africa will never ever be able to issue a licence, or to register a motor vehicle or do something of that nature? I am putting this question to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) also. Is that their policy? Of course it must be their policy. But what I take exception to is that this bitter, distasteful attack is made upon the Bantu. Is it necessary? What benefit can the hon. member derive from that? His party gains no benefit from it. With these distasteful attacks politics really sinks to a level I have never yet experienced in this House. Can the hon. member expect anybody to take him seriously?

Will the hon. the Minister reply to a question?

Let me make my point. I ask whether the hon. member can really expect one to take him seriously? The hon. member derives no benefit from the statements he has made here, and he makes an ugly allegation against the Bantu of South Africa. What he said here does not remain here and if the Commissioner-General goes along the day after to-morrow and explains his words, then the hon. member will be angry about it. I do not think it is fair towards South Africa. It is South Africa that has to pay the price for it, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said. But take the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) now, who rose here and said that this measure provides that a Bantu may come here and drive a motor-car without a licence. Just imagine that a Member of Parliament can come along here and make such a statement!

I said he cannot read.

Effect is simply being given here to an administrative matter, and that is a matter hon. members have pleaded for so much. The Transkei is still a part of the Republic of South Africa. Economically we are intertwined. Their vehicles move about in South Africa, and our vehicles move about there and we help each other. Just imagine that we now have to lay down that only licences issued by a White official will be recognized and that only motors registered by a White official will be recognized. Is it right, is it reasonable? The hon. member for East London (North) (which is on the border), of all people, adopts that view. What attitude must the Bantu there now adopt towards him? Is that a reasonable and a human point of view? No, I really would like to appeal to hon. members not to sink to this level. Let them oppose this clause if they wish to do so, but is it necessary to do so in such a spirit that they do harm to South Africa? The hon. member for South Coast may now put his question.

Can the Transkeian Parliament under this clause pass an Act that will permit the registration of vehicles and licensing of drivers who can speak only the Xhosa language, one of the official languages?

That of course is a matter about which a decision will have to be taken in the future. You cannot say that they will speak only the Xhosa language. But these matters will be arranged judiciously in future, and we already have the standard laid down in the Republic of South Africa appearing in the Transkei. I have no doubt that that standard will be maintained there. That is one of the tasks in which we shall have to assist them. It frequently happens that a person from another country comes here and he is permitted to drive here. Why now adopt this unsavoury attitude as regards the Bantu of the Transkei? It is because we are economically and otherwise intertwined that we adopt the view that we shall have to help them to develop. It would in the first place be very unwise to say that no vehicle from the Transkei may enter the Republic. I do not believe the hon. members intend it that way. Is the hon. member prepared to rise and say that it is the policy of the United Party that a Bantu will never be permitted in the future to issue a motor driver’s licence or to approve a vehicle for registration in the Republic of South Africa? For that is the implication of the matter as stated by the hon. members here. It think it would be most unwise. I should like to hear from the hon. member for South Coast now, whether it is his point of view in principle that we must never permit a Bantu ever to obtain the right to issue a licence or to approve the registration of a car; that it should be done only by a White official.

I am going to be very brief. Firstly may I say that the hon. the Minister need not chide me over my regard for the Bantu. The hon. the Minister is a man who in front of 2,000 Natives referred to me as a wolf and a vulture. He need not chide me; let him look at his own history a bit before he starts to talk to me about that. He will only be able to chide me for my attitude to the Bantu once he has apologized to me for having said that to a crowd of 2,000 Bantu. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite obviously agree with the Minister’s sentiments. That is the attitude of the Nationalist Party. Make no mistake about this, Sir. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) laughs about it. I say that that is their attitude. What does that hon. member know about this matter any way? Sir, my question to the Minister was a simple one but the Minister wanders round and round and refuses to face the point. It is a perfectly simple question. We do not want to be told by the Minister about a pie in the sky by and by and what is going to happen later on. My question is this: Under this clause, is it possible for the Transkeian Parliament so to legislate that vehicles and drivers from the Transkei can get licences for their vehicles and themselves and drive with only a knowledge of Xhosa and not a knowledge of Afrikaans or English? It is perfectly simple for the Minister to say that under that clause they can do it, without casting any aspersions on me because I asked that question. But the hon. the Minister wanders round and round and then asks whether it is the policy of this side of the House that the Bantu of the Transkei are not to be allowed to have licences from their own Government for their vehicles and for themselves. Sir, I throw back that insinuation at the hon. the Minister with contempt.

You are running away now. You are hiding behind your question.

Every one of the four provinces has the power to make its own laws in regard to the licensing of drivers and the registration of vehicles, and there is not the slightest reason why the Transkeian Parliament, if that was their desire, should not have exactly the same power, but having done that, then you leave it to the provinces concerned to see whether they are prepared to give reciprocity on the ground that there is an equal standard of efficiency in regard to the driver, in regard to his comprehension of the laws of the Republic and in regard to the effectiveness of the vehicle from a safety first point of view. My question to the Minister is this: Since the insertion of this provision in the Bill, has he discussed the matter with the Road Safety Council of South Africa? Has he taken advice or asked for that Council’s opinion? Have they agreed to that? The point is that the Minister is evading the issue. He knows that what I say is right. A Xhosa with a vehicle licence in the Transkei and a licence issued in the Transkei, knowing no other language than Xhosa can be let loose on the roads of the Republic in terms of this clause.

Before calling upon the hon. Chief Whip, I should like to ask hon. members to confine themselves strictly to the clause now. I have permitted the hon. the Minister to reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and vice versa, but hon. members must now confine themselves strictly to the clause.

I want to confine myself strictly to the clause, but I should like to say that the hon. member for South Coast has taken the Minister to task for a certain attitude he has revealed.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

As regards this clause, I should just like to put this question to the hon. member for South Coast. Since when, if one takes out a licence, does one have to be very proficient in English or Afrikaans? A man may be able to speak English very fluently, but he may be a rotten driver. I do not understand the hon. member’s logic. If a Bantu is a good driver, what reason has the hon. member to take away his licence from him? Is that the Christian, proper, civilized conduct one expects from an Opposition of South Africa as the Christian White guardian? Are those the people who are always posing here as the friends and the Christian guardians of the Black man in South Africa? Mr. Chairman, I feel like taking away the licence of the hon. member for South Coast because he is not very fluent in Afrikaans. If the hon. member goes on like that, he will verily not even be willing to permit the issue of a licence to a Bantu to enable him to ride on a bicycle in South Africa, and then they are the people who are always referring to freedom of movement and of fundamental human rights. I almost feel like moving that the question be put immediately, after all the nonsense on this clause we have had to listen to this afternoon.

I am glad the Chief Whip has entered the debate because I think he understands this matter better than the hon. the Minister, with due respect. The argument of this side is not concerned with race or racial hatred.

They must know English to be able to drive a motor-car.

We harbour no hatred for the Bantu. I do not wish to ask why we should love the Bantu any less than hon. members on that side!

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the question of licences and registration.

I am coming to that. The argument of this side has nothing to do with the question raised by the hon. the Minister. It does not have anything to do with Black or White; it has to do with the question of drivers’ licences for people who may have a different standard who do not have the experience and the background that we have already acquired.

And cannot speak English.

It is immaterial whether they can speak English or Afrikaans or Xhosa.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) said they cannot speak English.

It is one of the causes that may give rise to trouble namely the fact that the person is not proficient in the other languages. We know it can cause difficulties in every country in the world. Here it is a question of uniformity of standards more than anything else. The standard that will be required there cannot possibly be as high as the standard required here in the White area. They do not have the experience and the background as yet. They have no previous experience and now the Minister comes along suddenly and he takes an important matter such as this out of the hands of the Republic and he places it in the hands of an inexperienced Transkei. I should like to refer my hon. friend with all due respect to what the late General Hertzog said in regard to this matter. He was so concerned about the poor Native motor-drivers that he expressed the opinion that they should receive special training before a licence is issued to them. I am afraid the hon. member for South Coast is perfectly correct when he predicts that unless the standard is the same as in the Provinces we shall have trouble with the drivers from the Transkei and we shall be unable to do anything about it.

What about a Frenchman who comes here and who cannot speak Afrikaans or English and he is a motor racing driver. Must we now disqualify him?

I wonder whether my hon. friend has ever heard of an international licence? We in South Africa have reciprocity with certain other countries and I think the hon. the Minister would have done much better if in the first instance he had left the issue of licences in the hands of the Republic and of the provincial authorities until such time as the people of the Transkei shall have gained more experience and have become more adept in the matter. Here we have another instance—I am sorry to repeat it—of the anxiousness of hon. members opposite simply to give away things. Everything we have to-day they want to give away to the Xhosas of the Transkei. The sovereignty of our Parliament is increasingly being curtailed.

It is not a question of our harbouring hatred for the Bantu. We are dealing here with the standard of the motor-drivers, with their skill and their sense of responsibility. With all respect to the Bantu population of South Africa I am afraid that I have to say that they have not yet developed that very essential sense of responsibility. Anyone who often travels on the roads of South Africa will agree with me. Mr. Chairman just drive in Johannesburg regularly and you will see what happens there. It is for those reasons that we are reacting against this matter.

Members on this side of the House are quite surprised that the hon. the Minister has taken exception to the suggestions made as far as road-safety is concerned under this clause. The Minister said that these provisions were introduced for administrative purposes in order to provide better control of road-traffic. When you remember that to-day in the Republic there are approximately 400,000 vehicles which are driven by Bantu—not necessarily owned by Bantu—but driven by Bantu you realize that provisions should be made at this stage and in this legislation, for better control. It is estimated that as time goes on, within the next ten years, approximately half the motor-vehicles on the roads of the Republic will be driven by Bantu. Under those circumstances, I am most surprised that the Minister has not made provision in this legislation for some form of compulsory third party insurance that should be applicable to all cars registered in the Transkei.

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

Can I discuss the combined registration of licences and third party insurance?

No.

I want to point out that this clause provides for a period of six months only. Hon. members opposite have avoided that fact, but it is very important, in the sense that it is merely a temporary sojourn in the Republic of South Africa. In other words, we now want to establish the same relations with the Transkei that we have in respect of other countries. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) emphasized the fact that the Bantu in the Transkei or rather the Bantu in general, have not developed to the extent that they are able to drive a motorcar or to issue licences to their own people. What right has the hon. member to say that? What right has the hon. member to claim that the legislative provision we are introducing in the Transkei will not be sufficient to ensure that licences will be issued only to people who can drive properly? That is ridiculous, because everything they are objecting to today is already being done in South Africa. There are hundreds of thousands of Bantu in the Republic who are good drivers. There are hundreds of them in the hon. member’s constituency who are good drivers. What right have we to say that they are not sufficiently developed to be good drivers?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) raised the question of language. He said it was possible that a licence could be issued to a Bantu who could speak only the Bantu language. As far as I know, there is no provision in any ordinance that a person should be able to speak two or three languages before he is entitled to a licence. If there were such a provision many hon. members opposite would not have been able to take out a driver’s licence. The only requirement is that a person should be able to drive a motor vehicle properly and be familiar with the road signs. Surely one can be familiar with all the road signs without being able to talk all the languages spoken in a country. Hon. members opposite are making a farce of this matter. They forget that Clause 1 of this Bill has already been approved of. They want to use the arguments applicable to Clause 1 in regard to every clause we have dealt with hitherto. They do not move amendments to the various clauses in order to try to improve them. If they have any objection to this clause, surely the usual procedure is to try to improve it but their arguments are always that the whole of the legislation is bad. Hon. members must accept that Clause 1 has already been passed; the independence of the Transkei has already been agreed to. They should now try to improve the clauses as far as possible. But that is not what they are doing; they advance ridiculous arguments and want to prohibit procedures which have already been applied in South Africa for years in respect of foreigners who come here with licensed motor cars and foreign driving licences. Hon. members have no right to speak derogatively of the provision which will be made in the Transkei or of the drivers in the Transkei.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage.

In trying to see the practical application of this clause I think there is one important factor that must be taken into account, namely that during the past five or six years there has been a great deal of negotiation and consultation between the four provinces to obtain uniformity in regard to our road traffic laws.

There is no uniformity yet.

Let me develop my argument. As a result of the uniformity which came about as a result of those negotiations, various traffic ordinances were passed by the various provincial councils. Particularly in regard to the question of the registration of vehicles and the licensing of drivers there is uniformity. There is also uniformity as regards the age. There is also uniformity as far as the test is concerned which the applicant for a driver’s licence has to pass. In terms of this clause the right to licence people is being passed over to another authority. We are therefore not going to have any degree of uniformity in regard to the standard that shall be attained by a registered driver. Just to mention the one point of age: What will be the position if drivers’ licences are issued to people at the age of 16 years and over in the Transkei? There is nothing to prevent that authority from producing a standard of driver and a test to be complied with which are vastly inferior to and which will certainly be different from those in the rest of the country.

We know that in the United States of America where they have a federal form of Government there is a variance of age and standard in regard to the licensing of drivers. That has caused considerable difficulty in that country. We are going to bring about a similar state of affairs here where there will be no uniformity in regard to registration or the standard to be complied with by a person applying for a driver’s licence. In the practical application of this clause we foresee certain dangers that can come about. We realize that the position in South Africa in regard to road fatalities is assuming alarming proportions and we do not want to see a different standard laid down in a particular part of the country by a different authority entirely. In other words, the uniformity in South Africa is certainly going to be transgressed by the authority which is being voted for in terms of this clause. My question to the hon. the Minister is this: What degree of uniformity does he foresee in regard to the standards to be attained by persons applying for a driver’s licence? In terms of this clause those people will have access to the roads of the Republic. It is all very well for hon. members opposite to say that they will be treated as foreigners. We have been saying from this side of the House that this is going to be an independent state and here we have further confirmation of that point by hon. members opposite trying to draw an analogy between persons coming from foreign countries and the persons coming from the Transkei to drive vehicles on our roads. Those people who come from overseas come from countries where high standards or certain standards have been laid down. For example, in Rhodesia the standard of the licensed driver is very similar to that of a South African driver. These people are going to come onto the South African road and we want to see to it that the position is safeguarded in regard to the standard of driving and the understanding of the road code so as to prevent accidents happening because of an inferior standard of driving.

Mr. Chairman, is it fair and just to make the statement in advance that all the standards applied in the Transkei will be amongst the lowest in the world? We should remember that the laws of the Republic in connection with this matter still apply in the Transkei. The Transkei Government will have to pass an Act in connection with this matter, and it is obvious that they will set to work very carefully. It is also obvious that we will give them the necessary guidance and information and that we will cooperate in order to ensure that the standard right throughout the Republic is more or less uniform. If there should be indications that they are acting irresponsibly, the necessary steps can be taken.

Such as what?

Such an Act will then not be approved of by the State President. We shall have to give the necessary guidance to ensure that the standard is a high one, more or less the same as the standard applicable throughout the Republic. The danger hon. members see in regard to the Transkei possibly exists in the case of Natal, too. One does not know what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) might do to-morrow if he were suddenly to become the Governor-General of Natal. Therefore, it is possible, but is it right to make such an allegation against the hon. member for South Coast?

That is also possible.

Yes, everything is possible, but I say it is absolutely unfair and quite unwarranted to give the world the impression in advance that a danger may arise here. Why not rather wait to see what the results are? Is it fair to stigmatize these people in advance as constituting a great danger on the roads, etc.?

I think hon. members opposite are unfair in their approach. My plea to them is to give these people an opportunity; it is a right they deserve. Steps can always be taken to see that it is done in the right way. I am convinced that there are responsible people there, and that in regard to this matter they will also act responsibly. All those people cannot be stigmatized as being irresponsible. That is my objection to the attitude adopted by hon. members in this regard.

After days of discussion of this Bill I have at last found common grounds with the hon. the Minister. The Minister said when he replied a moment ago that everything was possible. I agree completely with him that everything is possible to this Government, even the translation of this Bill into legislation.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I am going to discuss the clause, Sir. I think the hon. the Minister’s approach to the attitude of his party in regard to this clause is totally wrong. In regard to our criticism of the lack of precaution which is evident in this clause, the Minister adopts the attitude that our criticism is based on the wrong premises, in that we contend that the Bantu motor-drivers who will come into the Republic from the Transkei may possibly be inefficient drivers and that the Transkeian Authority may possibly not take the necessary precautions in licensing drivers and cars. That is not the basis of our attitude. The attitude which we adopt in regard to this lack of precaution is that in this particular clause we are placing certain traffic legislation on the Statute Book for the Transkei which will also affect road traffic all over the Republic. We know the dangers of road traffic. This House itself has over the past months put legislation on the Statute Book in an attempt to obtain a uniform standard of traffic control throughout the Republic in an attempt to eliminate road dangers …

I am sorry, that point has been raised.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause 66 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 67,

Not only for the sake of the record, but for another reason too, I am going to read the relevant portions of this clause—

In other words, in connection with this clause also our attitude has repeatedly been put very clearly. It once again means the frittering away, the cutting up, the giving away of what we have, and that process of cutting up and giving away forms the basis and the foundation of our difference of opinion, and for that reason alone we have to oppose it.

But I should also like to know something else from the hon. the Minister. When I look at the last few lines and read “be vested in the corresponding authority or person exercising similar powers, authorities and functions in the Transkei …” then the question arises, why he has omitted the word “Minister” here, because in the third line he refers to the authority vested in a Minister or in any other authority or person. However, when he comes to the end, after the first Cabinet has been appointed, he omits the corresponding powers of the “Minister”, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will also deal with that particular point in his reply.

This does not contain the spectre the hon. member is seeing. The first refers to the Minister who specially exercises such authority. Now it may happen that the Cabinet is appointed and that it does not immediately take over its functions there. Then it is not necessary in such a case to make special mention of the “Minister”. But if the Minister has to take over immediately, there is the difference that it will also fall under “a person”. The Minister is also a person, and it is not necessary to repeat the same words here.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 68,

This is in effect the restatement in this Bill of the provisions of the State Liabilities Act No. 20 of 1957. This clause provides the machinery by which a civil dispute between an individual and the new Transkeian Government can be resolved by way of recourse to the courts, provided that dispute arises within the confines of the Transkei itself. But, Sir, that does not remove the complications that may arise in civil disputes with the Transkeian Government. We are dealing here with an important legal problem and the hon. Minister of Justice should be here to deal with the problem and to answer the questions that will be raised from this side of the House, because in the nature of things one realizes that the hon. Minister is being handicapped on his own side by not having the support of those members of the Government whose function it is to explain these specific provisions of this constitutional Bill to the House.

I said that providing machinery of this kind does not remove all the complications that may arise because civil disputes of a different kind may well arise.

Such as?

The hon. member for Standerton will also realize that one of the first that comes to mind would be a dispute between the South African Government and the Transkeian Government. How is a dispute of that nature to be dealt with? The clause itself makes no provision for a situation of that kind. By implication therefore it would seem that the introduction of this clause into the system of legislation and the system of legal procedure in South Africa will open the door for the Transkeian courts to adjudicate on a dispute of that nature, a civil dispute which may arise between the South African Government and the Transkeian Government. And contrariwise there might also arise disputes between the Transkeian Government and the South African Government outside the confines of the Transkei itself. Again the provisions of the South African Act dealing with State liabilities is not being altered or amplified in any way to clarify this position I am dealing with now. It seems therefore that it also opens the door for the courts to deal with a dispute of that nature which might arise outside the confines of the Transkei, but within the rest of South Africa. I think the House is entitled to an explanation from the Government to indicate to us what the Government have in mind in providing a provision of this nature. It seems to me that it might be completely unfair on the courts to have them involved in disputes of this nature. Now the hon. Minister may not know, but members on his side who are legally trained will know that in so far as a dispute between the Central Government and a Provincial Government is concerned, there is no remedy to go to the courts. The Provincial Administration is regarded as a department of government of South Africa itself. I cannot quote the specific authority, but I am quite sure that members of the legal profession on the Government side will remember the Natal case in which a dispute between the Province of Natal and the Central Government arose. That decision is quite conclusive in so far as that type of dispute is concerned. But the law is most inconclusive in regard to what is to happen in a dispute between this new form of authority, this new form of government and a provincial administration, the Cape Province in particular, or the Government of South Africa. I rather question if it is fair to involve the courts in disputes of that nature, and unless the hon. Minister can explain the matter it leaves me in doubt as to what is the position.

There is a second problem which arises here. In so far as there is a dispute to-day between the individual and a provincial administration, and the individual may have to go to court about the matter, our law provides that there can be no execution against the Government because there is in effect a guarantee by the Central Government that funds to pay and to settle the dispute will be provided. In other words, our State Liabilities Act makes it perfectly clear that a dispute between an individual and the Central Government itself or between an individual and a provincial Government, has this guarantee that the judgment of the court will be respected and that the settlement of a judgment debt will be met. There is nothing in this legislation, however, to indicate that that same provision is going to apply, that the same set of circumstances is going to apply in the case of a dispute between an individual and the Transkeian Government—I think the hon. Minister should explain the position. Is there a gap or is there not? Will provision be made that if anybody has recourse to the courts against the Transkeian Government there will also be this implied guarantee from the South African Government that the judgment will be respected and that the judgment will be met; if it has to be met in money, that it will be met in money? For a very essential aspect of the provision contained in part of this clause is that there can be no execution against the Government of the Transkei. The courts have defined and clarified that in so far as the South African Act is concerned there is this implied undertaking by the Government which forms the guarantee. But seemingly under this provision there is no such protection to the individual, and it will depend on the Transkeian Government whether or not it will meet the judgment debt.

There is a third type of complication that can arise and on which I think the House is entitled to an explanation namely where a dispute arises between an individual and the Transkeian Government in regard to a matter outside the confines of the Transkei. In an earlier clause we have been dealing with the licensing of motor-vehicles. I am assuming that the Transkeian Government some time or other may send a vehicle with its own driver outside the confines of the Transkei and if an accident occurs or any other liability arises in such a case, what is the position? Is this clause going to operate outside the Transkei as well. How is the individual who suffers injuries and who has a civil claim against the Transkeian Government to proceed. How does he proceed with the matter and what court does he go to? And having instituted a court action against this new entity this new Government outside the confines of the Transkei, how does he proceed to have his claim respected without execution? Those are matters in regard to which I think this side of the House is entitled to an explanation from the hon. Minister, before we can proceed with this debate.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) complains that the Minister now stands alone and that nobody helps him to explain the various clauses. Do you know, Sir, what he is actually concerned about? It is because we do not assist hon. members opposite in wasting the time of the House. That is what they have been trying to do the whole afternoon, to stretch out the debate and to waste the time of the House.

Order!

The hon. member is concerned about the provisions of Clause 68 and he has stated various casus positions. The first one he stated is this: What will happen in the case of a dispute between the Transkei and the Government of the Republic? Let me put this question to him: What happens if a dispute arises between a province and the Republic? He says it is settled by negotiation because the Republic has jurisdiction over the province and can therefore decide the matter. The Republic does not decide these matters unilaterally; if there is a difference between one authority and another, it is a matter for negotiation. If both have locus standi, only then do they go to court. If the Republic of South Africa has a dispute with Rhodesia, that dispute will not be able to be settled in the courts of either of those countries, unless it is a matter affecting private rights.

Is the Transkei in the same position?

The hon. member now wants me to say that the Transkei vis-à-vis the Republic is in the same position as that of Rhodesia, as a State, vis-à-vis the Republic. But what I mean is that we have a parallel relationship. There is one authority as against the other authority, and one does not make provision for that in the constitutional law and in the private law of the separate states. Then he raised another point, again simply to waste time.

Order!

Of course it was just to waste time.

The hon. member may not say that.

Even though it is true?

Order!

If I have reflected on the Chair, Mr. Chairman I regret it and withdraw it. The other casus position put by the hon. member was this: He said that supposing there was a dispute between persons in the Transkei and the Transkeian Government and a dispute between persons outside the Transkei and the Transkeian Government. But every day of the week it happens that A who lives at Place X has to summons his debtor who lives in Place Y. Then A goes to the court of the place where Y lives. In other words, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has a claim against the Transkei, he sues the Transkei in the court which has jurisdiction. The rules which apply in regard to which court has jurisdiction are the rules of the place where the dispute arose. Anybody opposite could have told the hon. member that. Then he put another question, and that to me is the most serious allegation I have heard this afternoon. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is generally a very decent person and he grants everybody his freedom of movement, psychologically as well, but in this case he did not do so. He posed this question: What guarantee is there when someone has won a case against the Transkeian Government, that the latter will pay?

I did not put it that way.

The hon. member did not put it that way, but that is how all of us on this side understood it. The implication of that question is that we cannot trust the people of the Transkei to deal satisfactorily with such a claim. He does not trust them, the people of the country cannot trust the Government of the country, therefore we should not have this provision. I think it is really a shame to reach the stage where we tell a certain population group in the Republic, “We trust you to handle your own affairs and that you will have the decency one expects from people with a reasonable degree of civilization”, but then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) comes along and says that the Minister will have the discretion to pay or not, a discretion which is not worthy of him. For what other reason does he ask what guarantee there will be that these Ministers will pay? Unless the hon. member thinks that these Transkeian Ministers will not pay, he would not have asked how they can be compelled (in some way or other) to pay. Has there ever been one of our Ministers who refused to pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund if judgment was given against the State? Why should there be a refusal by a Transkeian Minister to comply with a judgment? That is the question he put.

This clause has been taken verbatim from the provision in the State Liability Act. The only thing that has been changed is that the word “State” is not used, but the word “Government” is used here; the only further change is that the Minister of Railways can pay out of the Railway Revenue Fund; that is omitted here, because the people in the Transkei have no jurisdiction over the Railways. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) should just realize, when he thinks this matter over, that here we have the relationship of a debtor and a creditor and that we have courts which will decide matters if that relationship is disturbed. The place where the case will be heard and the court which will try it are determined in accordance with the legal rules which determine the jurisdiction of the various courts.

I am sorry the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is not here, because he got rather worked up about the deficiencies in this legislation and then adopted the usual tactics of introducing a red herring by trying to insinuate that because of my remarks I was trying to cast aspersions on this Government which has still to be formed. Who composes the Government is not at issue at all. It is what the law provides that is important, and that is what we are debating. My statement was perfectly clear. I said there was an implicit guarantee by the Government in regard to claims against a Provincial Administration, that the judgment would be respected and met. That is precisely why the State Liabilities Act makes provision that there should be no attachment or execution against the State, because the Central Government will always ensure that the claims will be met, either out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of the Railway and Harbour Fund, as the case may be. That is an implicit guarantee. That is why there is no need for a provision of this nature in the case of a claim against a Provincial Council. The question I put to the Minister is whether a similar situation will arise here or not. It cannot be implied from this provision, because the only provision here is that the claim will be met from the Territorial Revenue Fund. If it is the intention of the Government that there should be this implicit guarantee, I say it should be written into the law. The authority I refer to is the case of Natal Provincial Administration v. S.A. Railways (1936, N.P.D.), in which the court said that it was not an appropriate forum for the settlement of disputes in which a monetary claim is involved. The hon. member for Standerton said that this type of dispute could always be resolved at executive level, but the court obviously had in mind that the Central Government held the purse-strings and therefore a settlement would be inevitable between it and a province. But is that going to apply also in the case of a dispute between this Government and the Transkeian Government? If that is so, the clause should say so. Then the Minister should be specific about it and tell us that is what will happen. The answer we have had from the hon. member for Standerton has not really answered the question. He deviated from the question put to him by introducing this red herring, by saying that I was trying to cast aspersions on the Transkeian Government. Who the Government is not in point. What is essential is what the law provides. I hope the Minister will clarify the position.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and I am not sure what the hon. member wants. He made three points. That one was that he alleged that this clause restricts claims to actions arising within the territory of the Transkei. I want to tell him that I think that he is wrong because I cannot find that in this clause. This clause covers claims which arise from contractual obligations and unlawful actions whether they arise in the Transkei or outside it. If this is not the position, I will be pleased if the hon. member will prove it to us. But I think he is wrong and if he reads this clause again I think that he will agree that it covers all cases, both in regard to claims arising in the Transkei and those arising outside it. That was his one point.

He made much of the execution of a judgment obtained in a competent court. But I do not think that the hon. member is on sound grounds here. It has always been a principle of British constitutional law, from which our constitutional law springs, that one cannot enforce an action against the State. One can obtain a judgment against the State and one can obtain a declaration of rights, but one cannot enforce it by attaching the property of the State. This has always been the case. This was the case here before we had legislation in this regard and it has been the position in this country since we have had legislation to determine the liability of the State— since 1910. It is voluntary. The State can pay the claim but no one has ever had the right to execute that judgment, as is the case in private law, by attaching the property of the State, and exactly the same thing is being provided for here. There is a provision here whereby it can be paid out of the Transkeian Revenue Fund. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) that he did not give one reason why the judgment of a competent court against the Transkeian Government will not be complied with in the Transkei as well. He contended vaguely that this would not be done but he did not say why. He could have given reasons. He could have told us that the Fund would not be strong enough, and that would have been a reason. He could have said that one could not rely on the word of those people. I do not say so, but he could have advanced this as a reason. I ask him to stand up and to give us a reason why the provision as it stands here will not be implemented.

Thirdly, the hon. member raised the point of claims between official bodies, and he asked what would happen in the case of an action between the Government of the Republic and that of the Transkei. He mentioned a case in which the Natal Provincial Council instituted a claim against the S.A. Railways in 1936. I have not read that case recently, but I am firmly convinced that the judgment in that case was that governmental bodies could not hold one another liable. The hon. member knows that one State Department cannot hold another Department liable and one province cannot hold another liable. These are official bodies within the State. One official body cannot bring an action against another, and we are setting up an additional official body here within the jurisdiction of the State, the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. In terms of the 1936 judgment, that official body cannot institute a claim against another one either. Claims between them are resolved and settled by the machinery of the State, as has always been the case in the past, and that is my reply to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Queenstown has stated exactly what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said. One Department cannot sue another Department. What will happen if this Government has a claim against the Transkeian Government? It is not a Department. The province does not have land registered in its own name, for instance, but this new Government will have property registered in its own name and it will have sole control of that property.

Is the Provincial Administration a Department?

No, but this is not a Provincial Administration. [Interjections.] This is the one thing that worries us. Is it going to be a Provincial Administration or not?

The hon. member said it was a governmental body and that is the principle he explained, but it seems to me the hon. member has not been listening.

Other financial matters have been raised which the Minister could not answer. It seems to me the Minister of Finance should have been here to answer them. I hope he will get up now and tell us what the position will be of the Transkeian Government as opposed to the Government of the Republic. The hon. member for Queenstown asked whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was suggesting that the Transkeian Government would not have funds to meet claims. Sir, when the Recess Committee of the Transkei sat and made recommendations, it pointed out that they would be short of revenue, and that there would be a deficit of R9,000,000, and this Government undertook to give them that money to pay their administrative expenses, because otherwise they could not carry on. That is the difference between the Transkeian Government and the Government of the Republic. The Transkeian Government is not in a position to tax its people to balance its budget, simply because the people do not have the money to pay; they are too poor to pay the taxes. The Territorial Authority admits the fact, that they cannot balance their budget, and they said they would look to the Government of the Republic for assistance. It is not only the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) who is worried about this provision and the Bantu civil servants who will be transferred to the Transkeian Government are worried as to whether their salaries will be paid or not. When the Bill was passed by the Territorial Authority, this very question was raised by one of the councillors, and he was not opposing the new form of Government. He supported it. When he was told that their Government would be responsible for paying damages, for the negligent acts of its servants he said: “I am asking this question. Mr. Chairman, because I want to know whether we will have enough funds to pay claims in regard to people who commit offences”. So they themselves were worried as to whether they would have sufficient funds to pay claims for damages. The Minister objected just now to hon. members suggesting that they may not have enough funds and he said of course they would have enough funds to pay salaries, but I would like to point out to him that there is a lack of funds at present. There is a District Council which has issued cheques to pay its employees and the cheques have not been met.

Order! That is not relevant to this clause.

I am discussing whether they will have funds to meet claims made against them, and I know of one authority which cannot do so. They issue cheques and the traders have refused to accept the cheques because they know that they bounce. So when hon. members ask whether we suggest that the new Government will not have enough funds to meet claims, I say that is very likely, because of the poverty of the people. And if you cannot attach any of the assets, what can you attach? The Minister cannot brush it off as being of no account. He cannot liken the position of the Transkeian Government to that of the Republican Government. The Republic has rich citizens. The Government can enforce taxation on industries and raise money for funds. Admittedly the same law applies to the Republic as to the Transkei, but look at the resources of the Republic and compare them with those of the Transkei. If (3) has to be passed, whereby no attachment can be made against the assets of the Transkei Government, but that claims only be paid out of revenue funds, I say that claims may never be met, especially as the Minister himself must admit that our Government will have to contribute yearly to that Government just to pay for the ordinary expenses of running the country. When the statement of account was prepared, showing a deficit of R9,000,000, they had not reckoned on all the costs of the new administration such as the cost of the new Ministers’ salaries. The Minister of Finance mentioned the provinces, but this Government guarantees to pay for the provinces. Will they guarantee to pay any damages incurred by the Transkei Government? Or how do they expect claimants to be paid out of the Revenue Fund which cannot even meet the ordinary administrative expenses?

I think hon. members have had enough time to discuss the financial implications. To discuss the finances of the Transkei now is quite absurd. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Transkeian Territories now says that those people have no money. He is now a greater authority on the Transkei than anyone else in the House, but the hon. member should be the last one to cast such a reflection on the Transkei. It is so often said that people are becoming concerned in regard to the Transkei, but it is that hon. member who plays a great role in depicting that area as one of the poorest areas in the country, and I think that is rendering the Transkei a disservice. When the relevant clause was discussed I clearly stated what moneys would be paid to the Transkei, and I do not think that the rules will allow me to repeat it. Therefore I cannot reply to the whole argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories but I just want to say that this clause is one which we find in almost every country in the world. I support every word of what was so clearly stated by the hon. member for Standerton and Queenstown. Even the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) knows better than that. This clause is almost verbatim the same as the section we have in our own Act No. 20 of 1957. It is the normal duty of every Government to protect its officials. Does the hon. member now want to propose that because the Transkei is so poor, this section should be deleted?

You are replying to the wrong clause.

I ask what hon. members want to put in its place. [Interjection.] But not one of them has the courage of a gnat in suggesting something. I challenge them to say what they want in its place. To say that the Transkei cannot pay for these things is nonsensical. [Interjection.] I do not run away like the hon. member for South Coast. If I march then I march. [Interjection.] The hon. member asked whether a guarantee would be given by the Government. I say it is not necessary to give a guarantee. It is a duty which is being accepted with pleasure in spite of all the doubts spread by certain people. Giving its officials the necessary protection is a duty which is accepted by any Government. It is therefore not necessary to guarantee it. If the time should arrive when they perhaps cannot pay it, hon. members can get up here and demand it but to scare up these bogies beforehand, knowing full well that what they ask for is not necessary is not fair to this side of the House or to the Bantu in the Transkei, or even to the Whites of the Transkei. This is a duty resting on every Government in the world. It is a sound step for which everybody is grateful.

The Minister has said that when he marches, he marches. Well, he is marching …

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

But, Sir, the Minister …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause or resume his seat.

March hare!

Sir, the Minister has asked us why we do not move amendments. Can I deal with that?

Yes, briefly.

The Minister has asked why we do not move amendments. Obviously the Minister wants us to help him to try and make this plan work. I will tell the Minister why we do not move any amendments: Because we do not believe that this scheme can ever work. It is contrary to our policy. The Minister has said that if we produced a policy or a scheme, he would move amendments if he thought that necessary …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I move—

I put the Question. [Interjections.]

It is a shame (skande), an absolute scandal!

For the rest of the Session you will receive no more co-operation from us.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) must withdraw his remark.

What remark?

Order! The hon. member said: “It is a shame.” That is a reflection on the Chair.

That is what I meant; it is a shame.

Order, order! I order the hon. member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(while leaving the Chamber): It is an absolute shame.

I name the hon. member because he has disregarded the authority of the Chair. The hon. member cannot leave the Chamber now. I name him. Will the hon. member please resume his seat! The proceedings of the Committee are suspended.

House Resumed:

Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

I have to report that it has been my duty to name Mr. S. J. M. Steyn for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I call upon Mr. S. J. M. Steyn to observe the resolution of the House and to withdraw from the precincts of the House.

Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.

House in Committee:

I put the clause.

On a point of order Sir. What about the closure?

There were no objections to it. [Interjections.]

Of course there were.

I asked whether there were any objections but nobody replied.

We objected to it when you sent the hon. member for Yeoville out of the House.

The hon. member for Yeoville stood up and said “Dit is ’n skande” and it is for that… [Interjections.]

On a point of order Sir. There were objections to the closure from this side.

I have given my ruling. Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Certainly Sir but I was one of those who objected.

On a point of order Sir when you asked for any objections I personally objected. I am telling you that as a member of this House and according to the rule of the House will you accept my word? I objected from this seat and then the hon. member for Yeoville made his remark.

Order! If there was confusion I am prepared to put the motion for the closure again.

The motion for the closure was put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause 68 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 69,

This is another provision of this Bill the necessity of which does not appear from the face of the clause or from the provisions of this Bill. It makes provision for a court of law to test the validity of laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. The court to be given such jurisdiction will be the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the Transkei for the time being and thereafter, when the Transkei High Court is established in terms of Clause 50. That High Court will be the tribunal having jurisdiction when any question of the validity of laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei comes about.

Now, let us deal with the situation after the establishment of the Transkei High Court. I take it that such a tribunal will shortly be brought into being. The clause makes provision that—

If this clause were not here at all, there would be no difficulty in the matter. Laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei would then be tested in any Supreme Court of South Africa where such litigation arose. But with a clause such as this, the effect is to limit the testing power to the High Court of the Transkei. Now, the laws of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, as we know from earlier provisions of this measure, are of application not only in the Transkei but all over South Africa wherever any citizen of the Transkei happens to be. These will be present all over the country and the laws of the Transkeian Assembly will therefore have application all over the Republic. No doubt cases will arise all over the Republic where these laws have to be tested. What will that entail? In terms of this clause it will entail litigation to be commenced in the Transkeian courts. Evidence has to be led in that regard and that means that the witnesses and the parties concerned will have to repair to the Transkei in order to put their case before the court. A more inconvenient provision it is difficult to imagine and a more expensive proceeding to the litigants concerned, is difficult to imagine. I have no doubt that it will be very welcome to practitioners in the Transkeian courts, but certainly the leading practitioners in the land will not for the time being be practising in Umtata and if the case to be heard is an important one to either of the parties and senior and prominent counsel are engaged for it, then they shall have to travel to the Transkei in order that the point at issue might be tested.

It is very difficult indeed to see any sound reason why jurisdiction in these matters should be confined to a Transkeian court. Why not allow these matters to be tested in any Supreme Court of South Africa as is the case with any legislation of this House? After all, this Bill is a piece of legislation of this House. Why then make it necessary for people to go to Umtata or to the Transkei in order for this testing power to be exercised with all the inconvenience and expense that that entails? Why not omit the clause altogether save for sub-section (2). Then it will make some sense. It will mean then that one would have to go to a superior court to have these matters tested because one cannot have that done in a magistrate’s court. As it stands it entails a great inconvenience to any litigant involved in these matters.

The hon. member for Zululand set out from three wrong standpoints. The first is in saying that litigation may arise if the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei passes Acts which are also valid in the Republic. Although the relevant clause has been passed already, it is necessary to refer to the matter again, namely that only two items are relevant here, i.e. the imposition of taxation and the regulation of elections. Therefore that standpoint of the hon. member is wrong. They are the only provisions made by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly which can be binding on Transkei citizens in the Republic, i.e. outside the Transkei. His argument was based on the statement that people outside the Transkei may become involved in litigation to test the validity of an Act and that they will be inconvenienced by having to go to Umtata. My first reply to that is that he has completely exaggerated that risk, because it is a very limited number of Acts which can be applied outside the Transkei.

The second statement made by the hon. member is that all legislation will have to be tested by the High Court of the Transkei when that Court is established. Here the hon. member has given an interpretation which cannot be read into the clause. Subsection (1) of the clause provides that a Provincial or Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa which has jurisdiction in the Transkei and, after its establishment in terms of the provisions of Section 50 of this Act, the High Court of the Transkei. will have jurisdiction over all matters affecting the validity of an Act of the Legislative Assembly. Unless the proclamations providing for the jurisdiction of the Eastern Districts Local Division and of the Natal Provincial Division are specifically amended after the establishment of the High Court of the Transkei, it does not necessarily follow that the jurisdiction of those Divisions of the Supreme Court will be done away with. In so far as the jurisdiction is limited to those divisions of the Supreme Court or to the High Court of the Transkei, the area of jurisdiction of which includes the Transkei, we followed precisely the same logical principles which apply when a provincial ordinance is tested in the court within the area of jurisdiction of which that provincial ordinance applies. Just as little as one can test a Transvaal ordinance in Cape Town, so little can one test an Act of the Transkei in a court other than either the Eastern Districts Local Division or the Natal Provincial Division, in respect of a small area, or later the High Court of the Transkei. Inherently there is nothing illogical in its being tested in the Division of the Supreme Court which has the jurisdiction to test it.

Finally, in regard to the right of testing, if the validity of an Act is tested, it is, from the very nature of the matter, something which usually goes to the Appellate Division. Usually it is an important point which is being tested. It is the Appellate Division which has the jurisdiction and which gives the final decision.

These provisions contain nothing unusual. It cannot result in any serious disruption because the disputes which may arise will be geographically limited to the Transkei, except for a very small minority of disputes which may perhaps arise in connection with taxation and the franchise. Because those disputes may also directly intimately affect the existence of the Transkei, it is only right and fair that those disputes should be settled in the Transkei or in one of the local divisions near by.

The speaker who has just sat down has based his entire argument and logical analysis on the premise that the Transkei was comparable with a Provincial Administration. We have had quite a number of interpretations of the status of the Transkei. The Minister has certainly not defined the self-governing state of the Transkei as something similar to a Provincial Administration. We have had a lot of experience in this country in regard to the testing of the validity of laws of the legislature before the courts. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why he has found it necessary, in this form of government, to provide for the testing of the validity of its laws by the courts when he realizes that conflicts can ensue, conflicts to which he himself is very much opposed in principle. It has been a principle of this Government that legislation should not be subject to the testing of the courts, but that legislation should remain sovereign in the Legislature which has made that legislation. Unless the Minister is prepared to say to us that he regards the whole of the administration of the Transkei, including the structure of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, to be similar to that of a Provincial Administration the argument advanced by the hon. member who has just sat down has no value whatsoever. There is a certain amount of confusion in regard to the status of this High Court and the citizens who will fall under its jurisdiction. Therefore. Sir, instead of having purely a legal discussion based on logic, we would prefer to learn from the hon. the Minister why he has inserted a clause of this nature in the legislation relating to the Transkei? There are many other clauses which cover the question of legislation, the manner in which it should be dealt with, how it should be assented to and how it can be dealt with by proclamation. Why then did the Minister insert a further confusing clause which is entirely in conflict with the principles adopted in the Legislature of the Republic of South Africa? I think the hon. the Minister should not rely purely on the lawyers debating; because they are obviously disagreeing. It is quite an accepted practice for lawyers to disagree with regard to the interpretation of a clause. The hon. the Minister should himself give us the reason why he has inserted this particular clause in the Bill. He is the Minister who is sponsoring it; he is responsible for it, and we should like to hear what he has to say on this matter.

I am sure no one will understand the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. It is very obvious that this legislative body has jurisdiction to make laws in certain cases. It does not have that jurisdiction in all cases. Let us imagine that this legislative body passes laws in respect of matters over which it has no jurisdiction. Must the court then not pass judgment? The hon. member does not want judgment to be passed at all. [Interjection.] That is what I understood him to say. He said that if a law is passed there must be no testing right. He says that this is a fundamental principle. That is a stupid argument, Mr. Chairman. One cannot argue in this way. Let me point out once again —the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has already explained this matter very clearly—that the word is not “or” but “and”. Sub-section (1) reads—

the High Court of the Transkei will also have jurisdiction. So there is a parallel jurisdiction as the Cape Division has had jurisdiction for many years over practically all the cases that have come up in the Eastern Districts. Until recent times that parallel jurisdiction was still in force. That is precisely what is being provided for here now—parallel jurisdiction. I really do not know what the hon. member’s objection is.

Sir, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and the hon. member who has just spoken have entirely missed the point that I made. I quite agree with them that as this clause stands, the local divisions of the Republican Supreme Court have jurisdiction in the Transkei and that the Transkeian Supreme Court has this testing power, but that does not alter the point in the slightest. Whether you have to travel from Johannesburg to Umtata in order to put your case before the court or whether you have to travel from Johannesburg to Grahamstown to do it really makes no difference. The one is as inconvenient and as expensive as the other. The point is why limit the testing power to two courts which are situated in a comparatively remote corner of the country? Why not allow any Supreme Court, be it in Cape Town or Bloemfontein or Pretoria, to have the power to test the legislation at the place where the dispute happens to arise, at the place where the witnesses are who will be required to take part in that litigation? Why make it necessary, be it to Grahamstown where the Eastern Province Court sits or be it to Umtata where the Transkeian Court will presumably sit, to incur all this travelling expense when the Supreme Court of South Africa, wherever it may be, is perfectly competent to deal with a problem such as this? The hon. member for Kempton Park tried to convey that I had suggested that all laws made by the Transkeian Legislature would be of application in the Republic. Quite clearly that is not so, Sir. That was not what I said. I said “laws” will be of application. The hon. member for Kempton Park was good enough to state two of them, two important aspects in respect of which …

The only two.

The only two at the present time, but what is to come, Sir? There are provisions in this Bill whereby additional powers are to be given to the Transkeian Legislature and as more and more complicated powers are given so more and more laws of that Assembly will be of application to the Republic and this particular clause will be of correspondingly wider application.

The hon. member for Kempton Park made a statement which I hope I misunderstood. He suggested that in the case of provincial legislation—he gave the Transvaal as an example —the testing power in respect of that legislation would lie in the Transvaal courts. But that is not the case at all, Sir. Any Supreme Court in South Africa, whenever the case happens to arise, can declare the validity or the invalidity of a provincial ordinance. There is no restriction that Transvaal Ordinances must be decided before the Transvaal courts.

Quote an example where the jurisdiction can arise outside a province.

If the hon. member thinks back to his practice for a moment—and I believe he had a commercial practice—he will agree, I am sure, that in 101 types of commercial cases provincial ordinances or their validity arise. I am sure on reflection he will agree that in whichever branch of the Supreme Court those cases arise that branch decides on the validity of the provincial ordinances concerned.

Is the hon. member suggesting that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal will be excluded by this clause?

Yes, Sir, I do. It can have no other meaning. If you have a situation where, without this clause, all courts have jurisdiction and in that situation you specifically say that one particular court has jurisdiction, then the clear implication is that the others do not have it. There can be no argument about that. With respect to the two gentlemen who have just argued against this point, it stands and it is objectionable.

Mr. Chairman, the matter was put very clearly by the hon. member for Kempton Park [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, that is typical of United Party mentality. I say that this was put very clearly by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). I have nothing to add to what he said.

There is one important matter that I just want to emphasize and that is that one of the important tasks that we are undertaking in the Transkei is the development of the court system of courts there. This is an extremely important task which hon. members opposite do not bear in mind. It is being clearly provided here that a law of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly of this nature cannot be tested in an inferior court. It will be tested in a superior court. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked why it could not be tested in the rest of the country. One of the important principles of this side of the House in its approach to this matter is that we want to do everything possible to build up the legal system of the Transkei. The Transkei is being given a special High Court. It would be ridiculous if a testing right were to be given to all the inferior courts in the Republic of South Africa. The furthest that one can go is to give that right to the provincial court which already has jurisdiction in the Transkei. If we were to give that right to all the courts in South Africa we could forget about the whole idea of the development of this court system which forms such an important part of the process of development in the Transkei. We would make ourselves look ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world. The approach of those hon. members is completely wrong. This is a policy matter; it is not merely a juridical matter. We want to encourage the court system there. Hon. members have missed the whole point.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 70,

Our objection, amongst others, is to the first part of sub-section (10) of Clause 70. Here is another case where for the purposes set out in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) the State President may, by proclamation, not only repeal or amend existing laws in the Transkei but he may make new laws in respect of the specific purposes set out in (a) to (g) inclusive.

I want to say that we take the strongest exception to the power of the Government, exercised through the State President, to repeal and make new laws. It is true, Sir, that in the case of (e) the laws will provide the rules and procedure, so presumably they are regulations. But nevertheless what the clause says is “new laws”. In view of similar provisions in previous paragraphs we take the strongest exception to this. Will the Minister tell us why it is necessary? Surely, Sir, in a constitution of this kind it is quite unnecessary for the State President to have the power, no doubt on the advice of the hon. the Minister, to make new laws. There is a long list of matters here in respect of which regulations can be made and that should be quite adequate without the necessity of having the power to repeal laws and make new laws. We must object to these arbitrary powers.

In regard to sub-section (a) of this Clause 70, I must say that this is another instance where ill-considered provisions of this nature are to be applied. This clause can have the most disastrous affect upon race relations in our country. I refer to the power of the State President to make new laws for the Transkei for the conduct of any election in terms of this Act and also for the rules of procedure of the Assembly. The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: It is obvious that a large number of the voters of this new Transkeian Legislative Assembly will not be resident and exercise their vote in the Transkei; they are going to exercise their vote within the confines of the Republic. It is obvious in terms of this clause that the State President, who is the Minister, will make the rules according to which these voters will exercise their vote to elect the 45 elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. If I understand the intention of the Minister correctly this will only apply in respect of the election for the first assembly. Thereafter, I presume, the Legislative Assembly will have the right to determine its own rules of procedure and the manner in which future elections will be conducted and how the voters must exercise their vote in electing the candidates to be elected. You will then have this position arising that the legislative body in the Transkei will make regulations governing elections which are in fact going to be held within the Republic because the bulk of the Bantu voters live within the urban centres of the Republic. Obviously the laws which the President is going to make on the advice of the Minister are going to be laws in the interests of the Republic. What if the Legislative Assembly decides otherwise in future?

Order! This section does not deal with that aspect.

With respect, Sir, this clause says “the conduct of any such election in terms of this Act”.

During the transition period.

That is what I am discussing, Sir. The point I wish to make to the Minister is this: The laws that will be made may not be acceptable to the Territorial Authority at all once that authority is formed. What happens if the President does not see eye to eye with them in regard to the methods which they want to adopt? It means that you will have an immediate clash …

Order! The hon. member is not discussing the clause now. The hon. member must confine himself to the transition period. It is not a question of what they will do at a later stage.

What is the method which the Minister has in mind whereby these elections should be conducted during the transition period? What rules of procedure does the Minister envisage? What provisions will exist in regard to the election of these new legislative members? You see. Sir, the Bill provides for 45 elected members and they will be elected in nine constituencies. It is quite clear, therefore, that you may have two in some constituencies and as many as ten in others, all being elected by the same electorate. How is the choice going to be made? If there are two parties standing there can be as many as 20 candidates in one constituency. How are the voters going to choose the candidate? Will he be chosen on a majority basis? I saw in a report in the Press the other day that in the case of a tie the successful candidates will even be decided upon by way of a lottery! I should like to know from the Minister whether that was a true report? Did it emanate from his Department? These are all issues which, without a doubt, are going to lend themselves to an exacerbation of feelings on the part of the Bantu in the Transkei and in the Republic unless there is an adequate statement given as to what the Minister envisages in this regard. I hope the Minister will give us a clear-cut statement as to what he envisages how these elections are to be conducted.

I must honestly say that I am really shocked at the abyssmal ignorance that has been displayed here in connection with a matter of such importance as this. I say this with all respect. Here we have a territory that is being given self-government and provision is also being made for a transition period during which this law will operate until such time as a Cabinet is constituted there. During this transition period a large number of important things will have to be done to enable the new Legislative Assembly to come into being and if hon. members will just take the trouble to study a few elementary books on the development of states in other parts of the world, they will not ask such stupid questions. In the first place, provision must be made for an Electoral Act. An Electoral Act must be drawn up. It will not fall like manna from Heaven. It is of course the task of my Department to frame that Electoral Act in co-operation with those people and it will have to be proclaimed by the State President. This is the most effective and under these circumstances virtually the only way in which it can be done. Do hon. members really want to suggest that we should submit the electoral regulations of the Transkei, which it is actually their task to draw up to this House? Do they expect the rules of procedure of that Legislative Assembly to be submitted to this House first, together with all the other necessary matters, the preparations that one has to make in order to enable that body to function? Must all these things be determined by means of legislation of this House? That is ridiculous and it is also stupid. It is our task to arrange these matters and to make it possible for those people to start things moving. In the first place, as I said, an Electoral Act must be framed. That Electoral Act only holds good for the first election. After that it will be up to the Transkeian Parliament to amend the Act as they deem fit. That is their right. It is also in conformity with our whole approach to the matter. When this Legislative Assembly is elected it will have to meet immediately thereafter and rules of procedure will have to be drawn up. Who will have to draw up those rules? It is our task to ensure that the rules of procedure are available, our task in close co-operation with the Territorial Authority functioning there to-day. But hon. members cannot expect us to come to this House first and to submit those rules of procedure to this House for its approval. That is why the usual method is being followed— that these things are done by way of proclamation by the State President. This has always been the case. When the first session takes place they can review these rules. That is their right. But officials will also have to be appointed. There is a great deal of preparatory work that has to be done in order to get the entire machine moving. All this has to be done during the transition period and I am sure that hon. members will agree that the best way in which it can be done is in the old traditional way that has been followed in the Transkei—by way of proclamation. Let hon. members rise and tell us in what other way they want these things to be done. You see, they have no other suggestions to make. This is the only way in which these matters can be arranged. Similarly, there are certain matters in connection with which they do not have legislative powers and in connection with those matters one will continue to govern there by way of proclamation in the usual way. There are the Whites in the White spot towns whose interests have to be taken care of. This is being done by way of proclamation as has always been the case in the past. We are acting logically. All these matters can be dealt with by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei at a later stage and they will be able to make any changes they deem fit. I want to repeat that I am really surprised at the ignorance displayed by those hon. members. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted me to give him a complete description of all the rules and procedure contained in the Electoral Act. What a ridiculous suggestion! A provisional measure has been made available to the Press but this provisional measure has first of all to be dealt with by the Territorial Authority itself because we are doing these things in close cooperation with them. They may even make radical changes in this measure and after that the provisional arrangements will have to be made by way of proclamation by the State President. I think that it is ridiculous for hon. members to ask me to give a summary of everything that can happen or that is going to happen under that Electoral Act. It is still being drawn up. The whole question of setting the machine of self-government in motion will have to be dealt with during the next few months. Let us follow the sound procedure that is followed in such cases in all normal countries by all normal people.

The hon. Minister has taken refuge behind these two words “transition period”. I did not understand the hon. member for Turffontein to say that these things should not be done. He was inquiring how they were going to be done. That is the type of inquiry which we are making here. You see, anything that is done by proclamation during this transition period will have a degree of permanency about it, if not of finality. There are three things involved and the hon. the Minister concerned himself mainly with one, namely the making of laws to deal with the position. But the powers given here go much further. They also allow him to repeal and to amend existing laws. But, Sir, I think the hon. Minister must admit that this clause is a blatant admission by the Government of its inability to legislate for a normal and orderly transition from the present form of government to what is called “gradual development of self-government You see, already we have dealt with 69 clauses, and the hon. member for South Coast is correct when he says: If wide powers of this nature are to be given, why have 69 clauses; why have this whole long Bill? It could have been made much simpler then, because here powers are being taken not only to make laws, but also to undo existing laws. And there is not the most elementary safeguard in those cases for parliamentary supervision. If the hon. Minister had inserted a provision here to say that any law that is repealed or amended must be brought to this House to be confirmed, then there would have been some sort of parliamentary supervision over what was happening. But even that most elementary supervision is removed. We do not even have an obligation on the Minister to report what is being done here. Vast powers are being given also to make laws, and however they are made there will be a degree of permanency about them. It will be possible to change conditions of service of people already in the service and that may affect people’s rights. But the most glaring instance of asking for more powers than are obviously needed is paragraph (g), which says that laws can be made “generally, in connection with all such matters as may be necessary in connection with the establishment of the Government and the proper administration of the Transkei”, That provision could simply have been there without all these other additional provisions on which we have spent many hours to the irritation of the hon. Minister, it is true, but in the interests of the country. That clause gives him all the powers that he will need for the transitional period, because after that the Transkei can legislate for itself. I again repeat, however, that the hon. Minister has concentrated on the one thing, viz. that you must make laws in the transitional period, as you cannot anticipate everything that is going to happen. But he is also going to undo what presently exists and is going to alter existing legislation. Although this Parliament is to give him these powers, we have no assurance that there will be any parliamentary supervision over what is to be done. Because although the power is vested in the State President the very next clause I empowers this hon. Minister to do every thing himself. Even the normal safeguard in government that all such things shall be done through the State President seems also to have been left out of account here. I think the hon. Minister owes us a further explanation as to the need for this extension of powers after 69 clauses have already been passed.

In addition to the point that has been made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), that by proclamation laws can be repealed or amended, I should like to mention that with the exception of (1) (e), to which I have no objection (I have no objection to the hon. Minister creating rules of procedure for the new Legislative Assembly), we have further sub-sections. We have for example (1) (c) on pensions, gratuities or other compensation to officers in the Transkei. That is financial. Then we have under (d) “salaries and allowances payable to the chairman and members of the Legislative Assembly, including the Chief Minister and other members of the Cabinet, and so on”, all expenditure of that Legislative Assembly. I have gone carefully through the Estimates for this year and also the Loan Estimates and I see no provision made for that financially. Do I understand that the Minister can spend money which we have not voted and for which no provisions has been made in our Estimates? Because that is all included. Here we are giving the hon. Minister and the Government powers to spend money as they think necessary, without any provision made financially in Parliament. I come back to the point I made earlier, that the essential part of our functions here in Parliament is to vote money and control expenditure. I think it is essential that we should have a Budget for the cost of this transfer, even in the interim period, a Budget giving us the cost of the transfer of the Transkei Government to the Legislative Assembly.

The hon. Minister took me to task because I did raise the question with him as to how the elections are going to be conducted in the transition period. The Minister knows that I am opposed to the whole principle of doing away with the authority of this House in regard to all the peoples of the Republic. When we are creating a new Legislative Assembly, with new legislators in which the votes of some 2.500.000 people of the Transkei including those who derive their origin from the Transkei, are going to be exercised, surely we are entitled to put these questions. I am not asking the hon. Minister to give me a resumé of the law that will be created as to how these elections will be run in all the minutest detail. I am asking the Minister a simple straightforward question. Here for the first time in the Republic’s history the Government is giving one man one vote throughout the Republic m respect of Bantu of the Transkei, with 90 candidates in the field who can campaign?" as they like for votes throughout the Republic in the White areas, in the suburbs of Sea Point or Turffontein, or where have you. I ask the hon. Minister how are these elections to be conducted because these people are not going to vote only in the Transkei; they are going to exercise their vote in the Republic. Surely if you are going to conduct an election then there must be candidates, and I assume that there are going to be candidates of possibly two or more parties, and those candidates will be able to campaign in the ordinary way. My question was a very simple one: How are those elections going to be conducted, how are they going to be run? Will the candidate who stands for the Dalindyebo constituency, of which he may be only one of possibly three candidates for that particular constituency, be able to canvass voters in the suburbs of Cape Town and Johannesburg? He may have voters working in the hotels of Sea Point and residing on the top of a flat. He may want to canvass his voters. Will the laws that the Minister will make permit this candidate to go and canvass his voters in the hotels or flats of Sea Point? These are the things we want to know. There is a new picture being presented to South Africa, and I think in fairness the Minister should give us further particulars. We are creating an assembly with 45 elected members, and we are told that there will be only nine constituencies amongst whom the 45 elected members will be divided. In other words, either one of two things is going to happen. These elections are going to be conducted on the basis of a lottery or the constituents are going to have more than one vote. These are simple issues of principle I do not want to know the details, but the broad principles of what the Minister envisages in respect of these new laws that will be made by the State President on the advice of the Minister. The Minister must not come and ask us to give him a blank cheque of this nature, in regard to far-reaching new principles, and then to say that we must not ask foolish questions in regard to details of the Acts. I am asking for broad principles, and the White electors of South Africa are asking what these broad principles are because this is something new. Either the hon. Minister can give us this information or he cannot, or does he not want to give us the information? I ask the hon. Minister now to give us the broad picture and to tell us what sort of laws he envisages for the conduct of elections for this new Legislative Assembly.

I want to assume at the outset that the hon. Minister can give us the information and the explanations which we on this side of the House have sought, but that he had a particular reason—up to now—for not giving us the information. Assuming that is correct, I want to ask him to apply his mind to this Clause 70, read in conjunction with Clauses 7 and 27, the one referring to citizenship and the other to the right to vote as far as people in the Transkei are concerned, because clearly they are bound up with certain matters which arise in Clause 70.

If the Minister does that, he will see immediately why we are asking these questions, and why we would like to get an answer. The Minister shakes his head, and he has told us that he is shocked because we are asking these questions. Why should he be shocked when we raise these questions in regard to the registration of voters in the Transkei, which is an open matter, not a military secret?

I told you already.

What did the hon. Minister tell us, except that it is necessary to make regulations for the transition period? What for example, did the hon. Minister say in reply to the hon. member for Turffontein, when he asked him for details in regard to the broad plan, for instance, in respect of the holding of elections? There are a dozen questions like this, and I am only giving a few. According to official governmental publications, the population of the Transkei is given as 1,415,789 Bantu, and in another publication they give the number of 1,384,673. These are not my figures, but the figures of the Minister’s Department. My first point is that there is no certainty as yet about the extent of the problem of registration of voters, because even the population itself has not been defined in terms of numbers. Secondly, in none of these governmental publications have I been able to find an explicit or implied statement indicating how many of the Bantu population of the Transkei live within the borders, and how many live beyond the borders of the Transkei. If the Government and the Minister are aware of these details, we are not being given them in publications which give us for example the number of goats in the Transkei—which has nothing to do with the registration of voters— the number of auction sales, the number of head of cattle sold, and all the rest of it, which indicates, for example, that the income per head of the population of the Transkei is about 24c a year from cattle sales. But that does not help us in registering voters. If the hon. Minister has information that we have not got, why this reluctance, why does he behave like the reluctant debutante when we ask him for these particulars? For example, there is the fact that registration procedure, as the Minister knows very well, is not a new thing at all. We have had it in South Africa for many years. We have had an Electoral Act on the Statute Book, which has been amended repeatedly. We recently had a commission of inquiry, and before that we had other commissions of inquiry; we have had select committees on them. There is an electoral system. Surely, then, it must have occurred to the hon. Minister and his Department that in setting up the machinery for the registration of voters in the Transkei, we already have the prototype or working model in the Republic of South Africa, and that subject to those needs which arise because of the difference in population, for example, that machinery can be adapted in order to meet all the requirements. Is it a fact then, Sir, that we are not told what is the nature of the machinery in regard to the registration of voters, because the Minister has not gone into the matter? if he would say quite plainly “We have not had the time or the opportunity to go into these matters”, then we would understand it much better. But instead of saying that, the hon. Minister says “I am shocked that you ask me these questions As if they do not arise out of this Bill! He is shocked—but we are much more shocked than the hon. Minister, and that is saying something. I repeat that we are entitled to know what machinery he proposes to use for the registration of voters. We, the people of South Africa, a part of which I would almost say is being, alienated …

Order! That question has been asked over and over again.

Which question, Sir?

The question the hon. member is putting now.

Sir, I will come to another question. I should like to deal with paragraph (1) (d), the effect of which is that the State President may be proclamation amend existing laws or make new laws for the Transkei in connection with the salaries and allowances paid to the chairman and members of the Legislative Assembly, including the Chief Minister and other members of the Cabinet.

Order! That point has been made.

But we have not had an answer to the question. I would merely urge upon the Minister the need to enlighten this House, as he says he wishes to do, about all the salient points in this Clause 70, so that instead of one member after the other on this side having to get up to ask questions, which pain or shock the Minister, he will shock us by giving us an answer, for a change!

I want to appeal to the hon. Minister to give a reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). The hon. Minister has answered in a fashion to the questions raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), but he has given no reply to the other questions at all. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) pointed out that sub-paragraph (g) makes the rest of the Bill unnecessary.

Order! That point has been made.

Yes, Sir, I want to put a question in regard to (c) which refers to pensions, gratuities or other compensation of officers in the Transkei. Now the State President under this clause may make new laws in regard to these pensions and gratuities of officers in the Transkei. We have already passed a clause dealing with the transfer of officers to the Transkeian Government, and when we get to the Second Schedule we are going to deal with the pensions and gratuities. I want to ask the hon. Minister what is the object of going on with the Second Schedule if we are going to give the State President the power immediately to alter the law we pass here? I see no object in having the Second Schedule at all. We are being asked to pass laws dealing with the right of civil servants who are being transferred from the service of the Government of the Republic willy-nilly, without their consent, to the Transkeian Government, and it is only right and proper that we should see that they are protected. We propose to protect them by the terms of the Second Schedule of this Bill, but in the meantime we are passing Clause 70 (1) (c) which gives the State President the power to alter the law as he likes. I submit it is quite wrong and I ask the Minister to explain to us why this particular provision is being put in here. I can understand that paragraph (g) is inserted to deal with matters which have not been thought of and not dealt with in this Bill, but paragraph (c) gives the State President these far-reaching powers, and I want to know why that is done. And why does it only refer to “officers” and not “employees”. I know there is a difference between “officers” and “employees”, and “officers” and “employees” are mentioned in the other clauses, but here “employees” have been left out.

The hon. member knows very well that officials are needed in the Transkei during the transition period, officials who have to be employed, officials who have to be transferred. Surely one cannot expect people to rely on promises alone? They have to be given a certain guarantee and this can only be done in the interim period by a proclamation by the State President. That therefore is the way in which the officials will be protected.

What about the Schedule? Does it not protect them?

It has nothing to do with the matter. I say again that this procedure is only followed in order to make provision for the transition period, from the day on which this Bill becomes law to the day on which the new Cabinet of the Transkei will be constituted. I repeat that it is necessary in order to set this whole machine in motion that these things should be made known by way of proclamation by the State President in the Gazette. It cannot be done in any other way. I also want to repeat what I told the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant)—that it is our policy to remain in close touch with the members of the Territorial Authority in regard to all these matters. This procedure therefore is simply to make it easy for us to set the necessary machinery in motion during the transition period.

I would like to ask the Minister a question and I hope he will be a little more lucid than he has been up to now. Who will compensate any official affected under this clause if the Transkeian Parliament repeals or alters any of the laws made by the State President.

Order! The clause does not deal with that.

The State President may make laws in the transition period affecting the pensions, gratuities and other compensation of officers in the Transkei. Then the clause goes on to say that the Legislative Assembly may amend or repeal any provision made under sub-section (1). If the Legislative Assembly repeals or amends any law made by the State President, to the prejudice of any of the people affected, who will compensate those people—the Government of the Republic of South Africa or the Transkeian Government.

Sir, the hon. member has asked a question; is the Minister not going to answer?

It is perfectly correct that the hon. member has asked a question but apparently the Minister does not wish to reply.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 71,

This is a clause which to a very great extent seems to bear witness to the fact that the Government anticipate that after the Act has been brought into operation the new Government in the Transkei will require the steadying hand of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and it bears witness to the fact that the Government seem to believe that there will be a haitus after the Act has been brought into operation. You see, Sir, Clause 71 now gives authority to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, not the State President, and that authority is an executive authority. Sir, if I may read it to you in this fashion you will see what I mean; I am going to leave out certain words in line 56, the words after the word “operation” to the word “Act” in line 58; then it will read as follows—

That would be clear. The Minister now has executive powers whereas the State President in the clause that we have just passed was given the power to change laws. He has not only administrative but legislative powers. The Minister now, as distinct from the State President has these executive powers. But, Sir, that is not what the clause says. The clause does not say that the Minister shall have these powers which may be exercised or performed by him for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation because in line 56 it says—

Why is that inserted unless the Government believes that there is a risk that there is no continuity in the administration and that the Government is going to falter at that period. If it was not their belief that there was a risk of lack of continuity, if there was not a belief in Government circles that the Government could not carry on without the steadying hand and the executive power of the Minister of Bantu Administration, then they would not have put those words in those lines. I hope that in this regard the Minister will be quite frank with us and tell us whether indeed that is what is contemplated. You see, there is a cloud hanging over the whole of this issue in Proclamation No. 400 and we do not know what is in the Minister’s mind here. Are we right in our surmise that these powers are being granted to the Minister to exercise executive functions to ensure the continuation of the administration and Government in the Transkei because the Government doubt whether in fact they will continue, and yet the Minister has these executive powers conferred on him? The Minister shakes his head. Those powers will only come into operation after the Act has come into operation for the continuation of the administration and Government in the Transkei. If that is not so then I hope the Minister will explain to us what those words mean and why they have been inserted.

This clause is purely administrative. In the first place it ensures that the provisions of this Bill will be put into operation properly but it is obvious that the administration and so forth and the development of the Government there is also concerned. The hon. member knows that when he was Administrator of Natal it was his function to ensure that administrative matters were carried out properly. To put the provisions of this Bill into operation it is necessary for someone to be at the head of affairs to look after things and to ensure that the administration of these matters run smoothly. I cannot see how the hon. member can interpret this clause in the way in which he has interpreted it—that the Minister will be there to take action if the Government there collapses. The hon. member knows enough about administrative matters to realize that a provision of this nature is necessary in order to put this whole matter into operation. I say again that this clause deals only with the question of administration.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 73,

I wish to refer to the definition of the word “Gazette” which appears in paragraph (x). It appears that there are two Gazettes operating in the Transkei the first being the Government Gazette of the Republic of South Africa and the second being the Official Gazette of the Transkei, which is the Transkeian Gazette. Proclamations made by the hon. the Minister will be published in the first of those two, and laws promulgated by the Transkei Legislative Assembly will be promulgated in the second, i.e. the Official Gazette of the Transkei. Sir, the Republic has two official languages. The Transkei has, three official languages. What I should like to know is in what language will the Government Gazette of the Republic of South Africa appear, and in what languages will the Official Gazette of the Transkei appear.

I want to ask for some information with regard to four of these definitions. The first is the definition of “Bantu person” in (iii) at the top of page 40—

I would like the hon. the Minister to amplify that and to tell us whether the definition given here would not also include such people as say, an Egyptian or Algerian or a Central African negro. These people are not regarded as Bantu but they are part of the aboriginal races of Africa. A Nigerian is not regarded as a Bantu. I should like the Minister to see whether that particular definition does not go too far and whether in fact it does not include people who are not intended to be included under this Bill at all.

The other three definitions to which I wanted to refer are (xiv), (xv) and (xxiv). All of which deal with one form or another of local government. A “local board” is defined as meaning—

Paragraph (xv) defines a “municipality” as meaning—

Then “village management board” is defined in (xiv) as meaning—

Each of these institutions referred to in these three definitions operates under Ordinances of the Provincial Administration. The Bill itself provides for substantial changes which can be brought into effect, particularly in regard to the powers given under Clause 60 (3) (a) and (b). Provision has been made in that clause for substantial changes to be made in the area of jurisdiction of these particular bodies, where they exist at present. In terms of this Bill certain portions of these areas will now be allocated to the Bantu in the Transkei. The Bill also provides that a separate governing body may be set up for these portions. The point on which I would like to get some information is this: In terms of all the Ordinances governing these local authority areas, no change in the boundaries of any of these local bodies can be effected without the approval of the Provincial Administration. There is a statutory form of application to be made; statutory information has to be supplied and in a number of cases the opinion or approval of the local ratepaying inhabitants has to be obtained by the body concerned and conveyed to the Administrator before he with his Executive Council, sitting together, can give a decision on a change in the boundaries. In terms of the clause already dealt with Clause 6Q (3) no such safeguarding provision has been made, yet in the definitions. Sub-paras. 14, 15 and 24, the three forms of Local Government Bodies the reduction of whose boundaries Clause 60 provides for, are Statutory Bodies for which any reduction or change in their boundary has to be approved of by the Provincial Administrator and Executive Committee after certain statutory procedure has been carried out… [Inaudible.] It seems that the two procedures are entirely in conflict. Unless there is some provision made in the Bill to specify the need for an application made for the Administrators approval of any change, it is clear that the Bill goes beyond the authority which it can legally carry into effect. There is a statutory obligation now on the Statute Book which has to be complied with, and the Bill makes no provision for complying with it. I would like the Minister to clear up that point.

In regard to Item (x), the definition of Gazette, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us where it is proposed to publish the Transkei Gazette. The point at issue is that it is quite clearly anticipated from the terms of the Bill itself that there will remain a large number of inhabitants of the Transkei in the urban areas, etc. The reason why I ask where the Gazette will be published is to get a clear picture of how the people who in terms of this Bill are citizens of the Transkei will be kept informed through their own Gazette in regard to their own laws and regulations. It will be very difficult in practice if regulations are published in the Gazette, published, say, in Umtata, and there are the best part of 2,000,000 Bantu of the Transkei living elsewhere in the Republic. How do they in practice become acquainted with what is published in the Gazette?

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has asked me what languages are going to be used for publications in the Gazettes of the Republic and of the Transkei. It is quite clear that the Gazette of the Republic is published in the two official languages of the Republic. All publications affecting the Transkei will be in the three official languages and will be published in the Transkei Gazette. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) wants to know what the position of the people outside the Transkei will be in regard to the Transkei Gazette and how they will know what has been published in that Gazette. That is very easy to explain. What we will do is to ensure that that Gazette is made available to all our officials, no matter where they may be, who have to deal with the Bantu of the Transkei. It will be one of their duties to bring these facts to the attention of those people. But this publication will also be made available to the various Bantu councils such as those in Langa. These publications will be available to the Xhosa there at any time. There are also the Bantu newspapers that will be used to bring this information to their notice. I readily admit that there are some places where there are few Xhosa but I wonder how many hon. members sitting here read our own Government Gazette regularly. That is a problem that every Government has to deal with. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that this will be done. [Interjection.] I am not able to say where it will be published. That will have to be decided by the Transkei itself.

The hon. member also asked what changes were being made in the boundaries of the various councils. I want to give him the assurance that there is no necessity for this because the boundaries of the councils concerned are not being affected at all. Actually these councils will function just as they did in the past. No change is being made for which legislation is necessary. If changes have to be effected, then it will be done, of course.

Do I understand from the Minister’s reply that when adjustments to the boundaries are made it will derogate from the authority and control of the Provincial Administration? You intend overriding their authority by altering local authority boundaries without getting their approval.

Definition (vi) says “commissioner-General” means the Commissioner-General of the Xhosa National Unit appointed in terms of the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, 1959. The relevant section, Section 3 of Act 46 of 1959, which must certainly be in the background of the consideration of this matter, reads as follows: “The Commissioner-General shall represent the Government with the National Unit in respect of which he has been appointed and shall in relation to that unit (a) furnish guidance and advice …

Order! This definition does not deal with the functions of the Commissioner-General.

I want to inquire what the meaning of “Commissioner-General " will be after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. My contention is that in order to understand the definition one must have regard to the present and the future position in the Transkei …

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot permit the hon. member to continue.

Then may I ask whether the definition of “Commissioner-General” as contained in this Bill is in the opinion of the Minister to remain exactly the same?

Order!

The hon. member asked me about the municipal boundaries. I have already told him what the position is but I see now that he was referring to the matters that we discussed in terms of Clause 60. It is clearly stated there that the powers of the Administrator are being repealed so that things can be done in this way.

From the Ministers remarks do I now understand that the Minister, or the Transkeian Authorities will obtain the approval of the Administrator but not the local body concerned? The existing procedure laid down is that the local authority has to apply for a change in its boundaries and they are bound by law to follow a certain course of procedure in making that application. There is no one else according to the relevant Provincial Ordinances who can make the application on their behalf, and any departure from that procedure means overriding the authority of the Provincial Administration, and of the local authority concerned.

The position is as I stated.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 73 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 74 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

With the permission of the Committee I move—

The Committee reverted to the proposed new Clause 43 standing over.

I have now had an opportunity of considering the proposed new Clause 43 moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and have come to the conclusion that it is in conflict with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Clause 37, which has already been agreed to by the Committee. In the circumstances I regret I cannot put the proposed new clause to the Committee.

On the First Schedule,

I wonder whether it is necessary to remind the Minister of what he and his predecessor have gone through in trying to impose restrictions on the Natives of the Transkei. In this schedule it is proposed to hand over soil conservation and veterinary services to the Transkei. Surely he remembers what trouble he had in trying to impose these things, even under White control. Can he imagine what will happen under Bantu control? What response has he had to stock improvement? What will happen when they control it? He proposes to hand forestry over to the Transkei. He knows full well that a matchbox and an axe in the hands of a Kaffir woman have led to all the forests in the Transkei being denuded. Take irrigation. What does the Minister suppose they will do on their own? What is extremely important to us in the Republic is veterinary services, and the fact that it will be practically withdrawn from the Transkei. What does the Minister propose doing about that? How many Bantu veterinarians are going to be available to the Transkei? He knows full well that over the better part of 50 years the Whites have tried to control parasites in the Transkei, and it took nearly 40 years to eliminate East Coast Fever. What does the Minister suppose will happen in the Transkei with the free movement of stock, such as you will have under Native control? There will be the failure to dip, and parasites will breed. The Minister knows that they refuse to dip under any circumstances. What parasitic control, externally or internally, will be carried out under their control? This is extremely important to the Republic, because all these diseases come down the East Coast. Does the Minister intend to hand over the whole of the control of stock to Bantu inspectors? What measure of control does he visualize there will be then? This is a matter of vital importance, particularly in view of the development we have had in the Republic and the improvement of stock in the Republic. But now it will be at the mercy of almost every disease that will come down the East Coast in future. I would like to know from the Minister what control over stock he will institute in the Transkei.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) suggests that all the laws affecting the various subjects he mentioned will be repealed and that nothing will be left in the Transkei. I want to bring him back to the reality immediately. All the laws that exist in respect of the matters he raised will continue to apply until other legislation is passed by the Transkei itself. In the meantime all the existing laws will continue to be implemented and this Bill makes careful provision in this regard—that the necessary administrative officials will be available; they will be taken over and they will be taken over in the services just as they are. This schedule simply gives the Legislative Assembly the right to pass laws in respect of these matters and then the other laws will be repealed. [Interjection.] The laws which are made by them will then repeal the existing laws. Adequate provision is being made so that no vacuum will be created. I do not know why the hon. member is again trying to raise bogies and to say that East Coast Fever and all the other diseases will break out It is just so much nonsense. I think that he is just wasting the time of this House.

I should like to remind the hon. member for Heilbron that in terms of Clause 37 the Transkeian Government will have the power to make laws in regard to all matters enumerated in this schedule and also power to repeal laws passed by this Parliament. He is relying on the fact that the State President will have to give his assent There are matters here with which the Government is going to have a lot of trouble because as the hon. member knows, Natives are very much opposed to dipping. The first difficulty the Minister is going to have will be the application of this particular section.

But I want to deal with paragraph 10 of the First Schedule which hands over to the control of the new Government—

The position will then be that all roads in the Transkei except national roads from East London through to Natal—through Butterworth. Indutywe. Umtata, Mount Frere, Kokstad down to Umzumkulu—are going to be handed over to the Transkeian Government. It is not a question of having to make laws. They will take over the other roads. We have the roads known as the Bunga roads, i.e. those roads at present controlled by the Territorial Authority, and provincial roads. There is the main provincial road from Queenstown through to Umtata and on to Port St. Johns and from there to Flagstaff; Lusikisiki, Bezana down to the border of Natal; others leading from Umtata to places like Mqanduli and other towns and from the national road towards Maclear and East Griqualand. These are ordinary provincial roads. Now, the Province receives a tax from the Transkei. A road tax is paid by all property owners in the Transkei to the Province. The Province receives from the whole of the Transkei and from Herschell and Lady Grey in taxation R70,000 per annum. Expenses on maintenance in the Transkei amount to R410,000 and R270,000 is spent on construction. These are the latest figures. Altogether R839,000 is spent in the Transkei and the other two places mentioned. We can see, therefore, that the Province subsidizes the roads there to an extent of more than R800,000.

Now, I should like to hear from the Minister how he expects the Transkeian Government to keep these roads in their present state of repair, let alone building new roads. Are they going to keep these roads in their present state of repair which cost the Provincial Administration at present R410 000.

What does motor vehicle registration yield?

They will get licence fees in respect of those vehicles registered in the area. Let me assure the hon. member, however, that that will come nowhere near that amount. Furthermore, they have already taken into account the amount they will get from motor vehicle registration in arriving at their deficit of R4 500,000 on administration costs. Another worrying feature about this provision is that in handing over these roads, the Government is handing over to the Transkeian Government roads to a part which will never become part of the area of the Transkeian Government but will always remain under the jurisdiction of the Government of the Republic. I refer to Port St. Johns. Port St. Johns is excluded from the area which will be handed over to the Transkeian Government The Minister has made it quite clear that it is not the intention to hand over that area. That area is, therefore, going to be an isolated area with the only access to it from the sea apart from the access by roads which will be built by the Transkeian Government. And you cannot get there by sea because you cannot get up the river, across the bar. You cannot even enter the port. The Coloured and White people living in that area are going to find themselves completely isolated. The Minister knows that Chief Kaizer Matanzima has already said that he wants Port St. Johns included in the area of the Transkei. He has already asked for that. Because they want that area to become part of the area of the Transkei they will make it as difficult as possible to get to the area thereby forcing the area itself to ask for inclusion in the Transkei, because the roads will not be maintained.

They will, in other words, apply economic sanctions.

The maintenance of the roads is most important, not only for the Transkei but also for the Government of the Republic because the Government of the Republic is responsible for defence and policing and as a result must at all times have good roads. I am certain the Minister has been told what has happened to roads already taken over by the Territorial Authority. He ought to know how these roads deteriorated, so much so that the Government had to make a special grant to the Territorial Authority to enable them to maintain its roads. The provincial authorities are at present tarring the road from Queenstown to Umtata. Most expensive equipment is being used for this work and I should like to know from the Minister how the Transkeian Government is going to acquire the necessary machinery to continue the tarring of that road. Moreover, how does he expect the Government to be able to continue with that work? Where wilt they find the money for that or should the tarring be left at the stage where it is now?

The handing over of certain governmental institutions in the Transkei can be understood if the Government is going to carry out its policy. Similarly I expected them to hand over also all the Bunga roads, but when I first saw in the Press that provincial roads were also going to be handed over, I thought that was due to an oversight. I did not believe that this Government would have handed over provincial roads to the Transkeian Government and expect that Government to maintain them. It is absolutely impossible for them to do that. What is going to happen to the staff who are employed there now? There is a trained staff there now working for the provincial authorities. Are those engineers and other specialists to be taken over by the Transkeian Government? The Transkeian Government certainly has not got the staff to enable it to construct roads. There is a senior engineer of the provincial administration stationed at Umtata. Is he now going to fall under the Bunga engineer in the employ of the Territorial Authority?

What does the Government envisage in this respect? The Minister must have some idea, because he must have had some discussion on the matter. He cannot hand over an important department like that without having had some discussion beforehand with his officials and others as to what is going to happen when the Transkeian Government takes charge. Last night reference was made to the important depot which has been established at Umtata. There are mechanics there; White employees. What will happen to these people? Are they all to be seconded by the provincial administration to the Transkeian Government? And if they are to be seconded, who is to be responsible for their emoluments? Is the Government going to be responsible for that or the provincial council? These people at the moment are working for the provincial council. [Time limit.]

I just want to put one question to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). This is the same point that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has just made. As I understand the arguments of the hon. members for Transkeian Territories the hon. member stated that the Transkeian Legislative Assembly would be able to pass legislation to proclaim the building and maintenance of the various provincial roads that he mentioned to be their own responsibility.

They are going to take over the roads.

In terms of Clause 65 (1) all provincial ordinances which are in force in the Transkei at the moment m respect of the making and upkeep of roads will remain of force and effect until the Transkeian Legislative Assembly repeals those particular ordinances and decides that the Provincial Administration will henceforward no longer be responsible but that they themselves will accept responsibility in that connection. Until such time as this happens the present position remains unchanged. The hon. member’s argument is actually a contradiction in terms because if it is impossible for the Legislative Assembly to find the funds to maintain the roads—and he made out a very good case in this connection—then all these things will militate against the Legislative Assembly passing legislation within a reasonable time to terminate the responsibility of the provincial administration in this regard.

I think that hon. members misunderstand the position. Hon. members opposite act as though the First Schedule is a piece of legislation which determines that these powers will be transferred immediately to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. But that is not the case. What they are receiving is an option to assume those powers as they see their way clear to do so. That makes a world of difference. That then is the reason why we are arguing so unnecessarily. Let us understand one another on this point: It is for them to decide when they want to take over. The fact that was mentioned by the hon. member—the lack of funds—convinces me that it will be of no practical consideration within the foreseeable future to imagine that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei will prefer to shoulder this heavy responsibility.

I want to discuss the matter dealt with in paragraph 14, i.e. the handing over by the Minister, to the Transkei, of social welfare services including child welfare and the administration of social benefit schemes, etc. For several years now I have been drawing the attention of various Ministers in this House to the fact that the Government had failed in the past to provide suitable and sufficient personnel in respect of these services for the Bantu people. How the Transkeian people are going to manage their own affairs as far as social services are concerned plus these specialized items set out in the paragraph, is absolutely beyond my comprehension. The Minister must tell us how they intend carrying out these duties.

The question of child welfare, for instance, is not a question of allowing a Bantu nanny to look after a Black baby and feed it with a bottle of milk. Child welfare is a specialized service to be carried out by trained people. I know and the hon. the Minister knows that there are not sufficient trained people available in the Transkei to look after the children of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister must tell us here to-day how he can arrange a full service without the help of the Whites there. He and I, know that without the aid of the White people in the Transkei these services will not be sufficient: as a matter of fact, they will probably be the worst in the whole of South Africa. It is not sufficient to have a body of people who are willing to arrange for the giving to blind people pensions when they are blind. The important thing is to see that they do not go blind. Has he any services to care for those people? Has he got any services at all for looking after the health of the children who need a special service? There is nothing at all that the Black people in the Transkei can undertake now alone, and the Minister is aware of that.

So we must continue nursing them.

The point is that in the past the Government has failed to teach them to do the job properly and until we have done that it is our duty to guide them. The White man must remain there. It is not only his money that is required, but also his knowhow, and his ability to do the job properly. It is our duty to teach these people. But up to now the Government has failed to do it. The Minister ought to be aware of the shortages existing in the services there at present—services intimately connected with social welfare. He knows that he cannot afford to take 10 nurses out of the hospitals and put them to work in a social services centre. He knows that for child welfare, doctors are needed, but he knows that he has no Bantu doctors to spare. What is he going to do then? Is he going to say that it is good enough to make laws knowing that they will never be implemented? Is that what he wants?

I say to the Minister now that if there is one service which must remain in the hands of the White man until the Black people are trained properly, it is this particular service and others coming under paragraph 14. Is the Minister seeing to it to-day that university courses which are open to the Black people provide training in these services? Does he know how long it takes to train people like these? I want to know whether the same personnel who are at present in the Transkei are going to remain there. What is going to happen when the White personnel in the Transkei are going to be ordered out? Or are they going to be allowed to remain there for an indefinite and unknown period? Is this just a make-believe, or a smokescreen to satisfy a small number of people by telling them that they are getting a certain amount of independence in various walks of life?

I am very dissatisfied with what has gone on in the past and I shudder to think what is going to happen in the Transkei in future.

We have again had a demonstration of a completely unrealistic approach to this matter on the part of hon. members opposite, as well as of their absolutely deliberate ignorance, ignorance which certainly does not redound to their credit. It is really a reflection upon the intelligence of members of the United Party. I want to tell the House why I say this. They are again following their old tactics of raising phantoms which do not exist at all. They try to suggest that once this legislation has been passed, all the Whites will leave the Transkei and that the Bantu of the Transkei will be left to their own devices. They want to know now what will happen then. What is the mentality of a party that acts in this way? How can a responsible party make such a statement? Everyone has, I am sure, a certain sense of responsibility. The making of this sort of statement must really be regarded as an extremely irresponsible action, the most irresponsible that we have ever experienced in this House. No party has ever acted in this way in the history of this House. [Interjections.]

I want to come now to the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). He was deeply concerned because he said that in the past Bantu were not trained to undertake tasks dealing with social welfare. I refer to social welfare in general in order to cover the points raised by the hon. member, because I do not want to discuss each point separately. He is quite right in his contention that in the past Bantu were not trained to perform these tasks. But is that the fault of this Government only? Have we not had previous Governments? [Interjections.]

Hon. members must give me a chance. I want to go further, and I want to ask what Government has done more in that direction than this Government has? No Government has done more in the sphere of the development of the general welfare of the Bantu than this Government has. I challenge any person to deny this statement. I say that no Government has done more in this connection than this Government has. This Government has always approached the matter from the point of view—and it is now being applied in practice—that it does not help for these things to be handed to the Bantu on a plate without their absorbing them and taking an active part in their development process. That is farcical. It is because of this fact that this Government has followed this policy over the past years— to enable the Bantu to take an active part in all spheres of development in such a way that they are able to absorb these things. It is because of this that we have made it our aim that the Bantu must be looked after by Bantu nurses in their hospitals. What has been the result of this decision? The result has been that over the past few years more Bantu nurses have been trained than during all the preceding years. Who will deny this? Why is this so? It is because we are following this particular policy.

That is why we want to build up this policy further in the Transkei. The Bantu are being given a far more active share in these matters than was the case previously. They are now even being given the right to pass this kind of law and to ensure that its provisions are implemented. Besides this we have another important principle which hon. members do not bear in mind—that the Bantu themselves have asked us not to leave them on their own just yet. They have said that we will have to assist them for a long time yet to develop further. The fact is that one of our basic principles is that we want to assist these people to achieve full development in all spheres. One of the complaints that was expressed here this morning was that an insufficient number of people were being trained to look after social welfare services. But whose fault is that?

It is your fault.

But when we wanted to establish the Bantu universities where this training could be given on a large scale, the hon. member opposed us! Provision is now being made for the training of these people and this provision is being increased on a large scale. That is the procedure that we are now following.

We are now giving legislative responsibility to the Bantu in the Transkei but the White officials will still remain there to assist them until Bantu are available to replace these White officials. They have made a very earnest request—and this is an undertaking that I myself have given them—that the White officials should be made available to them to assist them. As the Bantu are trained to replace the White officials, so this will be done. As they are able to produce officials with the necessary ability and experience so will the White officials be replaced by Bantu officials. We are not leaving them to their own devices and telling to make do. To maintain that this is the case would be a misconception which would be relayed to the world.

I want now to deal for a moment with the points raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), He is a person who has developed the habit lately of thinking up scare stories. I am pleased that I am not his son because if I were I would be the most frightened person in the world. He tried again to frighten people here this evening. He knows very well that the roads in the Transkei will still remain under the control of the Provincial Administration. As and when the Bantu of the Transkei see their way clear to take over the work, that work will be entrusted to them. Officials who have knowledge of the building of roads—officials not only of the Provincial Administration but also of my Department—will certainly be made available to them. It is a basic principle of our policy that the Bantu must learn to build roads themselves and to maintain them. I admit that in some cases roads were neglected under the old Bunga as well as under the Territorial Authority but this was due chiefly to a shortage of the necessary funds. I admit that fact. But where the necessary funds have been available, the fact is that the Bantu have acquitted themselves very well indeed of their task. I wish that I could take hon. members to other places where the Bantu have done this sort of work virtually on their own. There are places at Soutpansberg, for example, and parts of Zululand, where the Bantu have built all the bridges virtually on their own. This work has been done as well as it could be done in any White area. They have therefore already had the necessary experience.

Does the hon. member now want to suggest that this cannot happen in the Transkei as well? It is unfair to say that the people there will never develop to such an extent that they will be able to build a good road and to maintain it. That is an unfair approach. I want to deal with another statement—that no money will be available. The hon. member would know better than this if he had read the Bill. He knows that the Provincial Administration pays for it. Hon. members opposite have suggested that this whole amount has been used up and that the poor Bantu of the Transkei have no money to carry on. But that is not the case. One of the undertakings that we have given is that the money that is being spent there to-day will be made available to them for this kind of service. In other words, the full amount that is being spent on roads in the Transkei to-day will be paid to them. The same thing applies to other works. They will have all the money available that they have at their disposal to-day. I make bold to say that they will have more money at their disposal— perhaps a great deal more. But I do not want to paint any pictures as to what may possibly happen in the future. One of our basic principles is that we will assist them with the necessary officials until they have the necessary Bantu officials to take over. As and when Bantu officials who can continue to do this work with the same thoroughness become available, our White officials there will be withdrawn. We must remember that we are dealing here with a process of development, a process of development which is not only in the interests of the Bantu in the Transkei but also in the interests of the whole of the Republic. For that reason we cannot act irresponsibly.

The hon. member made up quite a fuss about Port St. Johns. There is no danger there; those roads will continue to be maintained properly. The necessary money and officials will be available for that purpose. It is obvious that the province will have to build the roads in the Port St. Johns area and in those parts of the country that fall within the sphere of the province and the province will have to build those roads. But White officials will continue to ensure that the roads are built properly. If the province does not have enough officials to undertake this task my Department will make the necessary officials available.

I want to ask hon. members not to approach these matters in this way. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) was very concerned about the possibility of cattle diseases being carried from the east coast into the Transkei. That will not be the case.

While they have no veterinarians of their own, our White veterinarians will be at their disposal and the position will continue to be controlled as it is being controlled to-day. As and when they train their own veterinarians, so we will withdraw ours.

How many Bantu veterinarians are being trained and where are they being trained?

The hon. member can answer that question herself. Bantu veterinarians are not yet being trained. The hon. member knows that. This is one of the important tasks awaiting the Transkei. They will have to ensure that those officials are trained.

Mr. HUGHES; Where?

The necessary provision will have to be made. Once there is a demand for them the necessary provision will have to be made at the Bantu universities. That will have to come sooner or later. Do hon. members really want to tell me that it is their policy always to keep White veterinarians in the Transkei; never to allow a Bantu to be trained as a veterinarian? It has been proved throughout the whole world that if a nation does not tackle a task itself, if everything is done far it by others, that nation will not develop. It is only when that nation itself makes a direct contribution to its own development that that development becomes permanent and constructive and generates further development. That is our policy in the Transkei.

Whatever one might say about the hon. the Minister, I think he has the three Christian virtues when he approaches the problem of the Transkei, namely, faith hope and love — a great deal of faith and hope. He can paint a beautiful picture of the Transkei of the future. The Bantu will all go back to the Transkei and they will have pie in the Transkei when they die. That is the picture he paints for us. Whether roads can wait or whether social welfare can wait I do not know, but education cannot wait. I wish to speak about the second paragraph of Part B of the First Schedule on Bantu Education. I take it that the Xhosa people are going to take over their own system of education. They are going to be responsible for education and there will be a Minister of Education. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how this is going to be carried out? My criticism is that if we are to hand over education to the people of the Transkei there should have been preparation over a period of years, ever since this Bantustan policy was enunciated by the hon. the Prime Minister. To do that we should have trained administrative officers and professional officers. Out of the 143 higher professional and administrative officers in the Department of Bantu Education not one will be stationed in the Transkei, unless the Executive says: “We cannot conduct this system; we want you to appoint White administrative officers.” And if they do import them they will not be able to keep them very long.

The standard of education is illustrated by the report of this commission, which was appointed to investigate the question of the teaching of the official languages. The report is dated October last year and was laid on the Table this morning. Four Africans were the members of the commission; not one of them an inspector of schools, but they had two assessor members who were both inspectors of schools. So it means that we have not trained men for the higher positions to give us a system of education in the Transkei. They are now going to create their own system. I hope I am correct in assuming that? They are not going to be bound by the system of Bantu education we have in the Republic. Is that assumption correct? I take it it is? They discuss Transkei education in this report and they say this (Paragraph 9, Section B)—

and then they describe the atmosphere as co-operation between the parents and the teachers in the schools. If they are going to introduce that system, and they say they are going to do so, it will certainly be a complete change from the system we have to-day. I am very anxious that the Minister should tell us: Are the Transkei going to have freedom to do this? A great deal of extra money will have to be spent in the Transkei on education. Let me quote again from the commission’s report. They describe the staffing in the Transkei Bantu schools— I hope hon. members who are professional in this regard will listen—and they say this—

Hon. members will realize that you cannot possibly build up a system of education in that way. And the children have to take three languages! That is what they are doing now. I want to know whether the Government is prepared to accept the opinion of the commission on the desires and wishes of the people of the Transkei in the education of their own children. Or are they going to subject them to experts in the Department of Bantu Education? Will the people of the Transkei be free to choose the system of education they want? Because, Sir, what they have been asking for is a window on the world. Although they love their own language, although they want; to develop their own language, they want a window on the world; they want a language that will give them an opportunity to have contact with the countries to the North. I should like to know what the policy of the Minister is going to be.

The second thing I want to ask is this: What is the Government going to do about the Xhosa-speaking children who do not live in the Transkei? Are they going to give those children a different system of education from those in the Transkei?

That is a simple question.

If it is an easy one I shall pass it over, I shall leave that to the Minister to reply to.

The next point is one I raised earlier. …

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to the advisability or otherwise of granting the Transkei the right to control Bantu education.

That is what I want to discuss., Sir, the advisability or otherwise. If this is the obvious consequence of handing over the education of their children to the people of the Transkei, is it advisable to do so? I want to come to this point: Supposing our Government say they are not going to provide the money, that they cannot provide more money than they are providing at present—and that is insufficient; as we have seen—will the Government permit the people of the Transkei to obtain free grants or loans from countries outside South Africa? Will they, for example, permit the Transkei to accept grants from the Ford Foundation or from the Carnegie Foundation?

Or the communists.

Well, I do not know whether the communists give money away. Finally I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister; How is the Fort Hare University College to be controlled now? I asked this question a few days ago, but unfortunately it was not the right place. It is a Xhosa University college; it is the only college to which a Xhosa can go. He may not go to a White university; he may not go to the Zulu university college; he must go to Fort Hare. Are the Transkeian Government to have any control of Fort Hare? Or are they going to remain in the present inferior position where they are an advisory council to a White council? And an advisory senate to a White senate? I should like the Minister to tell us what the prospects are because this is vital. In all the countries to the north in Africa, in all the colonies of Britain that have become independent countries, the most important matter has been education; education and administration. First they ask how many are going to vote and elect their own people to govern them. The second thing they ask is how they are going to provide for education. I should like the Minister to tell us what the prospects are going to be. There is one thing we cannot risk: that is that we cannot risk having these people being dissatisfied with the education of their children in the Transkei.

I want to reply to the last speaker. The hon. member had a lot to say about what is now going to happen to education in the Transkei. Since the Government took over Bantu education Bantu education has advanced by leaps and bounds. We must bear in mind the fact that we are not going to throw the Transkei to the wolves by means of this legislation; we are not going to leave the Transkei on its own but we want to let it develop with the assistance of the White man. I want to indicate to hon. members the basis on which we can rely and the achievements on which the National Party Government can rely in respect of the further development of Bantu education in the Transkei. Since the taking over of Bantu education, there has been both a horizontal and vertical …

Order! I do not want to spoil the hon. member’s good speech but the hon. member must discuss the desirability or otherwise of the Transkeian Authority arranging its own educational matters.

With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I must sketch the basis on which they will receive this education because they cannot build unless they have a basis on which to build.

The hon. member may proceed but I must ask hon. members to confine themselves to the desirability or otherwise of the Transkeian Authority having the right to control Bantu education.

May I just sketch the basis of the present position?

I will permit the hon. members to do so very briefly.

I say, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that both horizontally and vertically a very great improvement has taken place in Bantu education. I want to explain to hon. members what I mean by horizontally and vertically. I must do this because it is stated expressly here that “Bantu education in the district mentioned in Section 2 of this Act, whether within or outside Bantu areas in any such districts,…”.

Improvements have taken place horizontally in this sense that more and more Bantu children are being admitted to schools. That is the way in which this Bill is handing Bantu education over to the Bantu Legislative Assembly that is Io be set up. I want to mention a few examples and I think that we can mention these examples with great pride. The number of children who have been admitted to schools has increased by 100,000 per annum.

In the Transkei?

In the Republic generally. The hon. member can take it from me that this is so. This gives us the fullest right to hand education over with the utmost assurance to the Transkei to develop it further with the assistance and guidance of the White man. A little while ago no Bantu was good enough to be given a licence. Then it was dangerous.

I just want to show hon. members how the literacy of Bantu children has increased since we took over their education. Literacy increased from plus minus 45 per cent in 1954 to 65 per cent in 1960.

Why are you changing it now?

We want to improve it. This is a wonderful basis on which we can now hand over this educational system to the Bantu Legislative Assembly that is to be established. I have the fullest right to say this. At any rate it is less nonsensical than what has been said by hon. members opposite! In some areas as many as 85 per cent of the children of school-going age are at school. This is an achievements of which the rest of Africa cannot boast.

Let me deal for a moment with the vertical aspect, Sir. It is vertical in this sense that pupils are progressing far better at school and are reaching higher standards before leaving school. And then the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has made it clear to us to-day that it is dangerous to issue a Bantu with a motor driver’s licence! He says that this is the death on the road. But let me go further: The enrolments in secondary schools increased from 43,000 in 1955 to 54,000 in 1961.

Where?

I say that this is generally the case. We say that education, both horizontal and vertical, amongst the Bantu people and amongst Bantu of school-going age has advanced by leaps and bounds and that it is advisable at this stage—not only advisable but desirable—to hand Bantu education over to the Transkei. Listen to these data: In 1954 about 75 per cent of the pupils got no further than Std. I. In 1961, the figure was 70 per cent. There was a drop in this figure; there is less depreciation.

The enrolments for Junior Certificate Examinations rose during the same period from plus minus 4,000 to nearly 10,000 in 1961. I think that I have indicated adequately that the Nationalist Government is going to hand over to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly an education which is already on a sound foundation and that the Republican Government is going to hand this education over to the Transkei with the honest intention of assisting them in the further building up of their education according to their requirements. I think that we have made this very clear, and I do not think that there can be any doubt in this regard at all.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). I think that his speech was really rather shameful. I think that it is shameful to tell the world that there is absolutely no provision for welfare services amongst the Bantu. In the Republic of South Africa the Bantu can boast of the very best welfare services throughout the whole of Africa. In the sphere of medicine, in the sphere of pensions and in the sphere of hospitalization there is no territory in Africa that can be compared with us. Now the hon. member for Rosettenville says that there is no possibility of their being able to perform their own welfare services.

You know that that is so.

That hon. member should not open her mouth; she is one who goes around telling everyone that we are “kafferboeties”; we are doing too much for the Bantu. Now we are doing too little! At one moment it is too much and at the next moment it is too little; we do not know where we stand. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) knows nothing of what is going on here. [Time limit.]

I listened with interest to the explanation of the hon. the Minister but the longer I listened the more unclear the matter became to me. We are dealing with matters which we are going to hand over to the Transkeian Government. Certain things are mentioned in the Schedule, amongst others, Bantu education, about which the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has just spoken, he referred to the horizontal and the vertical education that is going to be handed over to the Bantu. Mr. Chairman, if the Bantu understand his speech as little as we on this side of the House have understood it, then I feel sorry for them.

The truth of the matter is this. In 1961 this question was put to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education: How many of the 100 most senior education posts in the Transkei are occupied by Bantu? And the answer was: Not one.. That was two years ago. The hon. the Minister explained to us that these things would be handed over gradually to the Transkei. We will hand over veterinary services amongst other things; we will hand over water conservation, irrigation, forestry and so forth, as well as welfare services which were discussed by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), including child welfare, the administration of social welfare schemes for the aged, disabled persons, the blind and so forth.

Midnight

I must point out to the hon. the Minister that it takes seven years to train one veterinary officer, after matriculation, and no institution of this nature exists at which a Bantu can be trained. How many years will it take before the hon. the Minister will have made these faculties available at the university? Have they to go to Onderstepoort in the meantime? Now the hon. the Minister says that when the universities in which he now wants to train some of these Bantu were set up, we objected to them. But the hon. the Minister is one of those who tells us that from time immemorial the policy of the Nationalist Party has been to establish separate states. This Government has now been in power for 15 years. During this period of 15 years did it not know that it was going to need veterinary officers for the Transkei? Why is there no place at all where these people can be trained? What actually is the position here to-day? Is the position that we to pass a sham law here in which we are going to give certain sham powers to the Transkeian Government, whereas in reality the people of the Republic of South Africa are still going to be responsible not only for every penny spent but also for the running of all these services? Is that then the position? And then the hon. the Minister becomes terribly indignant and says that we ask unnecessary and stupid questions. But where the world is being told that we are giving these people independence, that we are making this concession, which we are doing under this Schedule, because pressure has been brought to bear upon us by the outside world in regard to our policy here in South Africa, we must at least be able to say when we are going to start implementing that policy. The hon. the Minister now says that the people in the service of the Provincial Administration will stay on there. The hon. the Minister has said very glibly that if the Cape Provincial Administration does not have the officials to spare for the Transkei, then he will assist them with officials from his Department. This is something new to me! I did not know that the hon. the Minister had educationists in his Department. I did not know that the hon. the Minister had welfare officials in his Department and that the hon. the Minister had veterinary officers in his Department. Neither did I know that he had doctors available in his Department.

I was talking about roads.

I did not know, that the hon. the Ministers had engineers in his Department. Of course, the hon. the Minister told us that a number of Natives built a road one Sunday afternoon in the Soutpansberg district.

You are now off the Ralls.

I am afraid it is not I who am off the Ralls. I am afraid that we need a great deal more information in connection with this subject. One of the hon. members said that I sometimes say that they do too much for the Bantu and at the next moment I say that they do too little for them. But they must not confuse me with Mr. Fritz Smit. It is Mr. Fritz Smith and members of the Nationalist Party who say these things. But the hon. the Minister said that the roads in the Transkei were neglected in the past because the Transkei did not have sufficient funds. The hon. the Minister then became very interesting. He was carried away on a cloud and with a beatific smile on his face he told us that they would receive a great deal of financial assistance in the future. That interested me greatly. He did not tell us where the money was coming from. But I think that we as representatives of the people of South Africa are entitled to know where that money is coming from. We as practical people are not interested in those wonderful and attractive little pipe-dreams. We want to know where the rand and cents are going to come from, particularly the money which is now going to come from a source which the Transkei did not know of previously when they were still under the Republic. They had not yet discovered that source at that stage, but this is the source that is going to be made available to them in the future.

At midnight one prefers the horizontal to the vertical position, but whichever position one occupies, one can only come to one conclusion in considering the speech made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who has left the House now. If there is any essence to be extracted from the hon. member’s speech he said in effect that whoever took over Bantu education in the Transkei was taking over a system that was in excellent shape. He called it “’n pragtige basis”, He gave reams of figures which, I suggest, were not really relevant, but he would not at any time relate one of his statistics to the actual position in the Transkei. whenever we said to him “Waar is dit?” he replied “in the whole of South Africa”, As far as the position in the Transkei is concerned, he either does not know or he does not care. However, I want to talk about education in the Transkei, which I think has been raised in its proper perspective, first of all, by the hon. member for Kensington. It is perfectly clear that some members of this House have not taken the trouble to read this report of a commission of inquiry into certain educational aspects of the educational system in the Transkei, and the hon. member for Kensington drew the attention of the Committee to certain conclusions arrived at by the commission of inquiry. I want to draw attention merely to two specific conclusions contained in this report of the commission of inquiry which completely torpedo the entire 10-minute speech made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp, which was designed to prove that the existing educational basis in the Transkei was wonderful—like most other things in the Transkei, we know—and that it was merely a matter of building on that foundation. I refer to the conclusion of the commission on page 18, paragraph 8 (b)—

If I had wanted to damn the educational system in the Transkei, I could not have put it in stronger or plainer language. That statement was made by a commission which was lauded by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration. He spoke very highly of it. I wonder whether he is going to take his words back in the light of this conclusion of the commission? I continue to quote—

Very interesting. It immediately deprives the Minister of the first excuse, I am sure, that he would have offered. The report continues—

“The neglect of the teachers.” Where is the “pragtige basis”? I am not criticizing the teachers. I am quoting from the report.—

“Centuries of experience”?

It says “years”. The hon. member apparently has a very special personal report, but I am quoting from the actual report of the commission. On page 19 we find another conclusion, and that is 9 (f), which further torpedoes this pretty argument of the “pragtige” basis” of education in the Transkei, as advanced by the hon. member for Ventersdorp—

But South Africa is a country with two official languages, both entrenched, and this is going to be a system of education which in terms of this Bill will be handed over to people who have produced a report of their own educational system in these terms—

If there is to be a transfer in medium, then it can only be from the mother-tongue to one of the official languages, and not to both.

Then, Sir, you drew our attention to the fact that at this stage we must discuss the advisability or the wisdom of handing over the educational system in the Transkei to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly! In discussing that advisability, I want to ask the hon. Minister this question: When this particular commission, having reported as it has done, has influenced, as it will undoubtedly influence, all considerations as regards education in the Transkei, and therefore will influence the decision of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, and they come to him and say “one substitute for the mother-tongue, only one”, which one is he going to agree to drop? Is it Afrikaans, or is it English? That is one of the important considerations that will arise in regard to the wisdom or advisability of handing over this particular aspect of the life of the people of the Transkei to their own Legislative Assembly. Who is there in South Africa who will take it on himself to decide that issue and say: Let this nearly self-governing State drop one of our official languages as a substitute for its mother-tongue, in other words, eliminate from its national life, at the very beginning, one of the two official languages of the parent of this scheme, the Republic of South Africa? [Time limit.]

I want to point out that I have allowed hon. members to discuss the present position of education in the Transkei as a background to the advisability or otherwise for transferring Bantu education to the Transkeian Authority, but hon. members must now confine themselves strictly to the question of advisability or otherwise.

I want to refer to another one of the provisions under this particular Schedule and that is the one under Item No. 20, viz. the advisability of the transfer of the fish and game preservation in the Transkei, subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940). I want to deal particularly with the aspect of the transfer as it affects the sea fisheries under that Act.

The proposal here to transfer this control to the Transkeian Territories is a complete departure from the principle adopted when the Sea Fisheries Act itself was introduced in 1940. Prior to that there was in force certain control by the provinces under ordinances promulgated by the various provinces, and also under the section of the Financial Relations Act arising from the then Act of Union. Under the Sea Fisheries Act it was thought desirable to bring all those controls together under the control of this Parliament. What is happening now under the proposals here, is that as far as the area of the Transkeian coast is concerned, the jurisdiction will be handed back to the Transkeian Territorial Authority. I want to ask the hon. Minister to give that matter very serious consideration before this provision is finally accepted, because there is no question about it, and I think there the hon. Minister ought to agree with me that that as far as the Transkeian Territorial Authority is concerned, they would have no prospects at all of exercising the control which has now become necessary in the offshore fisheries areas. Sea-fishing to-day has become one of the most important and one of the most valuable assets of the Republic’s industrial economic life. The particular section of the coast affected by this clause, if I might term it so, is one of the key hinges between the fishing industry off the Natal coast and the fishing industry off the Cape Coast, from the region of Port St John’s up to as far as this area and from the region of Port St. John’s hack around the Natal coast, a region which is of tremendous importance. It is off this particular coast that one of your biggest movements of the migratory fish on which the Republic’s fishing industry so heavily depends, takes place, not only the movements, but the spawning and shoaling of them. From these areas they move into the areas in which our fishing industries operate. It seems to me that there are very grave grounds for re-consideration of the advisability of handing over control at this stage. A change in policy which is a decentralization of control against the trend of our own Government policy, and a very wise trend of our own Government, in centralizing this type of control rather than decentralizing it. The fishing industry no longer affects only a particular area along the coast of the Republic It is a national industry. We ourselves have legislation pending, which I will not be permitted to discuss now, but which has a bearing on the need for considering this item. Legislation which will come before us in order to protect our fishing industry, and to extend our area of jurisdiction to 12 miles off the coast. Even under the three mile limit, or the six mile limit at present in force, the need for protection and the provision of organization to give that protection is tremendous. It is at the present moment taxing our own ingenuity and our own resources to do it efficiently. We are in our own waters at the present moment threatened by the fishing operations of foreign powers. By this provision we are ultimately going to hand over a very vital portion of that same control, in an area where under prevailing conditions there is no hope at all of carrying out effective control. I would ask the hon. Minister to give that matter very serious consideration. You see, Sir, I think that the fishing industry itself should take warning of this pending development It is not a question of the vast private capital invested that is going to be affected. There is also the fact that our own Industrial Development Corporation and the Fishing Development Corporation have sunk large amounts of public money into these ventures. Effective control and the security of those investments may be jeopardized by now handing over to a body which obviously—(I am not criticizing them, you cannot expect it to be otherwise)—will not be in a position to exercise effective control. Surely we, with the knowledge we have at our back, should exercise a wider discretion in handing over that control to them. I want to put that point to the hon. Minister and I would like to have a reply from him as to how he expects them to exercise control. The hon. Minister probably will say again that anything can happen, but we cannot trust to anything that can happen. The happening must be planned in advance and before we pass legislation to permit these things to develop. Surely now is the time to take suitable preventative measures. Now is the time to introduce the control necessary to safeguard an industry which every nerve in the Republic has been strained to develop. Now is the time to put necessary safeguards into the legislation, and not to wait until the damage is done and then try to repair it. It will be too late then.

I just want to give the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) the assurance that this whole matter has nothing to do with sea fisheries. It has only to do with the fish in the Transkei.

May I again draw the attention of the hon. Minister to paragraph (20) in this particular First Schedule. It reads: Fish and game preservation in the Transkei subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Sea Fisheries Act of 1940. In a number of the other paragraphs here there are particular sections of control from which the Transkei is excluded, and in every case the special nature of wording used in these clauses makes it clear without any shadow of doubt that those particular features have been excluded. I refer the hon. Minister to paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, all dealing with different subjects. Take 12 which deals with the regulation and control of road traffic, including the control and licensing of vehicles. It says “but excluding all matters dealt with in the Motor-Carrier Transportation Act”, and so you can take it right through in all these paragraphs. In paragraph 10, dealing with public works, it says “excluding bridges between the Transkei and any other part of the Republic”, In this particular Clause 20 there is no term of exclusion at all. It says “fish and game preservation in the Transkei subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Sea Fisheries Act, and Section 14 repeals certain legislation in force prior to that date under provincial law as printed without any punctuation or any exclusion as provided in other sub-sections it clearly transfers control of the Transkeian territorial waters to the new Transkei Authority. How the Minister can now say that this does not apply to the sea fisheries with the wording as it is, is difficult to understand. I think the Minister’s view of the matter is completely incorrect. Sea fishing is included according to the wording of the paragraph in its present form.

I want to raise certain matters with the Minister in regard to paragraph 12, but before I do so, I would like to remind the hon. Minister that when certain other issues were discussed under Clause 27, when I raised the question as to what would be the status of the elected members of the Transkei Assembly, the hon. Minister was prepared to reply, but on that occasion it was ruled by the Chair, that that was not the proper occasion. I take it, however, that under paragraph 16, the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the points that I raised on that occasion under Clause 27.

But under paragraph 12, it reads—

It is quite clear that coupled with paragraph 10, already dealt with by the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories, the licensing of motor vehicles, and the type of motor vehicle that will be licensed will be entirely in the discretion of the Transkeian Assembly, and whatever laws they wish to make in this regard. As the Minister knows, a large part of the economy of the Transkei itself rests upon the activities of private hauliers, people who are licensed for the transportation of goods and passengers in terms of the Road Transportation Act of 1930. These private hauliers are not only White hauliers as I understand the position in the Transkei, but they are also Bantu hauliers. The Minister knows the principle of the Transportation Act, that the granting of licences for private hauling is done by local road transportation boards, from whom appeals can be made to the National Transportation Commission. The prime function of that Act is the protection and the issue of licences for private hauliers.

Order! Paragraph 12 specifically excludes the Motor-Carrier Transportation Act.

Sir, I only want to point out the difficulties that may arise from the clause as it now stands as it has to do with the licensing of vehicles. One of the functions of that Act is also in regard to the adequacy and suitability of vehicles for passenger traffic and the transportation of goods. If the Transkeian Authority is going to have some responsibility in regard to the issue of licences to drivers, which will be drivers of commercial vehicles and drivers of private vehicles and if it will have the sole discretion in the issue of licences for any type of motor vehicle, what is going to be the position?

Order Vehicles are controlled under the Motor-Carrier Transportation Act.

The point I wish to make is that if this Authority is going to have the power to license vehicles, it is immediately going to affect the whole question of private haulage within the Transkei itself, and a ridiculous position will arise when the Transkeian Authority can so legislate in regard to the licensing of vehicles that the Transportation Act cannot be administered by the Republic at all and private haulage as such will come to a standstill in the Transkei. The position is quite ridiculous. It is going to put people out of business and it is going to create an impossible position for local hauliers because they still have to go to the Republic to get their licences to operate, but the Transkeian Authority controls the roads and road traffic, all kinds of traffic. Another body sitting elsewhere is going to determine the whole policy of how Bantu citizens shall operate private haulage within the Transkeian Territory itself. It appears to me to be a ridiculous position, and it seems to me to be another example of the type of confusion that appears right through this Act in regard to its various provisions. I just don’t see how it can work. The eventual result will be that you will have a clash of interests between people licensed by a Republican Authority and the legislative body itself of the Transkei who will license the vehicles. I hope the hon. Minister will clarify the position so that we then can discuss it further. I hope the hon. Minister will take this occasion to deal with the matter. I am dealing with facts, not with theories. I am putting practical issues that will arise as the result of the application of this Bill, not theoretical things, but issues we want to have specific information on. I know that it is a difficult question for the hon. Minister. I know that he has sheltered on occasion behind the closure and your rulings, Mr. Chairman, when difficult issues have been put before the hon. Minister, but on this occasion the Minister has the opportunity to reply to those questions which have been put.

If the Minister has forgotten my questions on Clause 27 I am quite prepared to put them to him again as I did when the clause was under discussion. I hope he will do what he said he was prepared to do and that is to reply to the issues that were raised when that clause was under discussion.

There are a number of items in this schedule which I think should not be implemented as they stand at the moment and I would like to mention a few of them. The first one is No. 3, “agriculture including soil and veld conservation, stock improvement, development, maintenance and conservation of water supplies, irrigation, forestry and veterinary services in the Transkei.” Sir, we have had a lot of experience in the implementation of these particular measures and we know from that experience that the Bantu as a whole do not take kindly to such measures being applied to them—measures such as improving the quality of their stock. They believe in quantity as opposed to quality. They have objected most strongly to the fencing and paddocking of their lands to help in the improvement of the stock. I do not believe that they are ready yet adequately to carry on with these improvement schemes initiated in their various territories. When you add to that the question of the maintenance and conservation of water supplies and so on, I think the task is going to be one which is going to be quite beyond the people of the Transkei to implement amongst their own people. I think with the authority of the White map to implement them we do stand a reasonable chance of making some progress. Then we come to items such as item 10, “public works and undertakings, roads, outspans, ponts and bridges in the Transkei,” excluding certain bridges and roads which have already been mentioned. I think it has been made adequately clear by previous speakers that these people have not got the finance and the equipment and I do not believe that as yet they have adequate skill to undertake works of such a huge nature as will be required here, because that will probably incorporate as well the building of dams and other conservation work which have to be carried out in conjunction with Clause 3. Then we come to item 13, “labour matters in the Transkei but excluding all matters dealt with in the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act”. Sir, this is a most difficult problem to handle, as we have found here in the Republic in dealing with these various classes of people. It is difficult enough for us to enforce labour conditions and to exercise proper control. These people are not adequately experienced in the carrying out of these schemes yet, and I think we are leaving them to attend to their own labour problems before they are properly equipped to do so. I think it would be a shame if we left them in that position at this stage. Sir, I could go on and refer to the question of welfare services, child welfare and the like. We know that at the moment in Natal we have this problem of Kwashiorkor and other problems which militate against the Bantu child in its early youth. I do not believe that at this stage it is possible for these people to cope with these problems adequately. They will want our help and assistance in these matters for some considerable time to come, but here the Minister is prepared just to hand over these matters to these people and see them trying to struggle along as best they can. I do not think that they can do it yet. I think the same applies when it comes to the registration of voters and the conduct of elections, but I do not want to go on dealing with this schedule item by item. What I do want to say is that in the bulk of these matters, these people are not adequately equipped and it is dangerous at this stage, not so much for us, but for them to hand over these matters to them. Sir, in expressing these thoughts I am in very good company because unless the Minister has changed his opinion very recently he agrees with me. I would like to quote to him something that might refresh his memory. He will remember that exactly three years ago to-day at Delmas he made a speech in which he is reported to have said (and he has not denied this report)—

Those are the words of this hon. Minister three short years ago, and yet to-day he comes along with a Bill such as this after having warned against making promises to these people. If the Minister goes through the items contained in this schedule he will find not one but many items there which “cannot be carried out or which will fail”, and if he agrees with that then he must know just as I do that this will do us harm and also the people to whom this is being applied. I would like the Minister very seriously to consider the provisions of many of these items that I have mentioned.

I should like to touch upon one aspect which has already been dealt with to a certain extent and that is the advisability of handing over welfare services to be administered by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. We have already dealt with the clause, Clause 63, which provides that the White officials in the Transkei will be progressively replaced with Bantu. To get an assessment of the position with regard to welfare services and the training of Bantu, the Minister of Bantu Education was asked on 22 May 1962 how many Bantu students had enrolled at university colleges in social science courses. The Minister’s reply showed that at the university college of the North there were 51, at the university college of Zululand 15, making a total of 66.

Out of many million people.

The second question was whether courses in social science were available at the university college of Fort Hare, a college which caters for Xhosa people and the graduates of which will be required to administer welfare services in the Transkei in terms of this item in the schedule. The answer to this question was: “No, there are no courses available at Fort Hare University in social science.. Funds are limited and priority has to be given to more urgent matters.” The other question was whether an institute of social science had been established where Bantu persons could register and obtain a diploma and qualify as welfare officers. The reply to this question, too, was: “No, for the same reasons”—namely that no funds were available. It is obvious, therefore, that the question of educating these people to take over these important services such as welfare services has been sadly neglected by the Government, and that is why we see grave dangers inherent in a provision of this nature. However, the item which I would like to discuss with the Minister is Item 13, dealing with labour matters in the Transkei, but excluding all matters dealt with in the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is a great pity that the Minister of Labour is not in the House at the present time, because these labour matters are complicated and labour legislation is of vital importance to South Africa as a whole. We find that a measure such as the Industrial Conciliation Act is not mentioned here as one of the Acts which are excluded. It can be assumed, therefore, that labour matters falling under the Industrial Conciliation Act will be dealt with by the Transkei Legislative Assembly. Sir, this Act covers a vast field. It covers matters such as the establishment of trade unions, Bantu trade unions and other facets of labour legislation, but I mention first and foremost the question of trade unions. We are now going to have the position that citizens of the Transkei resident in the Transkei will be able to become members of such trade unions, but Bantu whom we will be relying upon to assist in developing the economy of South Africa, and who are living outside of the Transkei, will presumably not be entitled to become members of such trade unions. We know that a responsible Bantu leader such as Chief Kaizer Matanzima has already issued a warning to White employers in the rest of the Republic of South Africa that one of the matters to which he will give his attention is the question of the welfare and the well-being of these Transkeian citizens who will be living outside the Transkei. Any action that may be taken in this matter by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly is vitally going to affect our labour relations. The position of the employer vis-à-vis the bargaining power of the worker is going to be vitally affected. If the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei is permitted to pass legislation affecting labour matters, it is going to place employers in an impossible position, because they are going to have to deal with an unorganized group of workers and, at the same time, that unorganized group of workers will be citizens of the Transkei, a foreign state, in which trade unions will be recognized. I submit in all seriousness that this is a matter of vital concern and importance to the rest of the Republic of South Africa. In terms of Clause 37. which has already been passed, the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei will be able to repeal Acts of this Parliament, so the whole position of our labour force as determined by legislation applicable in the Republic of South Africa, is going to be vitally affected by legislation which may be passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to give us his reply as far as this point is concerned, because it is of great concern to the worker and to the employer. We wish to see peace prevailing in the labour sphere in South Africa, but here we find that a state, which professes still to be within the Republic of South Africa, may pass labour legislation under which the citizens of that state will be subject to one set of conditions and entitled to certain rights while the same citizens outside that state will be subject to other conditions. I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reply with regard to this matter.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to another very important power which is provided for in this Schedule in Item 21 dealing with the control and licensing of trading and businesses in the Transkei. The hon. the Minister sent out directives to local authorities to avoid any Bantu having more than one trading licence in the urban townships and also to retrain from issuing licences to any trading organizations which are registered as companies. The objective is that if any Bantu is able to form a company in order to carry on trading pursuits, then such trading pursuits could well be carried on in the Transkei itself. If that is so, can the Minister tell us what he contemplates doing to ensure that the necessary organization is established immediately so that these entrepreneurs will be able to carry on businesses in the Transkei without delay. I can give the hon. the Minister a few cases where people have been refused licences to trade in the townships surrounding the urban areas because of this impending legislation and the desirability to divert any capital which might be in the hands of Bantu entrepreneurs back to the Transkei. All that, of course, is hampering their development plans. Although we are dealing here with a Bill which provides a Constitution for the Transkei, nevertheless when dealing with the various matters in which the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei will be able to pass legislation in terms of this Constitution, one wants to be satisfied what steps the Minister has in mind and what machinery he contemplates setting up to promote the economic development of the Bantu. Although there is no actual legislation which gives the Minister and his Department authority to order local authorities not to issue these licences, directives are nevertheless being issued, and the local authorities, in order to avoid any conflict with the Department, refer these applications for licences to the Minister’s Department.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing licensing outside the Transkeian Territories. Item 21 deals with the control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei.

Perhaps I have digressed slightly merely in order to high-light to the Minister the importance of dealing with this problem as soon as possible. My request to the Minister would be this, that at this stage when we are discussing the details some statement should be made by him which will give some assurance to those who will be obliged to trade in the Transkei that the necessary machinery is going to be put into operation immediately. Thus is a matter to which priority should be given because it is a matter of real importance at this stage. It is something for which the entrepreneur is waiting in order to enable him to set up his enterprise. Detail of this nature is important therefore, because; a statement from the Minister in this regard will reassure the very people …

How many assurances do you want? You have had some from the Prime Minister and some from the Minister.

If the hon. member were the Minister I would direct my remarks to him, but I do not do so because he is not the Minister. I direct them to the Minister through the Chair and the hon. the Minister is courteous enough to give his attention to what I am saying. I think the hon. member over there has probably just awakened from a deep sleep. Sir, I leave the matter at that. I think the Minister appreciates the importance of this point.

The Minister in replying to my remarks about handing over roads, suggested that I had said that I had no faith in the ability of the African eventually to take over the roads and to construct or maintain roads. Of course, I was not dealing with that aspect; I was dealing with the aspect of finance and how the Transkei was going to bear the cost. The Minister said that they would get all the money they required. Sir, we know that in the past the province paid for the cost of constructing and maintaining roads. Has the Minister agreed that the Government will subsidize provincial roads? If so, to what extent will they be subsidized; has an agreement been entered into or has the Transkei Territorial Authority been given to understand that the province will continue to pay all the expenses in connection with the maintenance and construction of provincial roads? They must surely come to some understanding with the Territorial Authority as to how much is to be spent. You see. Sir, we are not given any figure here at all. Under the financial clause the Government of the Republic will pay the difference between the cost of administration and the revenue as at a certain date less the cost of the public servants whose salaries are to be paid by the Government Then there is another clause which says that the Government may also pay additional amounts—

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this Schedule does not deal with the question of finance.

Sir, this Schedule bands over the roads to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei.

The authority to legislate.

Yes, Sir, to legislate and to take control. I want to know how they are going to take control. We object to this provision because we say that the Transkei Authority cannot take control because they have not got the finances. The Minister told me that the Government of the Republic would give them the money, and I am just trying to find out how the Government of the Republic is going to do it.

Order! I am not prepared to allow hon. members to go into the question of finance under this Schedule. I do not mind if they touch upon it in passing in outlining the background, but I cannot allow them to go into the particulars.

Sir, I now want to deal with Item 21 which deals with the control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei, but excluding the licensing of dealings in arms and ammunition and explosives. This is the clause which hands over the control of all trading stations in the Bantu areas to the Transkeian Government, irrespective of whether those trading stations are occupied by citizens of the Transkei or non-citizens of the Transkei. This is one of the clauses to which ‘we on this side object most of all. These traders, without being consulted, are being handed over to an untried government. Sir, had this new government had some experience in handling matters of this nature, had they been trained, had we known who was going to take over the government, then perhaps we would have felt more at ease, but in the circumstances we do not know who is going to take over the government, how they are going to apply this law and whether there is going to be discrimination or not. We have submitted that this clause should have contained a provision to the effect that they will not be allowed to discriminate against any class of trader. I addressed the Committee on this point on several occasions and I do not intend spending much time on it again except to lodge our protest again against the fact that the Government of the Republic is handing over its citizens to the control of a foreign government.

I will not be long. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) wants to know who will pay for the upkeep and the building of roads when those services are taken over by the Transkei. I just want to refer him to the provisions of Clause 52 (1) (c) which makes very clear pro vision in this regard. I just want to quote it to him because he may perhaps not have read it.

Order! The hon. members cannot refer back to a clause that has already been agreed to.

Then I just want to refer him to this clause and to ask him to read it. Then he will see that provision is being made in this regard.

As far as the question of trading licences is concerned I just want to point out that the hon. member apparently expected somebody else to issue the trading licences in the Transkei. If a Rhodesian citizen comes to this country and wants to take out a trading licence here, then, in terms of the argument of the hon. member, the Rhodesian Government must issue that licence. That is, of course, a ridiculous argument.

Whereas the picture in the case of the items in the First Schedule, Part B, is by no means clear, the frame, as a rule is at least definable—but in regard to Item 18 I must say that even the frame or framework has not been defined. For example, in every other clause there is reference to either a function or an act or action or an institution which falls within this particular Schedule. In Item 4, for example, there is reference to “the establishment, administration and control of inferior courts in Item 5 there is reference to “the appointment, powers, duties and function of justices of the peace Item 6 deals with the “protection of life”, etc., and so on. There is either a function or an action or an act or an institution to which reference is made so that one can understand what the purview of any particular Item will be; but when it comes to Item 18, all that is stated here is “intoxicating liquor in the Transkei I want to ask the very patient and hon. Minister what this means, “intoxicating liquor in the Transkei”, If it is designed to convey the impression that this is a so-called “matter” falling within the classes of subjects in respect of which the Transkei Legislative Assembly will have the power to make laws, then immediately the reference is to Clause 37 of this Bill, because in Clause 37 the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei, shall have power—

1. (a) to make laws…
2. (b) to provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any law, including any Act of Parliament in so far as it relates to any such matter and applies in the Transkei…

I raise this question because we know what our liquor laws require of a citizen, and we also know that certain amending legislation has been mooted. But unless the Minister knows better than I can be expected to know, no one is in a position to say what restrictions on the use of liquor are intended to be conveyed by this reference to “intoxicating liquor”. Of course, I must put my own construction on it. I cannot be certain that it refers to any restriction or to any specific laws that will be passed, or to any ethical approach to the question of the use of liquor, which is the subject of great concern in this and other countries. I am therefore not in a position to know how the mass of the population in the Transkei or the Legislative Assembly will approach this vexed question. The Minister so often tells us that he has consultations on every conceivable subject, and he must surely be in a position to know what the attitude of the Bantu, who are to rule the Transkei, is towards the supply and the consumption of liquor. I know that he finds this a very interesting subject. Everyone would at this time of the morning.

Do you need an eye-opener?

Yes, as you can hear! There are people living in the Transkei who will be Transkeian citizens, and there are others who will be living in the Republic. By which set of liquor laws …

Order! That has nothing to do with the section.

I accept that, but is it advisable, unless all the facts are known, to consider the handing over of this power to this proposed Legislative Assembly, in view of the fact that there is bound to be a conflict in the approach of the two Legislatures? The Transkei citizen who lives in the Transkei may well be subject to one set of laws, whereas his compatriot who lives in the Republic is not bound by those laws. A very difficult position can arise, and I think the Minister should apply his mind to this point and assure this Committee that due consideration has been given to the advisability of handing over the control of intoxicating liquor in the Transkei to the Legislative Assembly and why this is advisable.

I wish to refer to Item 3 of Part B of the First Schedule, which transfers to the Transkeian Authority the_ control of agriculture. I wish to do so with reference to the minutes of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei, in which they give a clear indication of the policy to be followed in the Transkei in regard to the control of agriculture. I want to quote from the section under the heading “Stock and Agriculture”, under which that authority has indicated its approach to the problem of the control of agriculture. I am referring to the session of 1959. I have with me the minutes of the sessions of 1960, 1961 and 1962 also. The latest sessions indicate the same pattern, but I use this one because it is the only minute of that authority which groups agriculture under one separate section. In 1962 it was separated under alphabetical headings, but in 1959 you had the same resolution. This Bill hands over the control of agriculture to the Transkeian Territorial Authority. I want to ask the Minister, in view of his knowledge of what the existing Territorial Authority requested of him, and therefore what we must anticipate it will transfer into legislation, what his attitude is to the handing over of this control to a body which has given notice of what it intends to do with that control. This Parliament is asked to hand over control of agriculture and veterinary services. That authority has indicated what it wishes to do with that control and I want to ask the Minister whether, in view of what this authority indicates to be its policy, he still intends to include Item 3 in the powers to be handed over. I want to start with the first resolution, No. 8, on this agenda, cattledipping. It requests an extension of the dipping interval in the district of Tsomo during the winter months. No. 9 requests payment to members who attend committee meetings and stock sales. Item 10 asks to remove the restrictions placed on the people of the district in regard to the introduction of cattle into the district. Item 11 is a request to relax the restrictive regulations relating to the importation of slaughter stock into the district—again a relaxation of restrictions. Item 12 asks for a relaxation of the regulations governing the control of East Coast fever. Item 13 requests an extension of the dipping interval in other areas. Item 14 requests to relax the law relating to stock limitation. Item 15 is a request to refrain from prosecuting stock owners for failure to produce spleens, the removal of another restriction to control disease. Item 16 asks that livestock officers should not castrate bull calves, the removal of another restriction. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was more concerned earlier this evening with emasculation than I am, but she is not here to carry out that concern where it matters —in this Parliament. I am dealing with a resolution of this authority demanding the removal of control over the emasculation or castration of bull calves. And so it goes on, resolution after resolution. I have now quoted from No. 8 to No 16. I can go on to deal with trespass fees, location boundaries, etc. The pattern of every single one, bar one, No. 17, which asks that all stock be kraaled at night, is that it calls for the removal of restrictions which are necessary to protect either the quality or the health of stock, or to prevent the spread of disease. Every single one asks for the removal of restrictions which every White farmer in South Africa, and even every Black farmer, should accept as a necessary control to improve agriculture. The Transkeian Territorial Authority, the body which is to become the Parliament of the Transkei and which in terms of Item 3 of the First Schedule has control of these things, has given notice of what it intends to do, and it has already demanded of the Minister what this Minister has refused. This same Minister has refused year after year to grant those requests, right up to 1962. He has refused to accede to these demands of that authority, and now, in 1963, having refused the request for three years, he now comes to this Parliament and asks us to hand over control to the Transkei of these things which he himself was not prepared to accede to. As a responsible Minister he refused to grant these requests, but now he asks Parliament to hand over the right to implement every one of these things. [Time limit.]

I want to raise one important point, dealing with Item 1, which refers to the direct taxation of citizens of the Transkei whether resident within or outside the Transkei, and I want to ask the Minister certain questions, particularly in connection with the Bantu living outside the Transkei. In terms of other clauses, Transkeian citizenship will be imposed upon a very large number of Bantu at present living within the borders of the Republic. In many cases families who were born in the Republic and know nothing about the Transkei, people who are domiciled in the Republic. They will now become subject to taxation imposed by the Transkeian Authority. Is the Minister arranging to afford any protection to those people domiciled in the Republic although they are to be given Transkeian citizenship? Will the Minister give them relief to offset the taxation now to be imposed by the Transkei, or will they be subject to dual taxation, both by the Republic and by the Transkei? Will the Minister impose control over the limits to which direct taxation can be imposed on these people by the new Transkeian Parliament? I am asking this on behalf of people who must remain, in our eyes at any rate, part of the Republic and who are not represented in this House.

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

Will there be some reciprocal agreement between the Republic and the Transkei to guard against these people having to pay dual taxation, or will they be subject to taxation from both sides. This is an important point from our point of view, in maintaining the goodwill of these people who have no voice in this House. We as members of Parliament have a responsibility on behalf of these people who, by birth and domicile, are citizens of the Republic.

I just want to ask whether the Minister will stand by his undertaking to reply to my questions.

A large number of matters have been raised which have been dealt with a hundred times in this House already. A few new matters have also been raised. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned about the licences that will be issued for transport in the Transkei. I want to tell him—he ought to have known it by this time—that a special Transportation Board is being set up for the Transkei under the Transportation Act. It will consist of Xhosa of the Transkei and of officials of the Department of Transport so that proper control can be exercised. What the hon. member fears therefore will not happen. There will be no danger to the Railways either, as the hon. member tried to suggest. We are dealing here with orderly development.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke about double taxation for the Bantu in the Republic who are citizens of the Transkei and he asked whether we would help them. This matter has been clearly explained on a number of occasions. The Transkeian Government will have the right to tax those Bantu and that tax will go back to the Transkei. But the hon. member may rest assured that care will be taken that those people will not be taxed twice. These are things that we will arrange in co-operation with the Transkeian Government.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) mentioned certain resolutions passed by the Territorial Authority in 1959 and every year thereafter. The fact is that these people have always received the correct guidance from us and they have accepted it. These matters were discussed with my officials and the Bantu were satisfied with the results. [Interjection.] I do not deny that those resolutions were passed each year but each year we said that it was wrong and they accepted it. That is why we are there—to give advice. The hon. member knows that even the farmers’ congresses in the Republic ask for many things that cannot be granted. That is only human. The hon. member himself makes many demands that we cannot agree to. That is why our officials are there—to give them the necessary guidance at the start.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not a fact that notwithstanding the advice given by the officials, this Authority has made the same request year after year and that that same Authority is now being given the power to make its own decisions in this regard?

It is quite true that many of the members of the Territorial Authority will also be members of the Transke an Government but I say again that when such matters arise, the Cabinet will still be there to make the decision and to give the necessary guidance. The members of the Cabinet will be responsible people, just like the members of the Executive of the Territorial Authority, and they have always been satisfied with our advice. But we must give them the necessary guidance. That is our duty.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) asked why we did not ensure that veterinarians were available and she asked where these men would be trained. She ought to be more practical than that. The fact is that the Transkeian Government is only coming into being now and our argument is that until such time as these people are given the necessary powers, one will not, get them so far as to remove all the shortcomings which exist in the various facets of their life. It will only be then that those services will be rendered. We are still there to give advice. Now that the Transkei has its own Government we will find the same phenomenon there that is peculiar to every nation. They will now realize their shortcomings and make some plan to remove them. That is our attitude. Unless this course is adopted we shall have the same phenomenon here that we had throughout Africa, and that is that the Bantu will never be able to take over. But in this regard out approach is completely different. Our approach is evolutionary. The Bantu must be systematically trained and we must assist them but those hon. members refuse to appreciate our approach to this matter. I predict that it will not be very long before the Transkeian Government itself will realize that it will have to make a few of its own men available to be trained as veterinarians. We will of course, assist in making the facilities available to train these people.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) dealt with welfare matters and he said that there were no people available to attend to welfare matters. He said that people were not yet being trained at Fort Hare in this direction. That is quite true, but we have already started warning them and there are increasing numbers of students who are studying social welfare at other university colleges. I predict that once this matter is in the hands of the Transkeian Government they themselves will see the need for it and will encourage their sons and daughters to qualify in this direction. The prospects in this direction will encourage Bantu boys and girls to learn this work. In other words we have here a process which has a generative and encouraging effect. This is the only way in which one can assist the development of any nation in the world.

An hon. member opposite raised the same arguments in connection with agriculture as those to which I replied on a previous occasion.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) wants to know what the position of the trader in the Transkei will be. In this connection let me say immediately that I consider that the urban Bantu traders be encouraged to go to their own areas. Trade is one of the important things in the development of a nation, particularly for the building up of tertiary industries in the Bantu areas. At the same time I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Bantu traders in the White areas are very interested indeed in transferring their businesses to the Transkei. It is also the policy of this Government not only to encourage them but to assist them where necessary. The Bantu Investment Corporation was established for this reason. I want to invite the hon. member to visit Umlazi and to see the wonderful results that we have achieved there. Two Bantu doctors have even settled there. What is more, they say that they do not want to leave there; they are very happy there. Look at the success that the traders have achieved there. Look at the wonderful spirit that prevails amongst them.

Education in the Transkei was again referred to very sneeringly. In this connection I want to say again that hon. members can say whatever they like but the fact remains that the development of the Bantu in the educational sphere has never progressed as rapidly as it has progressed under this Government. It is most unfair therefore to accuse us of having neglected Bantu education.

The hon. member for Kensington, amongst others, spoke about the many cases where there is only one teacher for as many as 65 children. This does present a problem. But on the other hand, what is the position in other parts of Africa in this respect? When we look at what is going on in other parts of Africa, do we not have reason to be proud? But what is taking place here in South Africa is referred to in an insulting and sneering manner. That is not fair. Hon. members contend that we do not have the necessary human material to set all this work in motion. I readily admit that in many cases it will take a great deal of time before the necessary boys and girls are available to do all the work. Nevertheless, we have already built up a reasonably strong nucleus. We already have 10 Xhosa doctors in the Transkei to start with.

For 2,500,000 Xhosa?

It is a start. In any case, the position there is far better than in many other countries in Africa. Look at the provision that we are making for training in that direction. Here we already have a nucleus on which to start. We have 27 Bantu with B.Sc. degrees.

More than in the entire Congo!

There are near 200 with B.A. degrees.

More than in the whole of Africa!

There are between 600 and 800 with Std. X and nearly 300 with an education diploma and so forth. We already have a nucleus with which to start therefore Sir, I ask whether it is right and fair on the Dart of hon. members to talk as though the people of the Transkei are still absolute barbarians and to suggest that nothing can be tackled there.

Let me again say clearly that it is our policy to help them in their development. We will make the necessary White officials available to them so that they can be trained systematically. It is only when their officials are capable of taking over that these things be transferred to them. The statement that we will withdraw all the money and technical training of the Bantu once this legislation is adopted is therefore so much nonsense. Here, too, we are following the golden rule. The Bantu will receive the necessary guidance until they have the requisite knowledge and ability. They can then carry on from there. I say again: Here we have a process of positive guidance by the White man. At the same time the Bantu are playing an active part in this process of development, and it is being done in such a way that they will learn the recipe for such development.

Hon. members opposite say that this measure is simply based on faith and that we are not having regard to practical consideration. For example, the hon. member for Drakensberg says that I always have my head in the clouds. But, Mr. Chairman, it is because this party has had faith that it stands where it does to-day. At the same time, the weakness of the party opposite is not only that it is a party without faith but, that it also consists of people without faith. They are really people without ideals. People with faith can tackle great things and we are tackling a great thing here. This is a very great task indeed and we can only make a success of it if it is tackled with an unshakeable faith. That is why I feel proud when hon. members opposite say that this is simply an act of faith on our part. We are guided by faith but apart from that we have also proved that we can act realistically in connection with these matters.

I have no doubt that we shall make a success of this undertaking. We will harness all our energies to make a success of this matter. I have no doubt therefore that this undertaking will eventually be crowned with success.

First Schedule put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

First Schedule accordingly agreed to.

Second Schedule put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Second Schedule accordingly agreed to.

On the Preamble,

Mr. Chairman, we now come to the Preamble of the Bill. This is perhaps the most important and most interesting part of this entire piece of legislation. It is the most interesting and important part because it should reveal to us the underlying philosophy being represented by this legislation. But the difficulty I have, Sir, is that I cannot reconcile this Preamble with the provisions of the Bill itself. I cannot reconcile the Preamble with the provisions of the Bill because this Bill contains a number of provisions which far exceed the limited objective stated in the Preamble.

The Preamble provides for the creation of self-governing Bantu National Units, but it says nothing about independence; it says nothing about sovereignty; it says nothing about future development. Now, if you look at the Bill, you will find that it contains a number of clauses which are quite clearly designed to go far beyond the limited objectives of the Preamble. What, Sir, is the object of creating a separate national flag for the Transkei unless you are thereby laying a foundation for independence later? What is the object of having a separate Anthem for the Transkei unless you are intending to move in the direction of sovereign independence later? What is the object of including in this Bill a provision providing for a separate citizenship for the Transkei unless you thereby hope to lay the foundation for a separate State with sovereign independence? What is the object of having a separate oath which is different from that taken in the provincial councils in the Republic. different from that taken in this Parliament and different from that taken in South West Africa, unless you want to develop a separatism and unless you want to encourage a development in the direction of a separate independent national State?

There is no doubt that the provisions of the Bill itself go far beyond that which is in this Preamble. When I am asked to vote for this Preamble, Sir, I am entitled to ask whether it represents the philosophy underlying this Bill. When I ask that question and examine the Bill to find an answer to it, I can come to only one conclusion, namely that the Preamble does not justify the Bill with which we are faced. That being so, we cannot vote for the Preamble at this stage. It should be altered and made into something different. Something should be included there to say that this is being done with the object of having sovereign independent national States. There should be something in there to the effect that the intention in future is to dismember the Republic of South Africa into a series of independent national States.

Now, Sir, one asks oneself why there is this dissimulation in the Preamble? Why is there this dissimulation? Is the Government afraid to state its true objectives? Is it afraid to tell the people of South Africa what it is that it really wants? The hon. the Prime Minister has never been afraid, Sir. He has stated time and time again that he believes the ultimate ideal, the ultimate end of this development to be separate sovereign independent States. He has made it quite clear that, as far as he is concerned, this is the first step in that direction. But why is that not in the Preamble. Mr. Chairman? Why is the Preamble so modest? Why has it such limited objectives? Why does the hon. the Minister not come out and put into this Preamble that what he intends is the ultimate dismemberment of the Republic of South Africa?

But, Sir, it is not only in general tenure but also in specific statements in the Preamble that this Preamble contradicts the provisions of the Bill itself. I can give many examples, but I do not want to do that this evening. I just want to say that the first paragraph of the Preamble envisages—

Is this a gradual development? To me it seems a tremendous plunge forward. To me it seems to be a tremendous step forward for people who have terribly little experience in the art of self-government. The hon. the Minister is handing over to these people spheres of activities where he himself has failed. He has failed when it comes to the control of agriculture in the Transkei. He knows as well as I do that there will never be any progress in the Transkei until you have separate ownership by individual farmers of their farms as you have in the betterment areas. He is handing control of this matter over to them right away. What hope is there of that development ever taking place now under this system of self-government? Let us take the question of soil conservation. This, too, is being handed over under this Bill. The hon. the Minister knows to what extent he and his Department have failed when it comes to conservation and rehabilitation of the soil not just in the Transkei but also in the other Native areas in South Africa. But yet he is handing it over to this new Government of the Transkei. Is that gradual self-government, Sir? To me it seems to be a tremendous leap forward and a leap forward of a most dangerous kind. It is a leap forward which may result in a failure which will boomerang to the disadvantage of the Republic and of everyone in the Republic who stands for Western standards in South Africa.

Let me take another point in which this Preamble to me seems to contradict the provisions of the Bill itself. In the third paragraph it says—

It is that request which worries me. Would that request ever have arisen but for the policy statement by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House in January 1959? Woud it ever have arisen but for the enthusiasm of the officials of the Government, with their full authority and encouragement in that area? Would it ever have followed but for active suggestions by Government officials in the Transkei?

By courtesy of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories I have here the Hansard of the debates in the Territorial Authority on 21 April 1961, when apparently the resolution was taken by that authority to ask for self-government, self-government which ultimately led to this Bill. Here we have the motion which was moved—

They were too polite to say, what I would have said, that it was because this Government has deprived them of all representation in this Parliament. Here is the councillor who supported the motion—

I am not going to read any more from this Sir. [Time limit.]

This question about the Bantu national units in the traditional Bantu homelands is in the plural, so obviously it does not deal with the Transkeian Bill. People will have to say quite a lot about that.

It is quite clear what was happening. It is quite clear, I think, how it came about that these requests were made. That does not rhyme, if I may use the Afrikaans idiom, with this Preamble. Let us go a little further. It is suggested in the Preamble that self-government should be given on the basis of the principles proposed by the Bantu people themselves. Since when has the Transkeian Territorial Authority represented the Bantu people? You know, Sir, that the Government issued its own publication, “Bantu Affairs”, in which it said that the Territorial Authority would be able to take necessary action because they were not dependent on the popular vote. They were the nominees of the Government, Sir.

Let us take the final paragraph of this Preamble which says—

Mr. Chairman, you sat through the Committee Stage of this Bill. What guarantees are there in this Bill to provide for the ideals of religion, civilization and democracy? Is there one word about freedom of religion in this Bill? How are the standards of civilization going to be preserved by this Bill? Otherwise than perhaps by the veto of the State President? How are the standards of democracy going to be preserved in this Bill? There are no Constitutional guarantees. When you read this Preamble, when you think what has happened in the rest of Africa, when you see other states in Africa which have been given Constitutions of this kind and you see how they have developed, can you say there is any guarantee in this legislation to maintain the standards of civilization and democracy as we know them? Sir, this Preamble contradicts the provisions of this Bill. We cannot vote for it after this Bill has been presented to us. It does not represent what is in this Bill.

According to this Preamble the granting of self-governing units is going to be limited to the traditional homelands of the Bantu. Why is there no reference in the Preamble to the extra territorial powers granted this so-called government in the new Bantu homeland? Why is there no reference to their powers over their citizens outside those homelands? Where is there any reference in this Preamble to a thing of that kind? They are limiting it to the Bantu homelands in the Preamble, but look what the Bill does. How can you reconcile those two. Sir? I am sure there are other examples, but I do not want to weary the House. Look at the dangers of this whole scheme.

Then I come back to the first paragraph of the Preamble which says—

Are we to vote for a Preamble to-night suggesting that we envisage the creation of Bantu national units in other homelands before this experiment has been a success, when we see all the dangers which exist in the experiment already; when we oppose the principle of the Bill which is before us and which is not properly represented in the Preamble; when we oppose it in respect of the Transkei, with which this Bill deals and which is mentioned in the Preamble? Are we to vote for it in respect of other areas in South Africa, other homelands, before this one has been proved to be a success or a failure, as we have very little doubt it is going to be? We would be failing in our duty if we did not, when dealing with this Preamble, register our protest because of the fundamental dangers inherent in a policy of this kind. Here we have a general outline of philosophy underlying this legislation. We have a Bill which has gone much further in many respects, a fact which has made it absolutely clear to us that the Preamble does not represent the provisions which are set out in this Bill. We are asked to-night to vote for a Preamble indicating that in the future there will be other steps in this direction. We have mentioned the dangers on so many occasions. We have indicated what will happen when these people become citizens of a separate State and they seek to work in what is left of the Republic of South Africa. We have indicated the dangers of what will happen when they are sovereign independent, and not just the Transkei which is mentioned in this Bill, but what will happen when the other states as well are free to enter into treaties with foreign states who are inimical to South Africa that they can act as springboards for hostile countries, for propaganda and hostile action against South Africa. We have indicated the dangers of having in our midst a fifth column of foreign citizens on whom we are dependent for our industry in the event of difficulty with other countries with which they may be friendly. We have indicated the dangers if they have their own armies. Can we be asked, Sir, to vote for a Preamble which envisages all those things? Can we be asked to vote for a Preamble which we cannot reconcile with the legislation before us, legislation which involves dangers which, in our opinion, will lead to the undermining of the civilized standards we know in South Africa and probably the end of the White race as it exists at the present time?

As my hon. Leader has said, the Preamble ought to contain what the Bill itself contains, this Bill that I regard not only as a dangerous Bill, but as a distasteful Bill, a Bill, as we have shown, that may have great and far-reaching consequences for the South African population groups, not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites.

Do not cry.

I have reason to cry, but I shall not do so. Having now come to the crux of the Bill we have been discussing for the past few days, there are two outstanding remarks. The one is the limited number of members on that side who have participated in the debate, and the other is the fact that not a single Minister on that side participated in this debate.

Order! I must warn the hon. member to confine himself to the Preamble.

The Preamble deals with separate development and the establishment of a separate state, one of the most important matters that has ever been discussed in South Africa. The Preamble is very vague, as my hon. Leader has said, where it refers to “gradual development”, while we have a Bill that almost immediately confers upon the Transkei certain powers that could lead to independence. We think that is the reason why only a limited number of members opposite participated in the debate. I should like to read certain portions of the Preamble to you, Mr. Chairman—

And then I want to return to the generality, the vagueness of the statement right at the beginning, and the “traditional” or so-called traditional “self-governing homelands” to which reference is made. Who told my hon. friends to talk about the traditional homelands of these people who will now have to become independent, who now have to become self-governing, who are now self-governing “Bantu national units”? Are these merely platitudes that are being used here, or is the foundation being laid in this Bill for the other forms that will be coming? It encompasses not only the Transkei; it encompasses much more. Those so-called Bantu homelands or the self-governing Bantu national units also encompass the rest of South Africa here.

I continue—

A request again. Who are the people who made this request? Who drafted the Draft Bill?

The Territorial Authority.

They make me laugh. Mr. Chairman. We know better. When I look at my hon. friend on my left side, then I really and truly feel like crying. What other bodies have been consulted? Only the Territorial Authority, the majority of whom are nominated members? Were some of the other chiefs or other inhabitants of the Transkei consulted? Were the Bantu in the so-called White or multi-racial area consulted? Then I continue—

That almost makes me cry. It is an admission on the part of the Government that they cannot maintain law and order there; that they are unable to ensure justice to all; therefore they have to transfer it to the Transkei Bantu; the Transkei Bantu now have to maintain that law and order. They further have to—

What is so wrong with the government of the Whites that they are unable to do so? What has the White man been doing over the last 100 years? What has been done under the civilizing policy of Sir George Grey? Was the civilizing policy not started by him? But now it has to be abandoned, Mr. Chairman, because my hon. friends have become scared and because they have come to the point where, under the guidance of their leader, they are about to fritter away and cut up South Africa and give it away. Then I read on—

What is wrong with the White man that be cannot continue doing that? What is this diabolical policy of giving away South Africa, of establishing self-governing states? Is it because we are afraid that we shall not be able to maintain “law and order” there; that we shall not develop their “culture”? As we have said, Mr. Chairman, this Bill is not based on the cultural structure of the Bantu.

Do not talk so loudly; you will wake Gorshel.

Mr. Chairman, if I could wake up that member intellectually I shall be glad. For the reasons we have indicated already, this side cannot and this side will not be so unfair and so unfaithful to its ancestors as to repudiate them.

[Inaudible.]

The forefathers of the hon. the Minister of Information have been in this country for a short while only. He does not realize yet what I am saying. He cannot understand it; he will learn still that we cannot give away that which our ancestors fought for 300 years. That is the heritage we wish to preserve for our children and that is why we shall vote against this Preamble.

Mr. Chairman, the essence of this Bill is contained in the Preamble. It represents the course of events during recent times. The Bantu have asked for this development. They have not only asked for this development to-day; they not only asked for it a short while ago. Because it is a basic principle in the heart of every nation in the world, a principle which no power in the world has ever yet been able to destroy. The Bantu also want to manage their own affairs at some stage or other. It has been said here that they made that request because they had no representation in this House but that is so much nonsense. When they had representation in this House that feeling was just as strong. Any person who is in contact with the Bantu will not deny this statement.

The policy of giving greater self-governing powers to the Bantu people is being laid down here. That is the policy of the National Party. That is the policy of the people of South Africa.

No.

That is the policy of South Africa. Nobody will deny it. We are now implementing this policy. I want to admit immediately that it takes courage and that is where we pay homage to our Prime Minister. What has been promised to the Bantu over the years is now being given to them in a practical way. In doing this we are keeping the word of honour of the White man in South Africa. We are also laying down other principles; we are laying down the ideal of maintaining law and order and of assuring everyone of fair treatment; of promoting the spiritual and material welfare of the Transkei and its people; of protecting their own culture and building it up and of protecting the ideals of religion, civilization and democracy. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said that he felt as though he wanted to cry when he read this paragraph. He also said he wanted to laugh when he read this paragraph. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to ask what guarantee there was in this legislation that civilization would be maintained.

This legislation contains two important principles. I have already mentioned the first of these—that the word of honour of the White man is being kept through the medium of this legislation. This legislation is a tangible proof that the White man in South Africa has not been guilty of a breach of faith but that he has given effect in an honourable way to those promises that have been made to the Bantu over the years. Nobody can deny that this has been the traditional policy of the established nation in South Africa. In other words, what we are doing here to-day is to give effect to that policy in a practical way.

But this legislation contains another important principle in that it proves in a tangible fashion that the White man in South Africa also acknowledges the dignity of the Bantu. This policy does not consist of a superficial brotherliness but it is a policy which springs from the recognition of everything that is great and honourable in man and in any national group. It is because of this that we hold the view that it is immoral to break up a national group; that it is one of the moral obligations of every leader in the world to-day to preserve the unity of a national group. If this is not done, Mr. Chairman, it creates conflict between that national group and oneself. It is the wish of 95 per cent of this national group to retain its unity as a national group. This is the lesson that Africa it teaching the world in no uncertain manner to-day. If ever a crime was committed against Africa it was the fact that the White man came here and broke up national units right and left. We would have been spared a great deal of this so-called Pan-Africanism if the policy practised by this Government in South Africa to-day had been practised throughout Africa. We acknowledge the dignity of the Bantu. We are often accused of not acknowledging the dignity of the Bantu. The fact that we acknowledge his national group is one of the proofs that we acknowledge his dignity. The fact that we recognize these ideals is one of the tangible proofs that we acknowledge this important principle. What right do we have to say that we acknowledge the dignity of man and yet to say that he will never be able to be civilized or to maintain that civilization; that will never be able to maintain law and order in his own country; that he will never be able to protect the ideals of religion, civilization and democracy?

We have been asked here: “How do you recognize their culture in this matter?” I have already pointed out that this Bill bears the stamp of the Bantu but at the same time it bears the stamp of the best principles of our modern democracy. Nobody can deny that.

Order! The hon. the Minister is going to far.

I am merely referring to the fact that we recognize their culture and we maintain it, as is provided for here in the Preamble, and that we cannot be accused of violating our own culture there and at the same time of leading the Bantu back to the jungle, as has so often been said. The Bantu are actually being injected with and enriched by the best of Western civilization.

I just want to say that it must be very well understood that this is not an experiment. Part of the policy of the National Party is being implemented here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is unnecessarily concerned. This policy will be consistently implemented throughout the rest of South Africa and implemented successfully. This will be done on the basis of this Preamble.

The question has been asked: Can these people be guided in a Christian fashion? Mr. Chairman, it is here that the best proof is forthcoming of our earnestness in connection with this matter. We acknowledge what is good in Bantu life but at the same time we maintain the principle that he must be enriched with the best of Western civilization and that he must continually be assisted and guided in this way until he reaches the stage where he is saturated with the principles of Christian civilization. I am convinced in my own mind that this Bill will assist in a positive fashion to give the Bantu more confidence in themselves. The Bantu people will be encouraged to acknowledge and build upon all that is great and good in themselves. Like any nation in the world that has a calling, they will be encouraged to devote their energies to realizing the ideals that are indicated here.

There are people who have spoken contemptuously and sneeringly of the Bantu. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said that he did not know whether to laugh or cry about it. We reject that attitude. This is a proof of the confidence that we have in the Bantu and we feel that a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation and of mutual faith in one another can be created on this basis and is being created on this basis, a confidence which will carry the Bantu areas on to become places that are the spiritual homes of the Bantu, places that will also enhance the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

Before calling upon the next hon. member I want to point out that the Preamble reflects the aims of the Bill, and further, that it must be regarded as a separate clause and dealt with as such. I expect hon. members to discuss the Preamble in the light of these few remarks that I have made.

I do not intend to take part in an abstract discussion on “apartheid”. I want to deal with the Preamble and the facts which are stated in the Preamble. I do want to say to the Minister though that he is quite wrong when he suggests that we in the United Party do not believe that the African has any ability at all. We have never said that he has no ability to govern himself. Sir, the Preamble says—

Now the Minister has again said that the request has come from the Bantu themselves. My hon. Leader has already quoted the words of the mover of the motion in the Transkeian Territorial Authority that they be given self-government, and it is quite clear from that statement and from the statements of the speaker who supported the proposal that there was only one reason why they were asking for it. The Minister said that the request was there even when they had Native representatives here in Parliament that they wanted to govern themselves. I deny that and I ask him to prove that statement as having been made by any of the members of the Territorial Authority. There was never a request until their representation was taken away from them in this House.

The Preamble goes on to say—

Sir, the Bantu in the Transkei are pretty divided as the hon. Minister knows on this issue. I ask what were the proposals made by them? Because the Minister says here “the principles proposed by them”. It was made quite clear when this Preamble was discussed in the Territorial Authority that this was all they could have and no more. The hon. Minister knows that there was an objection and a long discussion on the Preamble when chiefs tried to stop the Preamble from being passed. Chief Kaizer Matanzima was asked what were the views of the city Africans, those who were living outside the Transkei and who were going to fall under the purview of this Act. And what did he say? He said—

The hon. the Minister himself knows that the Xhosa people down here wanted him to meet Chief Sabata in their presence to discuss this matter before he introduced this Bill. We know that Chief Ndamasi said, when this was discussed in the Territorial Authority, that he was requested by his people to move that it be accepted” if the people of the Transkei give their unmistakable assent at a convention of the people of the people of the Transkei as allowed for in the Bantu Authorities Act”, They wanted a convention to be called to see whether the people wanted this constitution or not. The Preamble refers to “further powers of self-government to the Bantu of the Transkei”. What has been given? Much more than is said in the Preamble. Besides being given government over the Bantu outside the Transkei, in this Bill also government is given over people, other than the Bantu. This is not just self-government. It is government over everybody living in that area, not only Bantu, but Whites and Coloureds as well. There was no request for that. When the members of the Territorial Authority raised the question of the type of government they were going to get, Chief Kaizer Matanzima made it quite clear that they could only have this type of government. There was a move by others that the type of government they were being given should be charged,—not to self-government, and Chief Kaizer Matanzima said this—

He continued—

Even Kaizer Matanzima by implication admitted that what they really wanted, is a vote in the Parliament of South Africa. He said they might have to wait a thousand years.

But that is your policy!

He, like all the other Africans, wants to be represented in this House.

Who put that into their mouths?

Even Chief Kaizer Matanzima admits in so many words that if they could get representation in this House here, they would not want the form of government given to them now. I am mentioning this because the Minister says that this is the type of government they want, irrespective of whether they have representation here. And the Minister says that we should bring them all together. It was a mistake, he says of the governors of the past to divide them in the different groups. I would like to remind him that it was not only the British who divided and ruled. President Kruger did the same thing. So don’t say that the traditional policy was to get them together into big independent states. The traditional policy was just the opposite of what the Minister has stated.

Order! The hon. members must now confine his remarks to the Preamble.

I am sorry, Sir, but I was replying to the hon. Minister.

Yes, But I called the Minister to order.

Sir, the Preamble goes on to say that government is being given on the basis of “the principles proposed by them”. And no matter what the hon. Minister may say, he must know that the principles as contained in this Bill were never thought out by the Bantu themselves. Never! I do not know how he can get anybody to believe that this Constitution as it is before us was prepared by the Bantu themselves. The mere fact that they had all that discussion in the Territorial Authority before the Bill was eventually passed there, the mere fact that they queried whether what was being done was right, is proof of the fact that they did not understand what this was and that they did not propose it on their own account. We say that this is a form of government which has been foisted on them, forced on them by the Government of the Republic. And that is why it will not work. I want to repeat that in terms of this Bill, the worst feature as far as I am concerned is that control is being given to this Government over Blacks, Whites and Coloureds who do not want it and who have not asked for it.

I do not propose to detain the House very long. The Preamble after the first three lines of paragraph (4) says “to establish a well-organized Government for that territory that will maintain law and order and ensure justice to all”. Sir, in view of your ruling I cannot review the instruments of law and order in so far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, but it is quite clear that there must be an instrument and that that must be the police, and it must obviously be a Bantu Police Force. And so, when it comes to the question of the maintenance of law and order, I simply want to say in that regard that the Government itself has failed to do just that in the Transkei, and has failed dismally.

Where do you get that?

I get that from the maintenance of Proclamation 400, which is still in existence there.

They have helicopters there now.

If this is to maintain under a Black Government law and order, then it will have to do something that the Nationalist Government has been unable to do. Sir, the consanguinity of the people concerned, where will it bring them if there is trouble? To the White man, or to be the point of the spear for their own people in the Transkei? The Minister knows that. He knows perfectly well that the moment there is trouble they will side with their own people against the Republic. So far from there being law and order brought about in this manner, there is nothing more calculated to bring disorder, trouble and discord so far as the Transkei is concerned.

The next point is—

And then—

And lastly—

How anybody can put those last few lines in juxtaposition, passes my understanding. How can it be possible, Sir, to protect and develop their own culture and in the same breath to say “to preserve the ideals of religion, civilization and democracy”? Is that their own culture? If ever there were two concepts which were poles apart, then it is the two matters referred to there. What was their own culture? Was their own culture one of democracy, civilization and religion as we know it?

Yes.

The hon. member says “Yes”. Let him go and say that at the Valley of the Kings in Zululand. What a mockery of facts! Sir, their own culture, which is to be protected and developed in terms of this Preamble, the culture of the Bantu before the White man came, and in the next breath to say “civilization, democracy and religion” and to put the two in juxtaposition together! The incompatibles!

One last word. It is quite clear from what the hon. Minister had to say in regard to the status of this body in terms of this fourth paragraph “whereas it is desirable to grant further powers of self-government to the Bantu of the Transkei on the basis of the principles proposed by them and with the firm intention to establish a well-organized Government for their territory”, it is quite clear, Sir, that this House loses no control over that territory, no control whatever. The hon. Minister made that quite clear. We have complete authority, and this side of the House then will have no difficulty, and it breaks no moral law, if we repeal this Act in due course. Because never, in the words of the hon. Minister himself, have we reduced in any way our sovereignty over the Transkei. We have retained it in full, and we shall exercise it when the time comes in a perfectly moral and legitimate manner, as disclosed by the hon. Minister himself.

In pursuance of the first paragraph of the Preamble in which mention is made of “self-governing Bantu national units in the traditional Bantu homelands”, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) preferred the “so-called Bantu homelands”, and said that this Government wanted to fragment and squander South Africa in terms of this Preamble. I do not think that throughout our history of more than 300 years, propaganda has been made by a South African which has been as contemptible and as shameless as the propaganda that the hon. member for Hillbrow has made over the past few years.

In terms of this Preamble we want to place the Bantu homelands on a sound foundation. The hon. member for Hillbrow called it the squandering of South Africa. I want to ask him: Does he want to expropriate those Bantu homelands? Does he not want to give these homelands to the Bantu?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Preamble. He cannot discuss the Bantu homelands now.

Mr. Chairman, may I just draw your attention to the fact that in the first paragraph of the Preamble provision is made for independent Bantu homelands and the hon. member for Hillbrow has called these “so-called Bantu homelands”. He called it a squandering of South Africa and said that we wanted to give South Africa away.

He wants to give the whole of South Africa away.

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

The hon. member went further. In the Preamble reference is made to the fact that orderly government will be created in the Bantu homelands. The hon. member asked why the White man could not continue to rule in those homelands. He asked what was wrong with the White man. There is nothing wrong with the White man. The only difference is that this Preamble makes provision for the Bantu to be given an opportunity to maintain law and order in their own homelands. That is the difference. And the hon. member and his party and the entire public of South Africa cannot subjugate those people indefinitely. If he does not want to accept this Preamble, if he does not want to accept the purpose of the Preamble, I foresee only one thing and that is that he will have race conflict here as was experienced in the Congo and in the rest of Africa. If there is one man in South Africa who is denying South Africa then it is the hon. member for Hillbrow. He went further and he said that the Government was denying our forefathers, but it is the hon. member himself who is denying our forefathers because all the promises contained in this Preamble, all the promises of the past, from our earliest times—and those made by the United Party as well, by all parties—are now being denied by the hon. member for Hillbrow. We have not had one governing party that has not subscribed to these principles—the aims contained in this Preamble. There has been no governing party in South Africa that has not subscribed to these aims. Now that hon. member is opposing those aims. And then he accuses the Government of denying our forefathers in this Preamble! I repeat that if there is one man who is denying our forefathers then it is the hon. member for Hillbrow. He not only denies them here but he also denies them throughout the country. As far as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is concerned, I cannot understand how he can adopt that attitude.

It is you who are denying our forefathers.

That is a deliberate lie.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must withdraw those words.

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member for Hillbrow said …

The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate lie”.

I withdraw them.

The hon. member for South Coast has proved in the past that he has subscribed fully to the aims contained in this Preamble. He has said so openly. In statements that he has made in the past he has subscribed to everything contained in this Preamble. Why does he deny that now? I simply cannot understand him. He said, for example, that the Government has failed in maintaining law and order in the Transkei, but that is not true. Disturbances have broken out under communist influence but the Government restored law and order there. Do law and order not prevail there to-day? The Government now intends placing the question of law and order in the hands of these people themselves. We know that the Xhosas do not want those undermining communist elements and the Poqo movements there and they will be the first to wipe out those elements in order to maintain law and order because they know what the results will be if those people take over the Transkei.

The hon. member also said further that we want law and order to be maintained there but that as soon as disturbances break out they will conspire with their own people against the White man. What proof does he have for saying this? The Xhosas themselves have asked us not to leave them entirely alone. They have asked for the support of the White man because they know what the result will be otherwise. Why does the hon. member say such things? He knows the Bantu better than that. The hon. member is very concerned because the Preamble states that we want to promote the culture of the Xhosas and further, that we will protect the ideals of religion, civilization and democracy. Does the hon. member not know that his own Church has been labouring amongst the Bantu for many years with the same purpose—to Christianize and elevate their culture and views? If this is not possible, what is the Church trying to do in that mission field? What are all the Christian Churches trying to do in the mission field? Their purpose is surely to protect the ideal of religion, of civilization and of democracy—to Christianize and uplift those people? I want to make an appeal, particularly to the hon. member for South Coast because I know what is inborn in him. I know that he is conservative. I know that he subscribes to the same principles and aims that are contained in this Preamble. The hon. member has a golden opportunity to-day in South Africa to take the lead, particularly as far as the English-speaking people are concerned, and to lead them along the correct path, not only in the interests of White South Africa but also in the interests of the Bantu and of the Coloureds in our country [Time limit.]

With reference to what I said about the first few lines we have here before us, I have been attacked not only by the hon. the Minister but also by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter). The hon. member for Vryheid went so far as to say that I have put this matter in a shameless manner, and that I want to deprive the Bantu of their traditional homelands. The hon. the Minister has said that I seem to forget that the Government, under this first part of the Preamble, is honouring the promise of the White man to the Bantu in South Africa; that we are giving effect to the word of honour of the White man that they will ultimately be able to rule themselves and have self-government.

That they will be released from tutelage.

Yes, that they will reach maturity; that they will be granted their autonomy. I merely want to say that the hon. member there speaks for the National Party and not for this side of the House. That promise has never been made by this side of the House, or on behalf of the Whites of South Africa.

What is your conception of guardianship?

I shall reply to the hon. member’s question; let him just give me a chance. I am glad the hon. the Minister is back in the Chamber again, and I thank him for his patience. I reject this statement of his, that it is the word of honour of the White man that must be honoured. The United Party and the vast majority of the people of South Africa regard the Transkei—and I am now dealing with the Transkei only—as an integral part of the Republic of South Africa, and, as far as we are concerned, the Transkei will remain an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. It is not only the policy of this side of the House; it is not the policy of the so-called White exploiters, because then, as my hon. friend has said, men like Piet Retief or Pretorius or Paul Kruger could also be regarded as exploiters. Nor is it the policy of a Strijdom or a General Smuts or a Botha or a Malan or a Hertzog. Their policy always was that the Transkei would remain a part of South Africa and that the Bantu would always remain under the guardianship of the White man, and develop with his guidance. Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to mention only one proof of that statement.

Do not talk nonsense.

As proof I mention the statement made by my former leader. It was one of the last statements he made; just before he was defeated in 1948. Referring to the Transkei and an extended Representative Council, the late Gen. Smuts said this—

There you have it; they will be able to make laws under the control of this Parliament; they will remain a part of the Republic of South Africa. It is because my hon. friends opposite want to give away the Transkeian Territories, want to fritter them away, that this side maintains we shall not support it, that we shall not recognize it and that we shall undo it as soon as we return to power.

Mr. Chairman …

I have not finished yet. We can all sing together, but we cannot talk together.

You had already resumed your seat.

It seems to me the Minister of Information is as incorrect in his statements here as he is in his statements outside. I did not resume my seat. In all sincerity I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to be more careful when he refers to the word of honour of the Whites. He may talk about the word of honour of the leaders of the National Party; I shall not even say the word or honour of all members of the National Party, because we know that a year or two ago this was not their policy. I repeat that the policy contained in this Preamble is nothing but the frittering away of the rights of the White man in South Africa.

Preamble put and a division called.

(Seated): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when you put the Question I was sitting in one of the Ministerial front-benches and I heard the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say “Yes”.

That is a lie and you know it is a lie.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) does not know what a lie is; he does not know what he said himself.

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban (Point) call out “Yes” or not?

No, I did not.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw. I did not say that at all.

Mr. Chairman, he certainly did say it.

The Committee divided:

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

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

Preamble accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.