On a point of personal explanation I wish to clear up a possible misunderstanding. Certain words I used yesterday during the course of the debate read as follows according to my Hansard report and I have also checked them on the tape: “wat vals sou gewees het in elk geval as dit gedoen was.” I spoke quickly and this does not convey what I intended. Grammatically the Afrikaans is not correct either. I meant it in the conjunctive mood and it should have read as follows: “wat vals sou gewees het indien dit gemaak sou gewees het” (which would have been false had it been made).

On a point of order I do not think the hon. member has made it quite clear—is he apologizing to anybody in this House?

I think the implication of the words is that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) wanted to commit a “valsheid” (falsehood). The hon. member must withdraw that.

It was never my intention to imply that any member had committed a falsehood but that such things would happen if a political party participated, but if the hon. member for Gardens regards this as a reflection on himself I withdraw it in that sense. Sir.

Yesterday when this clause was under consideration the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) made certain observations. Amongst them was that it was wrong to suggest that this took away any of the privileges granted by the section. Without this clause being passed at all in the form in which it is, these persons would not be able to align or defame anyone at all, so that the clause is in that respect unnecessary, and if it is unnecessary it does not grant any privilege at all. I pointed out to the Minister —and he has not answered, and I hope he will answer—that it is quite unnecessary to put in a proviso of this sort anything relating to Parliament. It is unnecessary to say that you may have privilege and then to say that the rights of the House of Assembly or of the Senate have to be safeguarded. That goes without saying. When the provincial council is granted privilege in relation to freedom of speech, there is no mention of the fact that either of the Houses of Parliament could bring any member of the provincial council before it and try him for a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. It goes without saying that our privilege remains unimpaired. So why is that in this proviso? That the Minister has not yet indicated, and exactly the same argument holds good in regard to the Senate and the courts of law.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories raised a point last night which the hon. the Minister likewise has not answered. It is this.

The hon. the Minister is in effect saying: You may if you wish defame, libel or slander anyone you like; you may libel the Prime Minister, but you must not libel any member of the Public Service, nor any member of a statutory body. Why is it that the member of the Banana Board has protection and the Prime Minister has no protection?

Order! That argument has been advanced already.

May I address you on the point that the Prime Minister is not included?

No, my ruling is that this argument has been advanced repeatedly.

Well, I raised it only because the Minister has not answered it and I hope he will.

The other aspect of my amendment refers to the meetings of this council being held in public. I want to put a suggestion to the Minister, and that is that I am quite prepared to add to that “to be held in public unless the council otherwise decides”, if that is acceptable to the Minister. I hope the Minister will give us some indication, because as the matter stands at the moment it is the prerogative of the Minister to prescribe in Clause 26 the regulation of the proceedings of the council, including the maintenance of order; and included in Clause 26, the Minister could provide that the debates of this council should be held in private. Perhaps the Minister would accept an amendment that it be held in public unless the council itself otherwise decides. I think it is very important that the council should deliberate in public. According to the Minister, it is to be used as a consultative body, and if it is to give any advice to the Government then that advice must be subject to the scrutiny of the persons who elect the members of that council to give advice. In other words, the electorate of this council must have the final say. They must know what the members of the council are deciding, and how they have advised the Minister. If these proceedings are held in secret, the whole concept of this being a representative council representing the views of the Coloured people will go by the board.

Another aspect of that is that the only manner in which these debates and the views of the council will in fact be disseminated to the Coloured people will not be by people who go and sit in the public gallery of this council, but it will be done through the Press, and if the meetings are held in public it means that the Press are entitled to attend. The Minister has not dealt with this at all and I hope he will deal with the points that have been raised, and the point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, namely, that the Minister is allowing these people to defame anyone else except members of the Public Service.

What I wanted to say on the question of slander and freedom of speech has been disposed of and I do not intend saying anything further about it. As far as the question of the hon. member is concerned, namely, whether the sittings of the council will be public, the intention is to leave it to the council to decide when they want to sit in camera and when not. It is not the intention to prevent the council, by means of regulations or whatever it may be, from sitting in public. That is why I see no reason why provision should be made for it. The hon. member is very anxious to give Parliament as an example but nowhere is it laid down that Parliament should sit in public. In that regard the council can do what they want to do.

I raised the point yesterday about the apparent inconsistency between this clause and Clause 26. The wording is almost the same in regard to the powers of the council and of the Minister, except that the one says they may adopt regulations. It says—

Clause 16 says that the Minister may make regulations for the regulation of the proceedings of the council. Now, I do not know whether the Minister’s regulations will be made for adoption by the council, or whether the council has power to make its own regulations. It seems to me completely inconsistent and I think the Minister owes us an explanation of this apparent inconsistency.

The hon. the Minister has pointed out that criticism is indeed allowed under this section, but there appears to be a misunderstanding because the Opposition alleges that that criticism cannot be effective unless it is unrestricted. But the criticism which is allowed here under ordinary law is unrestricted provided it is not deliberately untrue. I just want to refer to “Libel and Slander” of Fraser, the 7th edition, pages 152 and 156. The law is clearly set out there under the heading “Privilege”. It says—

Under “redressing a public grievance” any councillor is entitled to attack any official provided his attack is bona fide. It is subsequently stated more clearly on page 149—

In this case the council will be the “proper person”. I want to point out that even the newspapers are protected if they publish what takes place in that council. You find that on page 146—

It is clear, therefore, that these councillors will have the full right to criticize as much as they want. Any official or Members of Parliament or any member of a statutory body can be criticized provided such criticism is not deliberately untrue. Even if he were to tell a lie, as long as it is bona fide, he is entitled to criticize. It is unnecessary, therefore, to make any further provision.

I come to the second point raised by the Opposition. They want to know why officials are protected and not the public. It is clear from the whole pattern of this Bill that it is a pattern of gradual development and the intention is to give these people full rights later on, the same rights we have in this House. But a start has to be made and at this stage we want to draw the circle as close as possible. It will immediately be admitted that the persons who are excluded here and protected are people who will be in the direct line of fire. That is why the public is excluded at this stage whereas those who are in the line of fire are protected.

The case of the Transkei has been mentioned. In that case we are dealing with a body which functions in its own area, amongst its own people, a body to which the public, which can be the victim of any slanderous statement, do not have such immediate access. The difference is this that those legislative powers were immediately conferred upon that body whereas initially this body will only have advisory powers. This is practically an experiment and the Minister has the right, at a later stage, to confer legislative powers on that body. At the moment, however, it is not in the same position as the Transkeian Council at all. I have no doubt about it that as this body develops further steps will be taken to do away with this protection. But the whole pattern of this legislation indicates careful action on the part of the National Party Government, something which is absolutely essential in the circumstances.

I wish to point out that the Opposition is naturally bent on making this body fail and that it will suit them if an irresponsible councillor were to get up under pressure of agitators and deliberately say something untruthful about Members of Parliament, Senators, etc. Then they will be able to come here and I say: Do you see what is happening in that council you have appointed? We want to prevent that. We want gradual development, as I have already said, and the provision which has been made is, therefore, quite in order.

The hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank), who has just sat down, has stated that the protection afforded by this clause will protect a member of this council who criticizes any of the people named in this proviso, including a member of the Public Service, provided only that the criticism, even if it is libellous, is not intentionally malicious. The hon. member shakes his head in agreement now. But that is just what this clause does not do. I am delighted to hear that the hon. member would like to see the members of this Coloured council protected to the extent he indicated, and I think other hon. members opposite probably understand that this particular clause does give this degree of protection. I believe that is their understanding of this Bill, but to my mind that is a completely erroneous interpretation of the clause. The Minister has stated the true position, namely that there is no intention to give any protection at all against defamation. Now, you can defame a person so that you are responsible notwithstanding that you had no express malice in doing so. That is the whole point which we are attempting to make here; and that is the whole object of the amendment, to try to introduce the type of protection that the hon. member for Omaruru has himself pleaded for.

We look for a reaction on the Government side to give some protection to the members of this council. If they are not prepared to give protection to the members of the council who are genuinely expressing bona fide views which later turn out to be libellous, then they are reducing this body to a nullity. Then they are not prepared to give any protection to this creation of theirs which they say is so fine, and consequently anyone who during the course of a speech in this council makes a statement which, although he does it negligently or quite unintentionally, but which is in fact defamation, will have no protection. The Minister must therefore either decide that this body is something of value and give it some protection, or he must admit that it is a body of virtually no value and treat it as he is now treating it by giving the members no protection at all.

Before I deal with some of the statements made by the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank), I should like to say that I agree entirely with the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) when he compares Clause 16 (1) with Clause 26 (b). It appears that whereas the Minister in Clause 16 (1) has given the impression that he gives the council the right to regulate its own proceedings and to make rules and regulations, for it, he takes away that right in Clause 26 (b), or he takes the right to make additional rules. I am not sure what the position is, and whether it means that the Minister will not permit the council to make certain regulations in regard to the matters referred to in Clause 26 (b), or whether it is the other way about, and he will not allow them to make certain regulations in terms of Clause 16 (1). But I think that especially as the hon. member for Boland raised the matter twice yesterday, the Minister should explain to the Committee where the conflict is between Clause 16 (1) and Clause 26 (b), and to explain why there is that conflict, or to deny that there is a conflict.

Then I want to draw the attention of the Minister to line 43 of Clause 16 in the proviso: “Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not relieve a member of the council …” I draw his attention to that because in the first line of sub-sec. (3) he says: “No member of the executive committee or of the council …” In other words, where he refers to both the executive committee and the council in the clause, in the proviso he refers only to a member of the council. I know he may have meant that a member of the executive committee, although he is not mentioned there, comes within the ambit of the proviso. If that is so, what I have said falls away, but if that is not so, a completely new position arises which we must discuss. That is obviously that whereas a man who is a member of the council, and no more than that, comes within the ambit of the proviso, a man who is a member of the council but in addition is a member of the executive does not come within the ambit of the proviso! I do not for a moment suggest that that was the intention of the clause, but as it is worded I think it requires clarification.

I should like to say that the speech made by the hon. member for Omaruru in his late entry into this debate has really set the cat among the pigeons. He said that this would be an advisory body. In the last few days when we have asked: Why do you tell us that this is a Coloured “parliament” with executive powers, when all it can do is to tell you what it thinks?—every time there has been a roar of protest from the Government benches, and they have said we were talking nonsense, were trying to bedevil the issue, to sow suspicion and to mislead the Coloured people. But here is a “Johnny-come-lately” as the Americans say, the hon. member for Omaruru, who makes his first entry into the debate this afternoon, in the Committee Stage, and says quite openly, and with some legal experience, that this is no more than an advisory body! Now, where is the truth? I hope the Minister will either confirm what was said by the hon. member for Omaruru, or that he will ask, at least by inference, that his side of the House apologize to us for some of the things they said to us when we said that very same thing.

Finally, about this question of criticism and libel to which the Committee was brought back by the speech of the hon. member for Omaruru—I think the Minister should bear in mind that when he stood up a little earlier he said he would not answer that any further, and before we could even try to come back to the subject, it was the hon. member for Omaruru who came back to the subject, and so we are perfectly entitled to discuss it. What does that hon. member say? He says that one day—and it is the intention of the Government to hasten that day—this Coloured parliament which two minutes before he had called an advisory body, would have full privilege.

No, I did not say that.

Then we will compare the Hansards. I put this to the Minister. He has said that 70 per cent of the Coloured people are still behind the Whites in terms of civilization, but he has also repeatedly said in this Committee and in the second reading that there are among the Coloured people very outstanding and experienced individuals, and what he said has been borne out, e.g. by the statement of the then Secretary for Coloured Affairs, Dr. I. D. du Plessis, several years ago, when in a foreword to the publication “The Coloured people of South Africa”, he said that they were “a group which in certain respects was in the initial stages of its development but which already has a proud record in those spheres in which it has found scope”. We have had a Coloured council for years, and according to the Minister it is a body which had certain powers, and he tells us what a valuable body it was. So first of all, that scope having been given, he admits by inference that there are at least a fair number of Coloured persons who will be able to deal properly with this question of privilege and will not simply go into their Chamber to libel all and sundry.

Secondly, on the question of libel as related to the right to criticize, the Minister knows very well that he has taken every precaution in this Bill, particularly in regard to his power to nominate 16 of the 46 members, to ensure that he will choose the elite of the Coloured people. He has said so. He said that he wanted the people who became members of this council to be the chosen among the Coloured. That being so, why does he fear the possibility of people of that calibre exceeding the normal rules of debate, or that they will go to the extent of libelling all and sundry?

Do you want this council or not?

The hon. member knows very well …

Order! That is not relevant.

All the statements that have been made by the Minister and his colleagues cannot be true, because there are some very obvious conflicts between what he said on Monday and on Tuesday about the same people.

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the question of privilege.

Whereas on the one hand we are told that the representatives of the Coloured people will be experienced, able and honest, we are also told that they are so far behind the Whites that they will not be able to debate certain matters without being guilty of libel.

I want to deal with the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller). He speaks as a lawyer and a person with some experience of debating chambers, and he says that the Coloureds will be in exactly the same position; that they should be in the position where, if a man gets up to speak, he should know just where to stop before he crosses the line which borders on libel. How does he expect that of them, if these people are going to be so inexperienced that for their own protection their privilege must be limited to the extent where they cannot criticize, in the ordinary way, the workings of the Government and its officials?

In arguing against this Bill in the second reading I came to the conclusion that the argument against it, as far as I was concerned, was the rejection of this form of constitutional development on the lines of parallel development. The conclusion that I have come to, now that the principle of the Bill has been accepted, is that the argument really boils down to this that it is intended here to create a separate parallel parliament, and that I cannot accept. We now want to endow this council which is being established here with the privileges of Parliament, according to further amendments, and with a power of electing their own chief Minister, etc. As far as I personally am concerned I do not believe in a parallel parliament to the one and only supreme Parliament in this country.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause. The clause deals with the question of privilege.

Sir, I hope to illustrate that what I meant by what I said a moment ago was that we are endeavouring to endow this quasi-parliament with parliamentary privilege; this I cannot accept.

Now I want to get down to the practical side of it. I do not think there is any member in this House who has ever attended a session of the present Union Council for Coloured Affairs. I have at more or less every session attended some part of it. I am excluding the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) who is their legal adviser and who has lately also attended some meetings, I hope or I think. I do not intend casting any aspersions because I know the hon. member has met the executive committee of this council, but I am the only member here who has the fullest knowledge of what has transpired at council sessions from year to year. My late friend, the late hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) is not here; he attended even more meetings than I did. Apart from the fact that I do not want any parallel parliament to this Parliament, which I regard as the highest legislative authority in this country, I have come to the conclusion from what I have heard and gathered at council meetings over the years that I would not like to have my hon. colleagues—a man like the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), who is doing his best for his constituents, and a man like the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) an experienced, respected man …

Order! The Coloured Representatives are not under discussion now. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Sir, is the fact that they can be subjected to libel by this council under discussion? That is all I am trying to discuss.

The hon. member is making too wide a detour. He must confine himself to the clause.

Sir, I know the members of the present council; I know who the members are who represent my constituents; I know their backgrounds, their ability and their training, and if I, a person with some legal training and six years’ experience of this House, can make a slip of the tongue and quite rightly be called upon to withdraw, then I think there is an even greater danger that members of this new council may in the heat of the moment make a malicious or mendacious or libellous statement. Sir, I stated here in the second-reading debate—and I accept that part of it; I do not know yet what the second step is going to be but we must begin with the first step. Well, let us begin with the first step. The first step is the people will make themselves available as candidates for election to this council. I cannot predict what sort of people will be elected, and the fact remains that the Minister may even nominate members to serve on this council. He may nominate them because they have certain qualifications or he may even nominate them because they are willing to express certain sentiments. They may go to that council and libel members of this House who are doing their best for the Coloured people, and yet members of this House who are serving the interests of the Coloureds to the best of their ability will have no redress whatsoever. I feel that that would be wrong. Many members of the present council have asked me whether I would be willing to support them at the next election and I have given the same answer every time, “I do not know; leave it to the choice of the people you intend representing.” But if I do say to a person, “I am not going to support you; I am going to support the other candidate,” and he is elected, then he can say what he likes about me in the council and I have no redress. Sir, I do not ignore the attitude of the Opposition in regard to this matter because it is stated in the Opposition policy that they do not consider the Coloureds of the Transvaal and the Free State as politically mature yet. Is that correct?

Except for Pretoria (East).

The hon. member says “except for Pretoria (East)”. I do not know what the hon. member means by that, but that is the policy of the United Party. If you do not consider people politically mature because they have had no previous experience how can you put them in a position where they have the same privileges as my hon. friend over there, on whose ticket I sat in the Gallery for the first time in 1938 as a teenager? I refer to the hon. Minister of Transport.

What has that to do with the clause?

It has everything to do with it. You cannot consider a person politically immature on the one hand and then endow him with the privileges of a Member of Parliament on the other hand. I think it is a perfectly logical argument that you cannot argue on the one hand that people are not politically mature enough to vote for a member of this House and then argue in the same breath that he is entitled to sit in a body which has the privileges of this House, this House whose history and traditions go back to the Battle of Runnymede in 1275, when Magna Charta was signed. [Interjections.] Well, if I am wrong I ascribe it to the fact that I studied constitutional history 25 years ago. Sir, a member might be nominated to this council, and no member of this House or I as a Coloured Representative or the Coloured people themselves would have any control over the nomination. Such a man can become a member of this council and he will have the same privileges as a member of the House of Assembly when it comes to discussing other people who are concerned with Coloured Affairs. Sir, I find myself in the position that I cannot vote for the amendment, but as a mark of respect to the hon. member for Peninsula, who is the senior member of this group, who has more experience than I have had and for whom I have the greatest regard, and who has stated that it is his intention to support this amendment, I intend to abstain from voting.

Incidentally, I met five members of the Coloured council last night in connection with this clause. They specially came to discuss this situation with me. Those members, amongst whom was Councillor Arendse, felt that the problem which faced them was that they did not know which persons would be elected to this new council and that those persons may possibly want to do the council harm and would therefore say anything in that council. In those circumstances they are now prepared to support this clause. I think those people should be more au fait with what is happening in that council than hon. members of the Opposition who have no knowledge whatsoever of what is happening in the Union Coloured Council. They would very much like the discussions in the new council to be of a very high standard and that nothing should detract from the dignity of that council and for that reason they are prepared to support this clause as it stands.

I do not know why the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is so disturbed that he is going to be defamed.

I did not mention my name.

No, he did not mention his name but he said he did not see why members of this council should be entitled to defame the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) or the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). Well, does he perhaps see some reason why they should be able to defame him? I obviously include him; he must include himself with the others.

May I ask the hon. member a question in all sincerity? Is the hon. member for Durban (North) sincere in wishing to endow this council which he rejected at the second reading with the powers and privileges of Parliament?

Sir, if I were endowing this council at all, I certainly would not be endowing it with any of the privileges and powers which I see in this Bill. I am being very sincere. This is not just a question of the powers and privileges of Parliament that we are dealing with. I want to remind the hon. member for Outeniqua in the first place that his colleagues do not mind being defamed by these person. There will be rules of conduct which will be the same as the rules of conduct in this House, and the chairman of that body will call them to order if they overstep the mark. But surely the hon. member knows that in the heat of the moment there are slips of the tongue and things are said which would not be said outside. This is a national council; it is not just a local body.

But you did not want it. You are not being sincere.

Or course we are sincere. In principle, however, we do not want it. If we have to have it—and that was decided when the division bells rang at the second reading—we would like to see it look a little more respectable than it looks at the moment. The hon. member for Outeniqua must remember that he is dealing with a national council of the people he represents, a national council for the Coloured people of the whole of the Republic of South Africa. This is not just an ordinary body. We have decided that this is to be a national body, which will become the main body for Coloured opinion. This is a body which will be endowed with powers to make legislation which will have the same effect as an Act of Parliament. I want to ask the hon. member what he thinks about Ordinance No. 40 of 1960, a Transvaal Ordinance which bestows upon councils, i.e. local authority councils and management committee meetings, freedom of speech in exactly the same form as we have it here, as the provincial councils have it. Here we have a local authority which has these powers.

And that would include Coloured local councils and management committees in the Transvaal.

My hon. friend has just pointed out that this would include Coloured local councils and management committee meetings in the Transvaal. There you have this completely anomalous situation. The hon. member for Outeniqua does not mind the local authorities defaming his colleagues but he does not want this council to defame his colleagues. Sir, who is most interested in them? Surely the people whom the hon. member is dealing with are his own constituents. Surely you cannot say things of this kind about the Coloured people whom you represent in this House.

The hon. member must not throw stones at us; we are not under trial. We have so much respect for the Coloured people in the Cape that we say that if they succeed in being elected they can sit in this House as Members of Parliament.

I never had the slightest intention of throwing stones.

But you dropped a few bricks.

Sir, when I sincerely raise a matter here on the strength of my experience and knowledge of the Coloured people, then I am accused of throwing stones. I just wish to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that he is quite correct in saying that the policy of his party is that Coloureds can sit in this House, but he knows very well that no United Party divisional committee will nominate a Coloured man who is not even a member of the party as a candidate for election to this House. [Interjection.] Sir, I represent the Coloured people here and I do not need the advice of the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) as to which caucus I should join. I have stated emphatically that I will belong to no party of which my constituents cannot be members. The hon. member for Durban (North) has put the United Party case here to the best of his ability, but it is perfectly obvious that when it comes to the circumstances under which the Coloured people live, he knows absolutely nothing about them. Sir, one cannot blame him. While I do not want to carve up the Coloured population into groups and while I have no intention of taking part in such a process, the hon. member would admit, if he has any knowledge of Natal, that the Coloured people of Natal have a completely different background and heritage, that is to say, if he knows anything at all about those Coloured people. My contention is that Clause 16 must be read in conjunction with Clause 21. I have no assurance at this stage that the Minister will accept amendments to Clause 21. I know that Clause 21 is not under discussion now but it is the same Bill, and judging by the attitude of the Minister up to now, when it comes to anything fundamental he is not willing to accept amendments, and when I read Clause 16 in conjunction with Clause 21—and this is my main argument—then my honest conclusion is that this council will only be an advisory body because they will not be able to pass legislation without the consent of the Minister, and since that is so I must come to the conclusion that this is merely an advisory body who, with the consent of the Minister concerned, will be able to pass legislation affecting certain areas and a certain racial group under certain circumstances. With great respect to the hon. member for Durban (North), I think I can say that I know a little more than he does about the people whom I represent here, and I have come to the conclusion that this council will really be an advisory body, and in those circumstances I cannot agree with the principle that this body must be endowed with the quasi-powers and privileges of Parliament, because I do not believe that the body to be established under this Bill must represent the Coloured people on the road to parallel development. My stand is that there is only one road and that road is the road of integration with the Whites politically and economically. At what stage that is to be finalized I am not prepared to say here.

Sir, I wish to clarify one point which was raised here. I was accused of saying that this body will be merely an advisory body. I want to make it clear that I did not say that at all. I stated that at the outset this would be an advisory body. The hon. member credited me with a certain amount of legal experience. Surely then he must also credit me with the knowledge that under Clause 21 certain legislative powers can be granted to this body. How then could I say that this would only be an advisory body?

Then I come to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). I am sorry that I have to cross swords with him but the hon. member is quite wrong in his legal approach, and if he will consult with his legal brethren he will find that that is so. I quoted the legal position here and I am prepared to read it out again—

In other words, it is the person who states that he has been defamed who must prove that there was bad faith on the part of the person who made the statement. In other words, if a member of this council makes a statement in good faith he is protected by law. His statement must be mala fide and untrue, and only then can he be sued in a court of law. But a member of this council will be entitled in a bona fide way to attack any official or any Member of Parliament. That is perfectly clear from the section. The position is covered by the ordinary law in these cases. That is the position, and it is clearly stated here, so the hon. member is obviously wrong.

May I reply just briefly to the hon. member of Omaruru (Mr. Frank). The hon. member quite rightly says that where an occasion is privileged, protection is afforded. He cites as an instance of privilege the case where a statement is made by a person to somebody who has an interest in the matter, a person like an official, for example. But what we are concerned with in the case of this Coloured council is criticism of an official or of a member of the House of Assembly, etc. We are not concerned with a statement made to an official who has an interest in receiving such a statement. We are concerned with an attack upon an official or other person which may be defamatory—two entirely different situations—and I regret therefore that we will have to beg to differ on that point. I suggest, however, that the position is quite clear.

Question put: That all the words after “Council” in line 42, to the end of the clause, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. FI. Fourie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and first amendment negatived.

Proposed new sub-section (4) put and division demanded.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) was outside the Bar when the division bells stopped ringing. May I have your ruling whether he is allowed to duck back into the House under the Bar?

Might I point to a precedent which happened in the old Cape House. It happened to my father in similar circumstances. Mr. Speaker then ruled that although it was improper for him to do so—he was in the House when the previous count was taken—he was allowed to vote but he was severely reprimanded subsequently.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Lands said his father was already in the House when the count was taken. We have not had the count yet; you have not appointed the Tellers yet, as has been pointed out. So instead of reprimanding the hon. member, as the Minister’s father was, I want to ask you to send the hon. member out of the House.

As far as the Chair is concerned there is no Rule which provides for a member to be sent out of the Chamber once the Bar is closed. I shall consequently allow the hon. member to take part in the division. Thereafter I shall most certainly follow the example given by the hon. Minister of Lands in regard to his father and reprimand the hon. member.

The Committee divided:

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

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

Proposed new sub-section accordingly negatived.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) having entered the Chamber after the doors had been locked for the division, was directed by the Deputy-Chairman to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The first part of my amendment seeks to remove the provision in sub-section (1) (a) which provides for an executive committee of five members, four of whom should be elected by the council and one of whom should be designated by the State President as chairman. The purpose of my amendment is to try to bring about a situation where all five members of the executive council will be elected by the council and shall designate their own chairman. I do this for this reason that when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the existing council in 1961 he laid down for them what he envisaged would be the basic set-up, shall we say, of this council. I think everybody who was interested and who read that speech, together with the Coloured people tried to build up a picture of what form this council would take. In doing so, we envisaged, in line with the Prime Minister’s speech, that they would have four executive council members who could be called Cabinet Ministers—that was the term used. The hon. the Prime Minister allocated to each of those four a particular job of work in line with sub-section (6) (a)—local government, education, community welfare and pensions and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds. We saw these four individuals who would be elected, as we took it, by the council occupying more or less Cabinet posts in dealing specifically with those subjects. The hon. the Minister has added another post, namely finance, and has allocated that to a person who shall be nominated by the State President, i.e. by the Minister. He shall deal with the finances of the council. When the hon. the Prime Minister set out what he intended for these people he obviously had sufficient confidence that this council would elect four people who would be capable of managing the particular job which he envisaged they should manage. Unfortunately this hon. Minister, in drafting the Bill, has not shown equal faith in the ability of the people elected to the council. Because in terms of the provisions of this sub-section it is obvious that the chairman of the executive committee is not only going to be nominated to the post of chairman but is almost certain to be a person nominated and not elected to the council because in terms of the provisions of a previous Clause, 16 members will be nominated and not elected to the council. So the hon. the Minister is obviously going to nominate a person to be chairman of this committee who will in all probability have been nominated to the council by the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister should show greater faith than that in the Coloured people. I think the hon. the Minister has sufficient control. If he will look at Clauses 21 and 22 he will see that it is really quite unnecessary for him to have to nominate this extra member to control finance because the hon. the Minister, in conjunction with the hon. Minister of Finance, has full control over these matters as envisaged in Clause 21. Furthermore, in Clause 22 Parliament itself will have control over this particular matter, because Parliament itself, according to this Bill, will vote the moneys which the executive committee will deal with. I think those facts alone should make it quite clear to the Minister that even if he intends this only to be a school for the Coloured people to learn to govern themselves, there is sufficient control for him to let them get on with the job in the executive committee which, after all, is carrying out the policy laid down by the council. Let them have full control; show faith in their ability to do so. He has sufficient control to put them right and to keep them on the road. At every stage of this Bill you have this intention to prevent them from having control over their own affairs as they have been promised. Perhaps in this clause more than in any other one that hesitancy to give them full control is most evident. The hon. the Minister does not show the same degree of faith in their ability which the hon. the Prime Minister expressed when he spoke to them. I believe the hon. the Minister has a chance here of giving these people the opportunity to control their own affairs; the Minister must show them that he has faith and confidence in them. Let them manage these affairs laid down in the Bill, the affairs which the hon. the Prime Minister said affected them in particular—local government, education, community welfare and pensions and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds. Added to that, of course, we have finance which must obviously be included.

I am going to make a special plea to this hon. Minister to let this executive committee be an elected body. Let them elect their own chairman and let them get on with the job of carrying out the management of their own affairs. However limited they may be in other directions let them at least in this direction have some power to act and to do something that will make them feel they are achieving something.

The second part of my amendment to omit “Minister” and to substitute “council” will have the effect that the council itself will be able to remove a member of the executive committee who discloses any information in connection with any such voting, etc., as provided in sub-section (5) (b). At the moment it says that this member may be removed by the Minister and shall not thereafter be liable to be elected or nominated. I think these people should be removed from office by their own body and not by the Minister. If they have offended against this rule of secrecy within the executive committee I believe disciplinary action should be taken by the council itself. The Minister should not have to intervene at a stage such as this. He lays down terms for the conduct of their procedure and the management of their affairs in this council and it can be included in that that this body should try its own members if there is a breach of secrecy or a breach of any rule. In this House we do not have people from outside coming here and dealing with members who have offended against the Rules of this House. I believe it is essential that this council should have the power to deal with their own members when they commit offences against the rules and regulations of their own council. This is not the Minister’s council, Sir, he has given it to them and he should let them deal with offenders.

The last part of my amendment is, of course, merely consequential and does not need any comment from me. I do submit these two aspects to the hon. the Minister. I believe it will be a show of good faith and I believe it will help to make these people have faith in themselves and their ability to administer their own affairs.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper. Before I move this amendment I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister in simple language the distinction between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) and my amendment. In terms of the Bill as it stands at the moment the Minister proposes that an executive committee of the council should be appointed by the council. This executive committee is to consist of five members but the one to be appointed as chairman shall be designated by the State President. We all know the State President means the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs himself. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi will mean that the council shall appoint the five members of this executive committee and that the council shall designate the chairman. My proposal is that the council shall elect from amongst its members the five members who will constitute the executive committee and that that executive committee should elect its own chairman. So the difference between the amendment of my hon. friend from Umlazi and my own is that in his case he suggests that the chairman shall be elected by the whole of the council and in my case I suggest in my amendment that the chairman shall be elected by the executive committee. The effect of both amendments is that the chairman shall be elected by either the council or the executive committee and not by the hon. the Minister. I urge the hon. the Minister to accept either of these amendments—it does not matter which—as a fair proposal to give the council the right to deal with their own affairs in that regard.

You can understand, Mr. Chairman, what might happen if the hon. the Minister elects as chairman to this body someone in whom the majority of the members of the council have no confidence. For some reason or other they may have taken a particular dislike to a particular man and find that the hon. the Minister, without reference to the council, has appointed him as chairman of the executive committee.

What about the Administrator of a province?

That is totally different. In that instance he is not elected to the council. Here you are appointing someone from within the council. I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) that if the hon. the Minister were to take unto himself the right to elect as chairman someone who is not a member of the council that would be something totally different; but here he nominates from amongst the members of the council someone who should be chairman of the executive committee. There is no doubt about it, Sir, that the chairman of the executive committee is going to hold a high and responsible position. It is only right, in my view, that the members of the council who have been elected to represent the Coloured people of the whole of this country should have some say as to who is going to occupy this important position of chairman of the executive committee. I can see no objection to it. In any case, in terms of his own proposal, his choice will be circumscribed in this sense that he will have to choose a member of the council. If he wants to give some democratic rights to this council they should have the right to choose from amongst their members the person whom they wish to be chairman of the executive committee. It does not matter to me which proposal the hon. the Minister accepts, but it will at least mean that the members themselves will have some say in designating the chairman of that committee.

That is the first distinction. The remaining portion of my amendment deals with the vacancies which have to be filled from time to time. My suggestion is that the remaining members of the executive committee should have that right, not the Minister, to designate another member of the council. Subsection (4) reads—

or chairman, as the case may be. My proposal is that it shall not be the Minister who shall have the power to appoint another chairman but the remaining members of the executive committee. The rest of the amendment is consequential to these basic proposals. Finally I come to 5 (b). The provision as it now stands reads—

My proposal is to insert the words “on a resolution to that effect” in line 3 after the word “may”. In other words, this man should be tried by his peers, that is by the members of the council, and only on a resolution to that effect by the council shall the Minister have the right to have him removed.

All these amendments have been worked out so as to vest some measure of rights and powers in this council. As I see the hon. Minister’s proposals in this Bill, the Minister has virtually taken unto himself all these rights to appoint the chairman of the executive committee, to appoint somebody in his place if he cannot act for some reason or another, and if there has been a disclosure of information, the Minister will have the right to take this man off the executive committee and so on. The councillors are actually divested of all rights in these matters. We feel that if this is to be a council in the real sense of the word and if they are to have democratic rights to deal with their own affairs, they should be reinvested with those rights. My amendments are designed to vest in this council these rights of dealing with these important matters in their discretion, and the hon. Minister to give effect to any resolution that they may take in that regard. It is not a gravely important matter, but it does vest in this council the right to have some say as to who should be the head of the executive committee, and the right for them to say to the hon. Minister the circumstances under which a man should be removed if he has breached sub-section (5) (b). I therefore move the various amendments standing in my name and I leave it to the hon. Minister to determine whether he wants to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) or the amendment moved by myself. The main objective is that the Minister should deprive himself of the right of superimposing his wishes upon the council.

I move—

I move as an amendment—

In other words, I propose to insert “consisting of two-thirds” in the provision—

Instead of by resolution of “a majority”. I do not think it is right that a majority of one should remove a member. A man should not be at the mercy of people who form a majority of one, because quite obviously a disagreement may arise about something and then to remove a man by a simple majority I think is completely unfair, and there should be a far more substantial majority to deprive a man of his rights. I do not think I need argue the case any further. It is more democratic and gives greater security to a man to act in terms of his convictions without fear of being removed by a majority of one.

I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman)—

The clause which is affected by this sub-section 6 (c), which will then read—

In other words what is asked here is simply that instead of adopting some other means such as the writing of a letter, or whatever other form of mandate the Minister wishes to give a member of the committee concerned if he designates functions to him, that it should become common cause that a certain member of the committee has been appointed by the hon. Minister to carry out certain functions.

I accept that amendment.

May I then say a few words about the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) and the hon. member for Peninsula? It does seem a very fair proposition in any circumstances to allow a body like this, which after all is chosen as to the individuals in it, for some reason or other, and a good reason—especially as to the nominees—and which is there to represent the interests of a very large group of the South African population, to follow the same procedure as, for example, the procedure followed by the committee of a bowling club or a sporting organization or a dramatic society in electing its own chairman. You have the five members of the executive committee, and surely it is up to them since they have in turn been chosen by their peers as it were, the council, to say which one of the five of them is the best, not necessarily the most competent, the best fitted to lead them, to be in the chair at any meeting of the executive. Even if the hon. Minister sees it—as he must —in a different light, I doubt whether he will have any objection to that principle. I put this example to him, not because I want to provoke an argument, but he himself has said that after the White people of South Africa … [Quorum.]

Before I continue, I do not recall having expressed my appreciation to the hon. Minister for accepting the amendment providing for the advertisement in the Government Gazette, and I wish to rectify that omission now.

I was about to say that surely when the hon. Minister has constituted the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, according to the information available not only to him in regard to the 16 persons nominated, but also to the Coloured people of South Africa who have been given a vote to elect 30 members, it must be assumed that, with certain exceptions, by and large the 46 people elected and nominated will be the elite of the Coloured people of South Africa. Now surely those people having elected their executive committee, will presumably have chosen the best members available among the 46 for their executive committee, and so we come down to the final consideration: That executive committee having been constituted, does the hon. Minister seriously consider that he should deprive them of the right, for example, that he himself (the hon. Minister) would have if he was a member of a bowling club, to have a vote and a say in the appointment of the chairman of that body, or its committee? What is the reason for wanting, as the hon. Minister does in terms of this clause, to reserve to himself the right to appoint the chairman of the executive committee? If the answer should be that this person would be in a sense the prime minister of the Coloured advisory committee or the Coloured parliament, depending on your point of view, this person being the prime minister, a very important man, then surely they should have the right to appoint him. Otherwise it puts the Coloured people, in that context at any rate, below the Bantu people of South Africa in terms of civilization, know-how and rights, because it is common knowledge that the Xhosas of the Transkei having elected a parliament, do not allow the Minister concerned to nominate or to appoint for them the chief Minister. The hon. Minister may be heard to say that the position in the Transkei is different because there is, as it were, a land-based parliament, that they have a territory. All the more reason to give these Coloured people, who have no such privilege as their own territorial area where they can say “we are supreme”, but have to operate in an area which is called “White South Africa”, and with a community which is spread throughout South Africa—all the more reason for the hon. Minister not to deny them this very elementary privilege, which requires a very small concession on his part, that the five executives, as it were, should have the right to choose one of their number to preside at their meetings and to be given the distinction of being the chairman of the executive committee.

The chief Minister.

Yes, but in this Bill he is called the “chairman”. If anything, there is more reason for this body and this executive committee to elect its chief Minister than there was or is in the case of the Transkei. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will give this matter some consideration, and if he fails to agree that this is an acceptable proposal, that he would tell the Committee why it is difficult or impossible for him to say “I will allow these people to elect their own chairman”.

It is so obvious that you cannot compare them with the Transkei.

Hon. members always say about some of us that we are “’n vreemdeling in Jerusalem”. I want to tell the hon. member who has just arrived that I have just made the point that in the case of the Transkei there is a parliament, call it what you will, which rules over an area, and they appoint their own chief Minister. In the case of the Coloured people of South Africa, who according to the Minister’s own admission stand next in civilization and development and knowhow to the White people, they have not even got the advantage of an area which they can rule over.

That is the very reason.

That is the very reason why you should at least give them the right to elect their own chief Minister or chairman. Is that not a question of equity?

You can compare them with the provinces.

I cannot compare them with a province because from my experience as a member of a provincial council, I would say that everything points to the fact that this is intended to become a parliament. We have been told that this afternoon. We have been told, when we have said that this has not even got the status of a provincial council: “What nonsense are you talking, this is a parliament.” How can the hon. member for Ceres, who has a sense of humour, say to me that my analogy with the Transkei is false, and that for that reason these Coloured people in their “parliament” should not even have the right to appoint their own executive chairman? [Time limit.]

An amendment in my name appears before the amendment of Mr. Plewman which has now been moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The intention was that the amendment of Mr. Plewman would be moved as an alternative if my amendment did not succeed. I accordingly move—

As I read it, it amounts to this that the Minister, as well as an Administrator, now delegate powers properly conferred upon him by any law of Parliament or ordinance of the provincial council, to an outside body, to somebody in another body. That, I think is a very unsound principle and I think machinery should be created here, so that before a Minister or an Administrator, on whom certain legal powers have been conferred, delegates those powers to a body outside the scope of the original intention, he ought specifically to obtain the permission of Parliament or of the provincial council concerned. I think this is a very unsound principle because if an Act of this Parliament confers a certain power on the Minister it is surely clear that Parliament wants to give that power to the Minister but it is a totally different matter whether Parliament would have decided to give that power to a member of an executive committee of an outside body. I think it is completely in conflict with the character and spirit of Parliament. Parliament may have the confidence in a Minister to give him certain powers but he cannot hand those powers over to whom he likes without first coming to Parliament.

No.

But that is what this clause will allow the Minister to do, namely, he will be able to transfer powers conferred upon him by legislation of this Parliament, for good reasons and after thorough discussion in Parliament. Parliament limits those powers to the Minister and I think it is a hopelessly wrong principle that they can simply be handed over to somebody else without once again referring back to Parliament. That is why we move the deletion of this sub-section.

In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), I have already indicated that I accept it.

In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) I wish to say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) has informed me that he met a deputation of the existing Union Council and that the only request they made to him in connection with any amendments to this Bill was in connection with clause 17 (2). They too ask that the existing clause should be amended in this sense. It is interesting to learn that they met the hon. member and that that was the only provision they wanted amended in this Bill.

I do not think so.

Here I have the official minutes and the secretary of the council has informed us accordingly. Is the hon. member again doubting it? I am prepared, therefore, to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boland, namely, that the majority in this case should be two-thirds.

As far as the hon. members for Durban (Umlazi) and Peninsula are concerned I regret that I cannot consider either of the amendments. The hon. member for Umlazi quoted the Prime Minister and said he read the speech of the Prime Minister with interest and that it was crystal clear what the Prime Minister wanted but that we were not giving effect to what the Prime Minister wanted. As a matter of fact he says this Minister is not giving effect to what the Prime Minister wanted. Does the hon. member not know that before legislation of this kind is submitted to Parliament the Prime Minister must have approved of it? The point is simply this that when the Prime Minister made his speech he spoke in broad terms and when we came to deal with the finer details we came to this conclusion in consultation with the existing Coloured council. The Prime Minister is continually charged with being such a terrible person, a person who refuses to change his attitude. But when he does make a concession in respect of a sensible suggestion such as this, it is wrong. What nonsense is that! When we drafted this clause we properly took into account the fact that these executive committee members would be people who would perform certain functions. Those functions are set out in sub-section (6) (a), namely, local government, education, community welfare and rural areas and settlements. Those are the functions which will gradually be transferred to the executive committee of the Coloured council for administrative purposes. But it was felt that just as the Administrator of a province had control over finance, the chairman of this executive committee should be the person to control the finances of this council and of this executive committee. There must be the closest liaison between him and the Central Government and the Central Government must be sure that he is a person who can handle money. What will happen in practice? Let us assume that amongst the members elected there is not one person who can be regarded as sufficiently outstanding to control the financial matters. In that case the Government can always nominate somebody who was born to do that. If, on the other hand, a person is elected who is known as somebody who can handle finances, the Government will obviously designate him as the chairman of the executive committee. Not only that, he must also be able to handle a meeting for example, he must have the ability of making a team co-operate. This person will have to have various qualities and he will be selected for that purpose. As I have said, if there is no such person amongst the elected members we can make sure, by way of the nominated members, that there is such a person. The hon. member for Peninsula advanced the argument that in this respect his position was different from that of an Administrator and that it would perhaps be better to appoint such a person from outside.

No, I said that in reply to the hon. member for Ceres.

Yes, I concede that, but I think that would be dangerous. You would then run the risk of people saying: “You do not regard anybody in this council sufficiently capable of performing the task.” That is why we select somebody who is a member of the council; of necessity we select the most capable member for that purpose and in reality that person will be the permanent link between the governing bodies, which are the Minister and the Government Department in this case, and this executive committee. Let me tell hon. members what we envisage. We envisage that the present Department of Coloured Affairs shall be reorganized in such a way—a start has already been made with that—that these people will eventually be entrusted with the administration of the matters referred to here and that we shall eventually be able to separate that portion of the administration from the present head office of the Department of Coloured Affairs. A start has already been made with that process. We are already training the Coloured officials in that direction. Everything that is done to-day is calculated to make it possible for the officials in the various sections of the Department of Coloured Affairs to take over the administration of these matters. But it is a lengthy process. As hon. members will realize you cannot just simply engage an official from outside the Department to-day and place him in a responsible position within the Department the day after. He must grow with the Department and progress step by step and he must learn how to cope with the various facets of the administration of a country. To the extent to which his administrative ability matures you can place greater responsibility on his shoulders. In other words, there will have to be the closest liaison between the Minister and the executive committee and the Department, but particularly between the Minister and the chairman of that committee and the Department because the chairman of the executive committee, will, in my view, be the person who will practically occupy his position full-time. For all these reasons—and I have tried to summarize them as briefly as possible—I can unfortunately not accept the amendments of the hon. members for Umlazi and Peninsula because I believe that would be heading for chaos. There have to be control measures whereby the strictest supervision can be exercised so that this transfer from the one to the other can take place in the most responsible manner. Let me give one example. Supposing we hand over certain facets of the administration of Coloured education and we do so injudiciously and education should collapse as a result I think the Government would be criticized severely. That is why, when I talk about the handing over of administrative powers, I believe the process will stretch over a period of years; until such time as you are sure that, in respect of these aspects of administration, proper experience has been gained. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) find himself in this invidious position that this amendment actually clashes with that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

No, his clashes with mine. Look at the Order Paper.

I prefer the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) because it is reasonable. He only wants the public to be clear on the question of which powers will be delegated. There need not be any secrecy in that regard. These matters have been discussed with the provincial administration concerned and this clause was drafted in consultation with them. There will have to be thorough consultation and a great deal of negotiation before any powers are delegated. But in this regard I want to say to the hon. member that the powers which will be delegated first will be those powers in respect of which Parliament has already decided the Minister should have the right to delegate. There are various facets of education, rural areas, and social welfare legislation in respect of which the Minister is competent to delegate power and he is doing that to-day. He delegates powers to the Secretary of his Department and to his subordinate officials and an appeal lies to the Minister in respect of every one of these powers.

Where the Minister delegates to the Secretary of Coloured Affairs, for example, does the Act not say the Minister “may” delegate?

That is correct. I shall deal with that in a moment. I say those will be the first matters in respect of which there will be delegation, and not necessarily all the power, because it will depend on whether there are sufficiently competent officials in the relevant regional offices of the Department; because you cannot simply delegate to a member of the executive committee without there also being competent officials to do the work. This process, therefore, depends on a host of circumstances at this stage.

The hon. member’s objection is really to those powers in respect of which it is not clear in the relevant Bill whether they can be delegated or not. He objects to the functions circumscribed in the existing legislation, but the clause reads as follows—

And then those matters are set out. In other words, we are now asking Parliament to give the Minister the right in respect of finance, education, community welfare, rural areas and settlements. We specify the matters in respect of which we want to delegate power. They are, therefore, not unknown to Parliament. We say it is not the intention to delegate all the power. In other words, in the one case the Minister already has power to delegate and in the other case he asks for it, if there are any further matters in respect of which he wants it. Let me give an example. In terms of the Rural Areas Act, for example, the Minister has the right to make certain nominations to the local authorities. That is one of the things which I think must obviously be entrusted to such a person because the nomination is made in consultation with the residents. Nor is there ever any clash of opinion. The choice of the Minister is usually also the choice of the local community. There are various ways in which you can consult them. This is the sort of thing we have in mind and the way in which we hope we shall gradually be able to train these people to acquire administrative ability. I have dealt with this matter at some length, Sir, but I just wanted to make it clear.

Listening to the Minister giving an explanation of this clause, I think he went even further and gave the background of the whole Bill. To draw a parallel in regard to the appointment of the chairman of this executive with the appointment of an administrator is of course not quite correct. The Administrator of a province has no vote in the council as such. He is a Government appointee, but he also has terrific powers; he even has more powers than the Minister because he has a veto right. But when you come to think that this council will consist of both nominated and elected members, surely the Minister should have confidence in the council to allow them to elect their own chairman of the executive committee. Democracy starts at a very low level. It starts in a little club where you have a chairman and a secretary, and our Coloureds have their clubs and are by no means politically backward, and the Minister should have that confidence in them to allow them to elect a chairman. He says that if he thought that they could elect a chairman who could control the finances of the council, he would probably nominate this individual. I think it is all wrong for him to nominate a member from the council. If the Minister feels that he wants to run this council not as a parliament but as a provincial council, then you would expect him to nominate somebody from outside the council to guide this council. You have an executive from the elected and nominated body; you then proceed to take away from them the power of electing the chairman of the executive and weaken the whole structure of the council. This executive committee could quite feasibly, although the Minister could probably remove the individual, be saddled with a completely unsympathetic chairman. The chairman of the executive committee will no doubt be the power behind the throne. He will be the liaison between the Minister, the Secretary for Coloured Affairs and the executive committee. If you have a man who is completely unsuitable temperamentally, he could wreck the working of this experiment. The whole way through this Bill the Minister has gone so far and no further and he is hoping that this experiment will work. If it works, he says he will probably extend the powers of this council so that the executive will take over the complete function of running the Department of Coloured Affairs. That is the background of his thoughts. If he has that conviction, he should have that confidence in the members of the council to elect their chairman. If he has not that confidence, he should think of revising his own Bill and appointing an administrator from outside without any vote in the council, as we have in the provincial councils. But the moment he nominates the chairman, I am afraid he dictates to the council as to who should control the executive committee, which is a very important body. The council will not meet very often, but the executive will carry on for most of the year, and if you have an unsuitable type at the top you will find that the workings in the council will be defeated. This council cannot work unless it gains the confidence of the Coloured people, and if you have an unsympathetic or weak chairman you will probably find that the council will fail and the Minister’s experiment must fail. But you should allow the council to elect its own chairman, even if they elect the wrong man, surely that is the basis of democracy. It often happens that the wrong man is elected, but you get rid of him. If you want to have a democratic council, you must allow them to elect their chairman. They are not inexperienced. They run their Church councils very well. I am sure that when it comes to the election of members of this council, some very outstanding people in the community will come forward, and they should be given the right to elect their chairman.

The words of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) destroy his whole argument. He started by preaching to the Minister and then said that the Minister might appoint the wrong man, a man who is temperamentally unsuited and unsympathetic, and that if he appointed such a man the whole council would be doomed to failure. The hon. member argues that the Minister, who is creating this organization, will be so foolish as to choose the wrong man, in spite of the fact that this person, as the Minister has pointed out, will have to have special qualifications. The Minister will go out of his way to get a person who has the necessary qualifications, but the hon. member suggests that the Minister will appoint a puppet, an unsuitable person, and he says that if the wrong man is appointed as chairman the council will be doomed. But then he turns round and says that these people must choose their own chairman, and if they choose the wrong man there is nothing more to be said about it; if such a man, who is the leader of the majority group in the council, is elected and he is unsympathetic, then it will not be a mistake; the council will not be boycotted and it will not end in failure. He says, “Even if they elect the wrong man, let them do so”.

But they can get rid of him.

Yes, he can be removed just as the Minister can remove him. No, this person must be a member of the council. Sir, if the position had been reversed, if this clause had read that an outsider will be appointed as the chairman of the executive committee, in the same way that the Administrator of a province is appointed, hon. members of the Opposition would have adopted precisely the opposite attitude; they would have said, “Here we have clear proof that the Minister has no intention of allowing this council to develop into a parliament; it will only be a sort of provincial council, because a sort of administrator is going to be appointed as chairman of the executive committee”. Hon. members opposite are only trying to waste time. One member argues that an outsider must be appointed as chairman and the other wants the members to have the right to choose their own chairman. There is no substance at all in that argument. They are simply wasting time. The hon. member for Salt River did so in a very blatant way, and I think he ought to know better, because the Minister has set out very clearly what the qualifications of the chairman will have to be.

I am not going to suggest that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) is trying to waste the time of this Committee. I think he is trying to assist, as we all are.

I should like to refer to sub-section (6) (a); I should like some clarity on it. The relevant portion of the sub-section says that the executive committee shall also deal with the following matters in so far as they affect Coloured persons, namely finance, education and pensions. Now, how will they deal with those things? There are two ways of dealing with finance. The one is to raise the money by taxation and the other is to spend the money. How does the Minister envisage that this executive body will raise and spend the money? Does he propose, e.g. that a lump sum will be handed to them by this House?

Read Clause 22 (1).

I have that in mind. Then, will they be responsible to this House for the spending of the money, or will they be able to say that they can spend the money and the Minister will be responsible to this House?

Read Clause 22 (5) and (6).

I have already read them. That is the first point. The second point is in regard to education. How will they deal with education? May they establish schools wherever they wish? May they say that they are not only going to establish schools, but will give free compulsory education to every Coloured child? Will they be able to regulate the scales of salaries of teachers? If that is the case, will they be told that they can do whatever they like provided they remain in this financial kraal we are making for them? May they raise money in addition to that amount by imposing taxation?

The next point I come to is pensions. Are these pensions the pensions paid by the Minister of Social Welfare at present, or do they include the pensions paid to the staff of the council? If the Coloured people are to be told that their council will become a taxing body, they should know that in advance. But if their finance is to be a sum voted every year by this House, it is simply not fair to the Coloured people themselves. They must have some proper system similar to the system we gave to the Transkei. I should like some elucidation from the Minister on those three points.

The Minister has rejected the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), and I regret it. I want to move another amendment because if the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula he may find his choice very restricted in regard to Clause 4, when the position of the chairman becomes vacant. In terms of this law, the Minister will then be obliged to nominate another chairman from the council, but he may find that there is a man who meets his requirements and who is already a member of the executive committee. I cannot see why the Minister should overlook the four members of the executive, amongst whom there may be one to suit the Minister’s purpose. Unless he has the power, therefore, to choose a further chairman not only from the council but also from the executive, the Minister will be restricted only to the members of the council.

But the members of the executive are also members of the council.

Yes, if that is what it means, but it does not read that way.

The executive members are also members of the council.

If that is what it means, I am satisfied. I want to have it on record that the Minister has made it perfectly clear to the Coloureds that he is afraid. He is afraid that if we give the power, as envisaged by the hon. member for Peninsula, to the executive to elect their own chairman, they may elect someone who will not suit the purpose of the Minister. I say that here the Minister has indicated to the people, even before this council was established, that he has a man in view to be their chairman, and it does not matter what the calibre of the elected members may be or how outstanding they may be, but the Minister will appoint a man who will follow the principles of the present Government. That is completely against the principles of democracy, that where there is an elected body of 30 people who will represent the voice of the Coloured people, they will not have the right to nominate the chairman of the executive. We will have the same farce we had in regard to the Transkei over again, that the voice of the people is silenced by the action of the Government.

Without the action of the Government, they would not have a voice at all. [Interjections.]

As a representative of the Coloured people I am entitled to put the viewpoint of the majority of the Coloureds, that if this council is established the voice of the people must be paramount in that council and they should not be silenced, or else it will make a complete mockery—the word the Minister does not like—of that elected body if they do not have the power to elect their own chairman. [Interjection.]

It is better than having you as the Minister.

What are you saying, baboon?

On a point of order, I object to that, and the hon. member should be made to apologize.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay should withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

I submit that the hon. member should be made to apologize.

Order! That is for the Chair to decide. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. the Minister may have an unnecessary fear. I do not think he is creating a good impression amongst the Coloured people when he wants to dictate to them in effect who is to be the chairman of their executive committee. I agree with the hon. the Minister and I agree with hon. members opposite that as this is going to be translated into law we would like to see that this council carries on its business in a proper manner and in the best interests of the Coloured people, but you will never get satisfaction amongst these people if you take away powers which they rightly claim are theirs.

[Inaudible.]

Be quiet, monkey. (“Bobbejaan”).

On a point of order …

Sir, I withdraw the word “bobbejaan”. I would like to have it on record that the Minister’s interpretation of this measure is that “members of the council” include executive committee members, and if that is so then I do not propose to move my amendment.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that it is really not necessary for the Minister to give a formal assurance here that the five members of the executive committee will be members of the council, because that is stated perfectly clearly in the Bill itself.

I did not make that point.

It is stated perfectly clearly in Clause 17 (1) (a) that—

If there is still any doubt with regard to this matter, that doubt is cleared up in (d) which provides—

The chairman of the council can only be a member of the council, and the clause provides that the chairman of the executive committee shall not also be the chairman of the council. There can be no doubt at all therefore that all five members must be members of the council.

I did not deal with those points at all.

In any event, that is how I understood the hon. member. The hon. member did not express himself clearly then.

Then I want to deal with a point which hon. members of the Opposition have made time and again and that is that the chairman of the executive committee must be elected. Mr. Chairman, the mistake hon. members of the Opposition make is that they want to give this council full responsible government, and that is not the case in this Bill. The position here is the same as in the case of any political development throughout the world when a new thing is started. Here we are dealing with a council which is not even a fully elected body; it is a council consisting partly of elected members and partly of nominated members, and this council will have an executive committee. This same policy has been followed throughout the whole history of the development of self-government. In the colonial days the Governor was always the chairman of the executive committee or of the council. The chairman was always the Governor or his nominee. In the colonial days the executive authority consisted of a council made up of nominated members; in other words, it was representative government. In the case of this legal instrument that we want to pass here we are dealing with a type of representative government but hon. members of the Opposition are not satisfied with that. They want to wreck the whole of this council. They are not prepared to start on the lowest rung of the ladder; they want to start half-way up the ladder, and they want to incorporate all the principles and all the provisions of responsible government in this measure. But those are things which, if the council functions successfully, will materialize in due course; the Chairman of this executive committee will then no longer be a nominated person. The position will change in due course and we will then have the position which hon. members of the Opposition would like to see. But I say again that as far as this question of the nomination of the chairman of the executive committee is concerned, hon. members on the other side are not prepared to start on the lowest rung of the ladder; they want to start half-way up the ladder, and if we did that we would wreck this whole council. The nomination of the chairman of the executive committee fits into the whole pattern of political development, a pattern which has been laid down throughout the years, and that is why this clause cannot be altered. What is being done here is the right thing at the right time within the right framework, as we have their instrument here before us.

Question put: That all the words after “members” in line 50, to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. Lewis and first amendment proposed by Mr. Bloomberg dropped.

Amendment in line 59, proposed by Mr. Barnett, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Bloomberg put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

I have now had an opportunity of giving further consideration to the question of whether the vote cast by the hon. member for Krugersdorp on the second amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) on Clause 16, was in order. I have also consulted a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Jansen in 1925 which can serve as a guide in this case. In terms of that ruling the vote of the hon. member should not have been allowed. In the circumstances I order that the vote of the hon. member be disallowed and the division list be amended accordingly.

On Clause 19,

I wish to move—

Sir, this body, Parliament, decides in this House what money should be spent and how it should be spent. The difference here is that according to both the first sub-clause and the second sub-clause, that power is taken by the executive, that is to say by the Cabinet, to decide what the emoluments will be of members of this Coloured council. What I am asking is that this Parliament should decide what the emoluments are to be of the councillors and of the members of the executive committee. It is a simple straightforward amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment because it is too early at this stage to say what the allowances ought to be. Moreover, we may find that this council is instituted at a time when Parliament is not in session. I can visualize a large number of administrative difficulties that would arise from the acceptance of this amendment. In any event, Parliament will have an opportunity to take both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Coloured Affairs to task if in the opinion of Parliament they acted wrongly with regard to this matter. Parliament will have quite adequate control therefore, and if we accept this amendment I think it will only lead to administrative difficulties.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has taken up that attitude. We know to-day, or we shall know when the Bill goes through, what the constitution of this council is going to be, and therefore it is quite an easy matter to say what the emoluments are going to be. We decide in this House what our emoluments and those of members of the Other Place are going to be, and therefore when we consider a Bill to establish this Coloured council it is surely our duty to say what the emoluments are going to be. It is not sufficient to say that the hon. the Minister or the Government shall decide what the emoluments are to be and then to come to this House later for confirmation. It is our duty as a legislative body and as the body controlling the finances to fix the emoluments of the members of this body, and for that reason I proposed the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

Sir, this clause 20 reveals very clearly how limited are the so-called powers of this so-called Coloured parliament which is being set up under this Bill. I am sorry I have to be as frank as that with the hon. the Minister who up to now, in my humble submission, has made the best of a very bad job. But, Sir, as you read this clause the fact that emerges most clearly is that these people who are members of the council and its executive will have virtually no initiative whatsoever. Take Clause 20 (a) for example—

At this stage I want to move—

I think the reason is obvious. If this clause stands as it is printed it means in effect that this council, which will have been set up as a result of so much investigation, planning, organization and expense, after an election has been held which involves the voters amongst a population of 1,500,000 spread all over the Republic—after all the mechanics have been gone through—we will have a body which cannot even go to the Minister and say to him, “We advise the Government to do the following in regard to the economic uplift of the Coloured people whom we represent”. No, they may not do anything of this sort. They must wait until the Minister asks them. This becomes like the famous “Invitation to the Waltz”; they sit there like wallflowers until the Minister says, “Come and have the next dance with me”.

No. Read Clause 23.

Yes, to make recommendations. I have read that clause and I am going to deal with it later on, but the very fact that this first sub-clause contains the phrase “on request” immediately indicates the relationship between the council and the Minister. It immediately indicates the pigeonhole which the Minister has already created for this council, because he says to them, “You cannot of your own volition, from your own experience and through your own inspiration come to me as the responsible Minister and say, ‘We, the Coloured persons representing the council advise the Government to do this for our people.’ ” They must wait until they are requested, and until such time as the hon. the Minister explains why he disagrees with my view of this clause and, I am sure, the view of many other members of this House and certainly all the members on this side of the House, he cannot blame us for feeling unhappy about the words “on request”—and he must explain what those words mean in this particular context. He must explain whether they take on a completely different meaning. That may well be so, but it is perfectly clear that the position must arise that if any member of the council, or the council collectively or its executive committee or any member of the executive committee, including the person nominated as the chairman, i.e. the Chief Minister, should have the temerity to come to the Minister and say, “We advise the Government to do something for us and this is what we advise,” the Minister can—I do not say will—point to this clause and say, “Here is the section which sets out the general functions of the council, and here I have laid down very clearly that you cannot come with your advice until I have asked you to do so”. It is no use denying that that is the position. Sir, this is not just the view of the Opposition in this House; this is a view which has gained a great deal of credence amongst the Coloured people of South Africa. I pointed yesterday, I think, to a certain letter published in the Press. I think this clause more than anything else caused that particular letter writer, apparently a well-educated and responsible Coloured man, to write a letter which is printed under the heading, “The Cape Coloured community’s humiliation”, and then “Botha’s Mill is the final insult”. This man says in effect: “How can you tell us that you are setting up the parliament that the hon. the Prime Minister promised us in his statement of 12 December 1961? How can you tell us that this is a parliament when the body which you are setting up cannot even have the normal, minimal initiative to come to you, the Minister, and say, ‘We want to advise you as follows’, when that body has to wait until almost a gilt-edged invitation comes from the Minister to tender that advice?”

The Minister must accept that there is a great deal of merit in that argument, whether it comes from this side of the House or from that side of the House. How does he think this Chamber will work if we as an Opposition in this House—and we constantly advise the Government as to what to do in the national interest, but, unfortunately, they generally ignore that advice—how does he think this Chamber would work if we had to sit here until the Cabinet or a member of it said to us, “We now request you to give us some advice, otherwise there must be a deathly hush over your side of this Chamber?” Is that what he wants of the Coloured “parliament”? Does he expect that in any partnership? The hon. the Minister has said this is going to be a partnership, a working partnership between the Coloured people represented by their Coloured Persons Representative Council, and the Government of the Republic represented by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. This is to be a working partnership, Sir. “With our combined efforts we shall uplift the Coloured”. The moment he establishes that position, he says to the so-called partner: Don’t you tell me what is good for your people until I ask you. What happens in married life? The hon. Minister is a married man. What will his own wife say if he were to say to her: I value your advice—but do not give it to me until I ask you for it! That is exactly what he is telling this Coloured council. No self-respecting woman will ever put up with that, Sir, and no self-respecting council will put up with the position in which they cannot advise the Minister save and except on his request.

If the hon. the Minister is really serious in the contention which he and other Government members have made that this is going to be the training-ground where the Coloured leaders of the future will learn to govern themselves, that this is the first-stage parliament—surely he must give them a free rein in regard to the advice they wish to tender to him as the responsible Minister. Not only must he encourage them, but he must solicit that advice. Apparently the last thing he will do to obtain that advice is to say to them: “You can come to me at any time and advise me and I shall give you a hearing.” On the contrary, he lays down in legislation that this body will have no right to advise—I am not now dealing with recommendations; they fall into a different category and I hope to deal with that at a later stage—until and unless the Minister asks them to do so. It may be that the Minister may be an obtuse Minister—whoever he may be in the future—the kind who does not want to take advice from anybody, somebody who cannot even be bothered to listen to advice. In that case he need merely point to this clause and say “I am not under any obligation to give you any hearing on any subject affecting your people, because I have not requested you to advise me”. It is as simple as that.

I do hope the hon. the Minister who has dealt seriously with a great part of this Bill in regard to our representations will also deal seriously with our representations on this particular clause, and will see the merit of deleting the words “on request”, and thus set up, in that way, a normal advisory body. That is the least it should be and that is in fact what some members on the Government side think it is going to be, as witness the statement earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Omaruru who said, of his own volition, that this was going to be an advisory committee. Well, even if it is no more than an advisory committee, let it have the right to go to its Minister and say: We have considered the aspect of the economy, for example, as it affects the Coloured community, and we strongly advise the Government to take the following steps. It may be good advice; it may be bad advice. But he must certainly not put them in the position where there will be some sort of brake on their desire to co-operate with the Government or on their desire to uplift their people, that brake being the fact that they must first have been requested to advise the Minister before he is obliged to give them a hearing. [Time limit.]

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The insertion of these words “on request” in sub-section (1) (a) of Clause 20 has caused not only a great deal of consternation in the minds of the Coloured people but has, to my mind, almost reduced this whole clause to an absolute farce. Clause 20 purports to set out the general functions of the council. We see that those general functions are such that they can only be exercised, in regard to sub-paragraph (a), when they are requested to do so. What sort of a function is that? Leaving alone for the moment the words “on request”, and looking at the preamble to sub-section (a) I suggest that the word “power” is a complete misnomer. It says—

Power to do what?

What sort of a power is that? You do not have power to do a thing if you have to be requested to do it. I do not know whether the hon. Minister sees the point. When the Government requests a body to advise, that body either advises or does not advise. It does not have to have power to advise. I suggest the word “power” is a complete misnomer in this sense. The words “on request” have been criticized throughout the length and breadth of the country and have reduced this clause to an absolute farce. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he loses no face at all by acceding to the proposal that the words “on request” be deleted.

This clause seeks to set out the functions of the council and to vest certain powers in the council. I want to move an amendment which will really give the council some true power. I therefore move the amendment set out on page 359 of the Order Paper—

1. (d) to introduce and pass any law calculated to promote the best interests of the Coloured population of the Republic.

; in line 6, page 17, to omit “By the mediation of the Minister”; in line 10, after “Affairs” to insert “and any member of the House of Assembly duly elected under the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951 (Act No. 46 of 1951)”; in line 14, to omit “with the approval of” and to substitute “after consultation with”; and in line 15, to omit “granted after consultation with” and to substitute “and”.

Inter alia my amendment says “the council shall have power to introduce and pass any law calculated to promote the best interests of the Coloured population of the Republic”. That, Sir, is power. What the Minister has given them in this Bill, namely, that “on request” the council shall have the right to advise the Government, etc., is not power.

I first of all, therefore, commend to the Minister the acceptance of the proposal to delete the words “on request” and suggest that if this is to be a true council in the real sense of the words he should, in the second place, accept the amendment I have proposed.

While I am on my feet I want to deal with some other parts of my amendment, namely “in line 6, page 17, to omit ‘By the mediation of the Minister’”. Mr. Chairman, you will see that sub-section (3) says—

I see no reason why they should be bound only to have access to Ministers through the mediation of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. There may be matters which are of vital importance to the Coloured community, matters which can and should be dealt with by some other Minister of the Government. Surely the executive committee should, through the Secretary of Coloured Affairs, be entitled to make a direct approach to other Ministers.

I have also moved “in line 10, after ‘Affairs’ to insert ‘and any member of the House of Assembly duly elected under the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951’ ”. In other words, it will have this effect that the Minister and the Secretary of Coloured Affairs and any of the Coloured Representatives in this House may attend any meetings of the council or the executive committee, take part in their proceedings, but without the right to vote at any such meetings. I can see no reason at all why the hon. the Minister should exclude the Coloured Representatives from attending the meetings of this council. After all, Sir, we are here as the mouthpiece of the Coloured people in this Central Parliament. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister have indicated that it is the Government’s policy that the Coloured Representatives should remain in this House. I see no reason, therefore, why the Coloured Representatives should not at least have the right to attend the council meetings, of discussing matters with the council but without the right of voting in respect of those matters. I seriously urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment because there is no valid reason why the Coloured Representatives in this House should not attend the meetings of this council.

Finally, Sir, I have moved “in line 14, to omit ‘with the approval of’ and to substitute ‘after consultation with’ ”. That is, the council may, after consultation with the Minister and after consultation with the Minister of Finance, acquire and dispose of property. In other words, they should have some say in this matter after consultation with the Minister. I have moved these amendments so as to give some vestige of rights and power to this council. The Minister may perhaps not be prepared to go the full length of what is implied in these amendments, but I do seriously urge upon him to accept two of the very important ones, firstly, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to delete the words “on request” and then to allow this council, if they are to have any power, the right to introduce and pass laws calculated to promote the best interests of the Coloured population of the Republic; and finally, the one I think there is no argument about the Minister should accept, the right to allow the Coloured Representatives in this House to attend the meetings of the council and to deliberate with them but not to have the right to vote.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member to add a new paragraph (d) to sub-section (1) as it will extend the legislative scope of the council beyond what was contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time.

I move as an amendment—

In terms of that amendment Clause 20 would then read—

After the assurances that have been given to us in this debate by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the second reading that he had no intention of doing away with the Coloured Representatives in this House, I take it that those assurances cover the two representatives in the Cape Provincial Council as well. Perhaps the Minister will make that clear in his reply. In any event, Sir, we are only too pleased to accept the Minister’s assurance on this point of not doing away with the Coloured Representatives in this House.

Sir, if you look at sub-section (1) (a) of Clause 20 you will find that it refers to the council advising the Government in regard to “all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured population of the Republic”. That definition, of course, covers the lot. It could scarcely be more comprehensive; in fact it refers to everything that is of interest to the Coloured population. I would suggest that if there is one group of people in the country who is competent to express an opinion on the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured people, it is the group of Coloured Representatives in this House and in the Senate as also, of course, the representatives in the Cape Provincial Council, for that is why they are here.

If the Government was really consistent in this matter I suggest their line of action should be fairly clear. If the Government really wish to make a separate constitutional plan for the Coloured people, and yet keep them as part of the Republic of South Africa —which we take it is their plan—then, of course, the correct link would be by means of representatives in Parliament for the Coloured people in all the provinces, not only from one province. They could then maintain a specific link with this council which is to be set up. The correct procedure, as I have said, would be for those representatives to have a direct constitutional link with the Coloured Representatives in this House. We maintain that that should be laid down in this Bill. If that were the proposal the Bill would be very much more acceptable to us than it is in its present form.

I would like to point out that as the Bill stands at the moment it will mean that the Coloured Representatives in this House will function in a vacuum. There is no question about that. We shall have the extraordinary position where they will anxiously be scrutinizing the proceedings of this new council to be constituted and yet they will have nothing do to with it; they will have no real link with it in terms of this Bill. The four representatives here may well find themselves in the position where some of their own constituents, who may be members of the council or of the executive committee, will be able to go over the heads of the Coloured Representatives in this House and have direct contact with the Minister on a whole series of matters which are of immediate concern both to these Coloured Representatives and to the Coloured people. I should like to remind the House that the only occasion, as far as we can see, on which the Coloured Representatives in this House or hon. members on these benches will have a proper opportunity of discussing all the affairs germane to this council and relevant to the Coloured population generally, will be under the Coloured Affairs Vote in the Budget debate which, by all possible definitions, restrict the link between this Parliament and this council very materially indeed. I think the Coloured Representatives in this House may well find themselves in the invidious position, when we get to discussing the Coloured Affairs Vote, that the Minister will be able to make them look rather foolish if they ask for information on this matter or on that, when in fact, had they had proper liaison with this council, they would know the answers before they came to this House. I see no point in the Minister being in the position to do that.

We had the strange phenomenon in this debate—at least it was very strange to me— of two hon. members on the Government benches quoting at length from the minutes of the proceedings of the present council— proceedings that were held in camera—but when the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) wrote to the Department asking whether he could have details of some of the resolutions passed by the council, he was advised by the Department that that was confidential and that they could not be given to him. The hon. the Minister has said that the proceedings will now be held in public. We accept that, Sir; we naturally welcome that. May I say, with respect, that that is not sufficient for the obvious reason that there must be an added constitutional link with Parliament laid down in a statute of one kind or another. On the face of it it seems very odd indeed that there should exist two sets of voters’ rolls in South Africa, one for the purpose of electing four Coloured Representatives to this House and one for the purpose of electing members to this Council but that there should be no constitutional machinery whereby there can be any co-ordination or liaison between the two. Why the expense, why all the palaver, under those circumstances?

Then there is the question of the members of the Senate who are nominated by the Government for the purpose of watching the interests of the Coloured community. What link are those hon. Senators going to have with this council as Government nominees? I think they are going to feel as much out of things as anybody else. I think the most important point of all in this regard is that what the Minister is doing, if he does not accept this amendment, is that he will be bypassing Parliament. There cannot be two ways about that. It is quite clear that, in the absence of any direct link with Parliament, the conduct and the control of matters affecting the Coloured people will be in the hands of the executive branch of the Government only. In other words, the Coloured people will be ruled by bureaucratic and executive decisions; they will not have the proper voice by means of this council that they should have in Parliament itself. Parliament and its representatives, in regard to all the matters mentioned in Clause 17 (6) (a) will be by-passed. We are not in favour of executive rule of that kind; we disapprove of it very much indeed.

May I just say that if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept this amendment linking the council with the parliamentary representatives of the Coloured people, he will be dispelling many doubts in the minds of many people as to the political rights of the Coloured people in South Africa in the near future. If you look at the matters referred to in Clause 17 (6) (a) you will find that the headings reveal a great deal. The first heading is “finance”. Of course “finance” covers absolutely everything affecting the Coloured people no matter in what field. The second heading is “local government”. The third heading is “education”. We assume, with a blanket heading like that, that it will mean higher education, lower education, technical education, adult education and so on. Then there are “community welfare and pensions” and finally “rural areas and settlements for Coloureds”. What other issues are there, in fact, that this council is not going to deal with but are of immediate concern to their representatives in this House? Are we to accept the Minister’s assurance about their retention just as it is or will he do his duty by the country by including our amendment in this Statute in order to give an assurance to the Coloured people and to the country that their political rights in this House, at any rate, are safeguarded? If the Government is sincere about this matter, if they really mean what they say in regard to the Coloured Representatives in this House, I can think of no better means for them to prove their bona fides than by accepting this amendment.

In dealing with this particular clause, I believe the Government, in introducing this legislation, is following a pattern which is becoming more manifest in every clause, and that is, to treat the Coloured man as an infant and the Bantu like a hothouse flower. I would like to enlarge upon the amendments which have been moved because I feel, as a Coloured Representative I should have some access to the proceedings of councils of this kind.

During the second-reading debate, I mentioned that in my zeal to do a good job, I wrote to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs asking for the resolutions passed and the decisions taken by the Union Council for Coloured Affairs and those acted upon by the Government. I received a reply to the effect that the resolutions were treated as strictly confidential and that the proceedings took place in private. The hon. the Minister will realize, that that places a tremendous handicap upon men who conscientiously wish to do their job and serve the people they represent in another legislative body. From my experience of executive committees I want to say that there are one or two things here, which I think the Minister should concede, because they are going to hamstring the persons who are going to serve on this council as well as those on the executive committee. I do not wish to labour the point “on request”; that has been covered very thoroughly by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel).

The first point that arises is this “By mediation of the Minister.” What happens if the Minister is not willing to mediate? It can conceivably happen that these people are shut off. I think they should have the power and the authority, without having to go via the Minister, to approach any Minister on any problem that may confront them. I hope the Minister will see the value of what I say. In the first place it saves time and in the second place it will save a lot of trouble. There can be no reason whatsoever that they must go via the Minister. Or is the Minister setting himself up as the Great Mogul, and will the whole thing devolve upon him, and will the success or failure of this council rest upon him?

The Government in this particular Bill also gives the right to the Minister and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs to attend any meeting of the council or the executive committee. That looks very nice in print, and when discussions take place in friendly fashion, it is perfectly harmless. But, these executive committees have to take decisions which are sometimes a little tough to take, and the persons involved may not wish to express themselves freely in the company and presence of the hon. Minister or the Secretary for Coloured Affairs. Coversely should it so happen that the Minister of Coloured Affairs is the person about whom they wish to talk— not the present incumbent but his successors in office—or the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, it can conceivably happen that the executive committee is most unwilling and cannot express itself freely. So I think the Minister should realize and appreciate that the very object that he is setting out to achieve, namely to give these people freedom of expression, within limits, is being further stultified by making it possible for him to be present. What can happen is this: If a matter for discussion is one in respect of which the Minister has very strong feelings, he can use his powers of persuasion, which are very considerable no doubt, and so can the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, and they can more or less impose their will upon an executive of this particular kind. I do not suggest for one moment that the present hon. Minister will do that, but it lays itself open to that type of practice and tactics if the clause is allowed to stand in its present form. I therefore put it to the hon. Minister that he would be well advised, particularly in view of what I have said to change this. I have sat on an executive committee and I know how these matters are discussed and the difficulties that do arise. These matters are supposed to be confidential, but discussions take place and statements are made in public; for example, that the executive was unanimous. Persons in the minority where no votes are recorded, are brought in with the majority and are condemned accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister is also able to take part in the proceedings of the council itself. Let me say from long experience in public work that I have seen aggressive people almost dominating if not domineering a council of that kind, and where the members of such a council are persons from a lower station in life, they find themselves quite unable to argue with such a knowledgeable person. The hon. Minister and his officials, especially the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, have all the information at their call. One can well imagine what would happen in this council if the hon. Minister decided to take certain members to task. I say quite frankly that free discussion, a full debate which should take place, and canvassing points in such elected bodies, will be almost eliminated, and there will not be a true reflection of the genuine point of view of that council. The hon. the Minister knows very well that these things are true. I cannot for one moment think that he will intentionally bring about the very conditions I have mentioned, because I think he sincerely believes that this council is going to work. I want to say to him that if he wants it to work, he must give these people freedom of association, he must give them freedom of expression, and they must be entitled to talk to higher authorities and not through one channel only, and that one channel is, in terms of this clause, the Minister himself via the Secretary for Coloured Affairs. It is a bad thing in principle and I do hope that the hon. Minister will not press his own views.

In line 15 an amendment is suggested, namely, that it should read “in consultation with” instead of “after consultation”. There is a vast difference in the phraseology. “After consultation” does not say who is going to do the consulting. Somebody else can consult with the Minister of Finance, and he can quite rightly say: “Nothing doing; for this, that, and the other reason your proposition is not acceptable. You are increasing expenditure and the money is finished.” But if you say “in consultation with”, that means, I would say, that you have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister of Finance present, and to talk to him and to hear his point of view and to ascertain the why’s and the wherefors. If we are genuinely going to uplift these people and teach them and train them, as the Minister says he wants to do, surely finance is the one thing where it should be “in consultation with”. The most experienced man at the present moment is the Minister of Finance by virtue of his office, and surely he should be the man with whom they consult, and it should be “in consultation with” and not “after consultation”, because “after consultation with” puts a very different meaning as to who is to do the consulting and with whom they are to consult. The hon. Minister has made a few concessions to-day, and I would like to compliment him on some of the explanations he has given, which have been accepted. It has been very refreshing, but I do hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of giving some access to this council to the elected Representatives of the Coloured community in Parliament. The hon. Minister has said of course, and it has been stated by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, that it is not the intention to do away with us. I for one have quite an open mind, but I do say that if the Coloured community via this executive committee, via the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, via the Minister, via the various other Ministers is going to have this as the only means of access to this House, then elected Members of Parliament should have access to the council. [Time limit.]

Hon. members should just accept this clause without amendment. Thorough attention was given to the drafting of this clause, and let me say in the first place that hon. members perhaps do not realize that this council is being established to form a link with the Government of the day, to negotiate and to advise and to have consultations. This council is not being established for other purposes. It is being established to advise the Government of the day. One is surprised that when hon. members criticize this clause they just state blindly at (1) (a), which really means that this is the method being established by which the Government gets the right to go to this Coloured council at any time and to ask them for advice. It is an interaction which will take place here, and in terms of this Bill the Government takes the right to go to this council at any time when it wants the advice of the council and to say: Advise me in respect of this particular matter.

Who will determine that?

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is evidently suffering from some ailment. Just as soon as I want to explain something, he begins talking. In other words, this Clause 20 (1) (a) emphasizes the right of the Government to ask for advice. There may be matters which are very clear to the Government and in regard to which it does not need advice but has all the information available. That is why (1) (a) is there. But (1) (b) goes further, and that hon. members very conveniently quote just in passing. They just skim lightly over it. They do not want to emphasize it. Sub-section (1) (b) says that the council shall have power to make recommendations to the Government in regard to any planning calculated to promote the best interests of the said population. In other words, the council can of its own accord advise the Government in respect of any planning which promotes their interest. What has now happened in practice? These words are literally the same in the present Act in respect of the present council. Very well. The present council was never at any time prevented from giving advice on its own initiative. In respect of many matters, without the Government asking them to do so, they took the initiative and forwarded proposals to the Government. For example, the council just the other day asked in my presence (it was at their request that I attended the meeting) to interview another Minister. That was on their own initiative. I got up and said that I would assist them to interview him. In other words, hon. members over there are arguing about something which does not exist; they are arguing about a danger that does not exist.

The second point of interest raised here was the one raised by the hon. member for Peninsula and also by the hon. member for Wynberg. They say we should now give the Coloured Representatives the right not only to attend the sessions of this council, but also the right to speak in that council. This change of attitude is very interesting. This council has now become so important that members of the House of Assembly not only want to be allowed to sit there, but also want to have the right to speak there. Until last Friday this Coloured council was worthless; it was a travesty and a mockery and a farce, but if the four Coloureds’ Representatives in this House have the right to speak there it will be a perfect council. What nonsense! The hon. members knew when they moved this amendment that I would not accept it, and I shall state why. It is because I will not allow that council to be used as a platform for politicians in this House to peddle their politics. I say that very clearly. If these hon. members want to know what goes on in that Coloured council, they can get to know it in three ways. They can either read it in the Press or they can consult the minutes of the council, or they can go and sit on the gallery and listen. When planning the building for this council, we will bear in mind building a special gallery so that hon. members can go and listen there. But in so far as this legislation is concerned, they will not have the right to take a seat in that council or to speak there.

Does that apply to the Coloureds’ Representatives also?

I am speaking about the Coloureds’ Representatives now, and I shall give my reason. In the first place the members here are elected by two quite different groups.

Different Coloureds?

The representatives in this House are elected, inter alia, by Indians, but here we are dealing with a purely Coloured council. Secondly, they are elected by voters who have a qualified vote, but this council will now be elected on the broad basis of one man, one vote. The second reason which is decisive in this regard is that this council is intended to advise the Government of the day (whatever Government might be in power) to control Coloured Affairs in consultation with it, and to act administratively and, in respect of certain specific matters, legislatively. Therefore the two institutions have nothing to do with each other in this regard. I come now to the third argument. The argument was advanced that money will be made available to this council and that the council will now spend this money on education and local Government and in respect of welfare and pensions, etc., as set out in Clause 17 (6) (a). Now the point is this: How will those hon. members (this point was raised particularly by the hon. member for Wynberg) now know what this council has done in regard to the expenditure of money in respect of every one of these matters? My reply to that is that every year a globular amount will have to be voted by this Parliament for the purposes of this Coloured council. Then the Coloureds’ Representatives in this House will have the right to question the Minister concerned and the Minister of Finance to discover what this money was made available for. Further, there will also be audited reports from which these matters will become clear to hon. members. Then they also have the right to get up in this House during any debate affecting Coloured Affairs and to raise any matter they wish to. That is my reply to this specific objection.

I wish to conclude by saying that the proposed Coloured council will be an institution as described in Clause 20, namely an institution intended to serve as a means of contact between the Government of the day on the one hand and the Coloured population on the other.

Another point was also raised under this clause. This point is that supposing the Minister of Coloured Affairs acts as the channel of communication between the Coloured council and his other colleagues in the Cabinet … In my second-reading speech I made it quite clear why this provision was made. I pointed out that this provision was made because we could not accept another proposal, namely that there should be a permanent select committee. Hon. members will remember that originally there was a proposal that a permanent select committee be appointed before which the members of this proposed executive committee could appear, but I explained to hon. members that to embody such a proposal in legislation was in conflict with the spirit of this Parliament. Therefore, in order to provide that there would be a permanent link between the Government of the day on the one hand and the Coloured council on the other, this clause was formulated as it now reads. I said that during my second-reading speech. It is proposed that this Coloured council should not, as in the case of the existing Coloured council, be able to go to the Minister concerned, but that it will have access through the Minister concerned to any other Minister. That is stated here very clearly. Through the mediation of the Minister concerned, members of the executive committee will therefore have direct access to any other Minister in regard to any matter affecting the Coloured population. That right is granted here.

But only through the mediation of the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

But of course! Surely that Minister must make the appointment. He must inform his colleagues that the Coloured council wants to interview them. If it concerns a matter on which a final reply can be given immediately, that reply will be given immediately, but in cases which require consultation the Minister will request his colleague who is concerned with the matter to grant an interview to the Coloured council. In such cases the Council will then have the right of access to that Minister. The Minister of Coloured Affairs, however, is only the channel for arranging these things. When I refer here to the Minister it does not necessarily mean the Minister himself. Hon. members opposite have been in opposition so long already that they no longer know how a country is administered. That is their difficulty.

Let us return to normal.

They should not blame me for saying this. As I have said, “Minister” does not necessarily mean the Minister in person. There may in fact be an arrangement that, when routine matters are concerned, the one head of the Department can contact the other head of the Department. [Interjections.] Of course this is being done every day. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) knows absolutely nothing about these matters.

Why must you become so personal?

You are acting like an unmannerly schoolboy.

The hon. member should not become so angry if I tickle him a little.

You must mend your manners if you want to be a Minister.

Order!

That hon. member is the last person to teach me manners. [Interjection.]

Order!

Sir, it is sometimes almost contemptible to see how people squeal like a lot of women if one hits out at them a little. The hon. member for Kensington makes all kinds of allegations here but as soon as one hits back he squeals.

Continue with the Bill.

I will say what I like, until the Chairman calls me to order.

To come back to the point under discussion, let me say that the foregoing are the reasons why I cannot accept this proposal. What is behind this proposal is not the intention to improve this Bill, but it is an attempt to destroy this proposed Coloured council and to foster disorderliness where there should be order, and to destroy everything which this Government is trying to build up in an orderly way. Such attempts are not intended to increase the status of the proposed Coloured council, but to create chaos, and then hon. members opposite will be able to turn round and say that this council does not function properly. That is in fact what lies behind this proposal, and because that is the case rather than being to the benefit of the Coloured population, I reject it with the contempt it deserves.

If all proposals put forward by the Opposition were always viewed by hon. Ministers with as much suspicion as they are viewed by this hon. Minister, this House of Assembly would become a useless body. The Minister is wrong if he believes that this side has undergone a metamorphosis. The Opposition was opposed to the principle of this Bill, but at the same time we made it clear that once the principle was accepted by this House we would do our best to make the proposed Coloured council as effective as possible, and indeed the proposals which have come from this side are intended to make this Coloured council as effective as possible in the circumstances. The hon. the Minister may not agree with our proposals but I think he must accept that we are putting forward these proposals in good faith.

Mr. Chairman, you will see on the Order Paper that there is an amendment in my name which is almost similar to that of the hon. member for Peninsula. My amendment, however, differs from his in two respects, and that is why I should like to move it—

1. (5) Members of the House of Assembly elected to represent the Coloured voters may, with leave of the council, attend any meeting of the council and take part in the proceedings thereat, but shall not have the right to vote at any such meeting.

The hon. the Minister made it clear in his second-reading speech that the respresentatives of the Coloureds in this House, that is to say, the House of Assembly, would remain here permanently. In other words, the Government has now accepted this principle. There will continue to be a link therefore between the Coloureds and the Whites in our supreme legislative assembly. This undertaking on the part of the Government implies not only that it will allow these representatives to remain here but that it will not undermine or weaken their position or the position of the Coloured representatives in the provincial council. Well, this amendment of mine will test the value of this undertaking. What I am asking for here actually is for recognition of the position of the Coloured representatives. The form of that representation is not as important as the principle that is involved here. If the hon. the Minister himself can think of a better form in which the Coloureds can be represented here, we are prepared to consider it. We are not asking that these Coloured representatives should be able to take part, as a matter of right, in the proceedings of the proposed council or of the executive committee. All we ask is that they should be allowed to do so if the Coloured council asks for it and grants them leave to do so.

This matter should be viewed from two angles. It must be remembered that this House will remain the supreme legislative authority as far as matters affecting the Coloureds are concerned. It may happen that members of the Coloured council will want to bring certain representations not only to the notice of the Minister, representations which he may reject, but also to the notice of the Coloured representatives who sit in this House, the supreme legislative authority. In this way we can ensure that not only the Government but also the Coloured representatives are kept informed as to the needs of the Coloured community. I view this matter therefore firstly from the point of view of the Coloured council. As I have said, there may be matters which the council would like to bring to the notice of the Coloured representatives here. Secondly, the Coloured representatives in this House may wish to consult with the Coloured council. In this connection it must be remembered that the Coloured representatives here have to take part in the enactment of legislation which drastically affects the interests of the Coloured population.

I feel therefore that this motion is a very reasonable one.

I regret very much that the hon. the Minister did not continue with his speech in the same tone as that with which he started it off. The change of tone was quite uncalled for. If the Minister’s reaction to the interjection by the hon. member for Kensington is an example of what his reaction is going to be to the Coloured people who upset him, then I am afraid the Coloured people are in for a bad time! I was beginning to hope that the hon. the Minister was beginning to understand that the amendments which were being put forward here and many of them have been accepted—were being put forward with the object of improving a bad Bill.

Now, the Minister has made great play of the fact that he will be the person through whom mediation will take place, but can he give us the assurance that he will act as such a channel also when it does not suit him to do so? He knows that he has ignored the present council whenever it suited him. And need I remind the House once more of the fact that when we as Coloured representatives were approached by the present Coloured Council with a request to the Minister that certain legislation should be held over, the Minister said he would not allow being dictated to by an outside body. Well, let me say that if we take notice of some of the Minister’s erratic behaviour when he is in charge of a Bill, it will lower the standards to be maintained in this House.

Have you been anything else than erratic?

Why does the Minister want this clause? Why can these people see the other Ministers only through the mediation of this Minister? The Minister has tried to escape this Bill by indicating that we do not appreciate administrative action by this Government, but this Bill does not give the Minister any power to delegate the right to be the mediator between the other Departments and the Department of Coloured Affairs. Will the Minister tell me that if he is away, if the Government sits in Cape Town and the Minister goes to his constituency, as he did a week ago to open a show, and these people want to see a Minister urgently—what do they do then?

There is nothing in this Bill to say that while the Minister is away temporarily the Secretary for Coloured Affairs will be the mediator.

Surely it is not necessary to put that into the Bill. It is a matter of common sense.

The Minister does not understand the Bill. What happens if someone wants to see the Minister of Bantu Education and the Minister of Coloured Affairs is not available?

Then his Secretary contacts me and makes an appointment.

He has no right to do it. [Interjections.] The members of this Executive Committee are very important people. They have to deal with important matters and they should have the right, on their own, to be able to go to any Minister whom they want to see. But no, there must be apartheid; they do not have chairs for them to sit on. Is that the reason? Why cannot these people see the Minister of Bantu Education without the mediation of the Minister of Coloured Affairs on matters on which they have the power to act? If they want some advice from the Minister of Pensions, why should this Minister have to say that they can or cannot go to see him? Why should this Minister prevent these people from carrying out their duties?

Where do you get hold of that nonsense? Read the clause. They have the right to do so.

No, only by mediation of this Minister.

That is only the procedure to be followed.

I am not interested in this procedure. This Executive Committee, which has the important portfolios of finance, welfare, local government, education, community welfare and rural areas …

Read Clause 20bis (3).

I have read it dozens of times. It says “by mediation of the Minister members of the Executive Committee shall have direct access”. It is only by your mediation.

It says “shall have”.

No, it is only by mediation of this Minister that they shall have that right.

That is Government procedure all over the world, and it is the same in the case of the Transkeian Government.

Why cannot members of the Executive have direct access to any Minister in connection with any matter affecting the Coloured population? If this Minister will not mediate with the hon. the Minister of Labour or the Deputy Minister of Labour in connection with job reservation, if he tells these Coloured people, “That is the policy of the Government and I will not allow you to talk to the Minister about job reservation; I refuse to mediate”, then these people will be unable to go and see that particular Minister. Is that the type of strangle-hold that we want over these people? Sir, may I read out the Afrikaans text to the Minister—

“Het.”

Well, let me accept the argument of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education that they have the right. If they have the right to go, why have the words “by mediation of the Minister”? Then you might as well delete these words. If the intention is that they are to have the right of direct access to Ministers, then the words “by mediation of the Minister” are superfluous. [Time limit.]

Sir, I do not rise to give further information; I do so just to place on record the truth, which must eventually reach the public, and to place on record the fact that the interpretation which the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) placed on this clause a moment ago is a wilful interpretation which is only calculated to sow distrust in the minds of the Coloureds and to confuse them.

That is untrue; it is a deliberate lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

And apologize.

I withdraw the word “lie” and say that it is a deliberate untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

And apologize.

I withdraw them, but may I then substitute for those words …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately and unconditionally.

I withdraw the words “deliberate lie”. May I just go to say …

No, the hon. member must resume his seat immediately without further discussion.

May I address you on a point of order?

No. The hon. member must resume his seat.

I leave the hon. member there, because the less notice one takes of him the better.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to make these provocative remarks about an hon. member?

I am shock-proof.

Order!

I rise to say that in the first place this clause was deliberately inserted by the Government because the Government wanted to create an opportunity for this body to get in touch and to deal with the whole of the Government in respect of all matters affecting the life of the Coloured community, and that this clause was specifically framed in this way so that the Council will know through which channel they will be able to exercise this right of theirs. In other words an obligation is being placed on the Minister concerned by means of this clause to act as the channel through which the Coloured population will have direct access to all Cabinet Ministers. I say that to get the truth on record, and I say that any person who says anything to the contrary is malicious and dishonest and disloyal to the interests of South Africa.

On a point of order, surely the hon. the Minister must withdraw those remarks. He is referring to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). Is he allowed to call him “oneerlik” (dishonest)?

The Minister said, “If anybody says that then he is dishonest.”

Sir, the point I am taking is that the Minister said that in reply to the hon. member for Boland.

He said “Ek los die agb. lid daar”.

He was talking to the hon. member for Boland, and then he got out of it by saying, “Any person who says that is dishonest”, and the hon. member for Boland had just said it.

The hon. the Minister said, “Anybody who says that is dishonest.” In other words, I take it that he was not referring to the hon. member for Boland and I leave it at that.

On a point of order, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is an amendment by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) on the Order Paper which seeks to delete those very words. I was talking to that amendment, and when speaking to an amendment which is on the Order Paper I should like to have your protection; I should not be insulted and called names by the hon. the Minister.

I wish to raise another point. In view of what the hon. the Minister has just said I would like to say to him immediately that I believe that as a plain matter of interpretation this sub-section (3) does not in fact give this right of access to Ministers, unless the Minister agrees to mediate, and in those circumstances I hope that the Minister will be prepared to indicate that he will agree to an amendwent which will put the meaning of this clause beyond all doubt. I will write out the amendment later, but I would like the Minister to agree to accept the deletion of the words “by mediation”, and the clause would then read—

But then, Sir, as it is proper that this should be arranged through the Department of the responsible Minister, I should like to add the words—

That would achieve the effect which members are asking for, and that is that there shall be a clear right of access, stated in specific terms in the law. At the same time this will preserve protocol in that these particular arrangements will have to be made through the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The hon. the Minister has said that that is in fact the meaning of the clause. There I must disagree with him. As a plain matter of construction I am utterly convinced that the way the clause now reads there is no right of access; the right of access is subject to this Minister agreeing to mediate. He has told us that our interpretation of the clause is wrong and I hope he will agree to accept an amendment to that effect.

The word “shall” gives it a particular meaning.

Sir, “shall” does not always mean exactly what it says. The hon. the Minister is right to this extent that members of the executive “shall” have direct access, but it is only by mediation of the Minister. It cannot possibly be read into it that this clause makes it obligatory; it would be in the discretion of the hon. the Minister, but he tells us that is not his intention. To get satisfaction on this matter and above all, to make it clear to the Coloured people what is intended, I hope the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept an amendment in the form I have mentioned.

Where a Minister has a discretion the word “may” is always used.

No, Sir, with respect, that is not the case. When it says “by mediation of the Minister” it is perfectly obvious that the Minister has the right to mediate or not to mediate as he sees fit in the particular case.

I wish to put another amendment to the Minister and I move the two amendments now—

The first amendment is also designed to give effect to what the Minister has told us is the intention. The hon. the Minister is asked to agree to the omission of the words “on request”. The Minister has indicated that in respect of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) they can only deal with those matters on request of the Minister and that their rights are made clear in paragraph (b) which reads—

The hon. Minister has indicated that that gives them the right to approach the Government on their own initiative with recommendations. To make it quite clear that they have the right to deal with matters generally and not only in regard to “any planning calculated to promote the best interests of the said population” I have moved in line 76 to omit “planning” and to insert “matter”. If that is accepted the clause will read—

The clause will then mean exactly what the hon. the Minister told us just now it was intended to mean.

I just want to refer to one point. The Afrikaans text reads “deur bemiddeling” (by mediation). There is no negative form for the term “deur bemiddeling”. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) argues that “by mediation of the Minister” means that the Minister may mediate or that he need not mediate if he does not wish to do so. As I see the position, the words “deur bemiddeling van die Minister” simply indicate the procedure which is to be followed. It does not say “only after the Minister’s approval” or “only after the Minister has agreed” or “if the Minister so pleases”. These words simply indicate the procedure to be followed, that is to say, “by mediation of the Minister.” It is perfectly clear in the Afrikaans text. If the English text does not convey the same meaning we should look for a better English term. Mr. Chairman, I just rose to clear up this point.

I wish to refer to sub-section (5) (a) and (b). I shall choose the words which are applicable to what I have to say—

1. (a) the Council may with the approval of the Minister appoint servants and
2. (b) The Council may establish a pension scheme for the servants or any class of servants appointed by it.

What I should like to know is this: In establishing a pension scheme for the servants they have appointed how will the money be guaranteed? Will a pension fund be established? Will this council have authority to establish a pension fund? Or will it be a fund established through the Government of South Africa? I think those questions should be investigated because it gives the council financial power which the hon. the Minister assured us earlier to-day they would not have.

During the course of this debate the hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) that when he tickled the Opposition they did not laugh but cried.

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

I now want to tickle the hon. Minister and see whether he laughs. If I were to say that if anybody places the construction on the phrases “on request”, “by the mediation” and so on which the Minister places on them, is telling a deliberate untruth to the Coloured people of South Africa, how would the hon. the Minister like that? These words in their ordinary meaning mean something completely different from what the hon. the Minister has been trying to tell us they mean. We have had the latest development in the intervention on the part of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) who has said the Afrikaans is perfectly clear—“deur bemiddeling”. He says there is no negative for that. Nor is there any direct opposite, as it were, for the word “mediation”. There is either mediation or there is no mediation. So the Afrikaans text is no better from that point of view than the English text. [Interjections.] All right, what is the opposite of mediation? This has now become an exercise in semantics, with great respect to the hon. member for Randfontein, Sir.

The point I wish to make is this: “by mediation” means that somebody has to mediate. In the context of this clause only the Minister can mediate. Nowhere in the clause does it say that the Minister is obliged or compelled to mediate. A Cabinet Minister is not compelled to do anything. The last Cabinet Minister I know who is going to be compelled to do anything is the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs. I think he will be the first to concede that. So that the decision to mediate will be the decision which he himself will make on the subject the Coloured Council would wish to discuss with the particular Minister who is his colleague. The hon. Minister of Bantu Education says this is the normal procedure, as if nobody can address a Cabinet Minister unless another Cabinet Minister has mediated! I submit that this places the Coloured Council in a worse position than a member of the public because a member of the public is entitled to seek an interview with a member of the Cabinet without the mediation of anybody concerned.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.