announced that he had on behalf of Parliament accepted a bust of the Honourable B. J. Vorster, D.M.S., former State President and Prime Minister, by Nell Kaye. The bust had been presented to Parliament by the K.W.V. and would be placed in the Gallery Hall.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House, I wish to point out that during the coming week the House will continue to deal with the Votes. The Industries, Commerce and Tourism Vote will come up for discussion on Monday, 3 May, while the State Administration and Statistics Vote will be discussed on Tuesday, 4 May. The Foreign Affairs Vote will be discussed on Wednesday, 5 May, and the Law and Order Vote on Friday, 7 May. A Standing Committee will deal with the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote in the Senate Chamber on Monday, 3 May, and with the Education and Training Vote on Friday, 7 May.

For the rest, this House will deal with legislation, as it appears on the Order Paper, during the intervals between the discussions of the various Votes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to various issues that have been raised here by hon. members. I hope they will understand that there are quite a number of issues to which I will have to reply.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Umbilo referred to the question of race classification. I want to point out immediately that naturally we deal with these applications in a most sympathetic way because I do agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that this is a sensitive issue. I want to assure hon. members that every application for reclassification which is received by the department is dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Act No. 30 of 1950. Each application is also dealt with on its specific merits. In this regard I want to point out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that not only the descent of a person, but also his appearance, his acceptability and actual acceptance by the community are of paramount importance when an application for reclassification is considered. Should there then still be any doubt about the feasibility of reclassification, the habits of the person concerned, his education, manner of speech and general demeanour are taken into account, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

*The hon. member for Rissik, arising out of the reply which I gave to a question in connection with the number of people who had been reclassified—an aspect to which reference is also made in the annual report—asked whether there was an explanation of why, in the year under review, so many people had been reclassified, from Coloured to White as well. I want to react to that at once by saying—and this ties in with the question which the hon. member for Umbilo put to me—that I requested the department myself to dispose of applications of this nature as quickly as possible, in view of the human circumstances involved.

† A backlog was in fact built up over a long period but by the middle of December 1981 that backlog had been caught up on by means of the assistance of senior overtime personnel who had been specially trained for this work. For this reason the number of reclassifications mainly in the case of Cape Coloured to White has shown a sharp increase.

*Since only the date of approval or refusal of an application was concentrated on in the past, and not the date on which the application for reclassification was received, I consequently do not have data in respect of those specific circumstances. However, I think that the figures with which I am now going to furnish hon. members—and these are approximate figures because I do not have the specific information—will most probably be as close as possible to the correct ones. Applications which were carried over from 1979 to 1980 were plus minus 304. Applications received during 1980, were 500. The number of cases disposed of, were 186. Consequently 618 cases were carried over from 1980 to 1981, while there were 379 applications during that year—i.e. 1981. In contrast with the previous year, when only 186 were disposed of, 794 cases were disposed of in that year, which represents a carry over of 203. I hope the hon. member now understands why this was the case. I just wish to say—I do not wish to make a political issue out of this; I really do not think that the hon. member asked the question for that reason—that these matters are sensitive matters. I hope and trust that all hon. members in this House will refrain from trying to derive some benefit or other from these human circumstances. The hon. member for Rissik says he accepts it like that.

†The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to delays in dealing with applications for identity documents and in regard to race classification matters. As far as delays in regard to the issue of identity documents are concerned, I have to explain again that if application forms are correctly completed, it takes from eight to ten weeks for the particular identity documents to be issued. However, if application forms are not correctly completed, it follows naturally that there will be delays.

*In this connection I wish to tell the hon. member at once that as far as this section of the department is concerned, 20 000 files have to be handled every day. The hon. member will therefore understand that even with a full staff it is very difficult to succeed in disposing of these applications more rapidly

†As far as applications for race classification are concerned, every effort is being made by the department as well as by the regional offices of the department which are responsible for the submission of detailed reports, photographs and so forth, to expedite the finalization of applications as far as practicably possible. I believe that the figures I have just given to the hon. member for Rissik indicate that we try to deal with these applications as expeditiously as possible.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the issue of the effective date of 30 June 1982, the date on which voters must be in possession of an identity document, and he also referred to the position of elderly people. In reply to the first issue which he raised I want to point out that the Government has approved in principle that the Electoral Act be amended. A Bill in terms of which the Act will be amended will be introduced during the current session. The Bill will, amongst other things, provide for the amendment of section 200 to provide that the said section will not come into operation on 1 July 1982, but on a date to be determined by the State President by way of proclamation.

That is much better.

Yes, it will be much better because then one will not have to amend the Act every time.

I now want to deal with the compilation of the voters’ roll from the population register. Voters who do not possess identity documents will nonetheless qualify for registration as voters for any particular election if they can prove (a) that they have applied for an identity document or (b) that they were registered on a previous valid voters’ list. Nobody should therefore be disenfranchised in this particular regard.

The Act will therefore be amended in this particular regard too?

Yes, the Act will be amended in this respect as well.

The hon. member for Durban Point expressed doubt about people who will be left off the voters’ roll, and he also referred to delays in the decentralization of the activities of the department.

I raised the same question about identity documents and I made a proposal.

Yes, I am coming to that.

As I have just indicated, the Government has already decided that a Bill will be introduced to amend the Act in so far as the effective date is concerned on which a voter will have to be in possession of an identity document.

How does he prove he has applied?

He must have a letter or a record of his application. In 99% of the cases such a letter or record will be readily available.

Can the department not send an acknowledgment of the receipt of an application?

I have a little difficulty in that regard, but I shall try to establish whether it will be possible to send out acknowledgments of receipt.

In order not to disenfranchise voters we shall amend section 200 of the Act during the course of the current session of Parliament. I have already indicated that the names of these people will be incorporated in the list provided that they are able to prove that they have been on the list or that they have applied for identity documents. I shall discuss the possibility of issuing acknowledgments of the receipt of applications with the department, but I do not wish to load an already understaffed department further.

Persons whose application for an identity docoument cannot be finalized because of the incorrect completion of their application forms—this is the case in most cases—are furnished with a provisional identity number for use until such time as a final identity document is issued. The final number is unique in the sense that it reflects the date of birth, the population group and the citizenship of the holder.

As regards the decentralization of voters’ lists, I want to point out that such decentralization will result in a duplication of the registration of voters—the hon. member will no doubt appreciate that—because a central voters’ index will be necessary to eliminate duplication. Problems will also be encountered to remove the names of demised persons or emigrants from the decentralized indices. I should also like to point out that the department is at present undertaking an inquiry into the feasibility of eventually compiling the municipal voters’ rolls from the population register. This will be done in consultation with the various municipal associations as soon as the present phase of the decentralization of this section of the department is complete.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River raised several basically interesting as pects, inter alia, the compilation of the voters’ roll and the population register, the use of identity documents at elections and referendums, giving notification of changes in address, the issuing of uniform identity documents for all population groups, as well as the norms which are applied in connection with reclassification. I want to say at once that the Government has already approved the introduction of an amending Bill during the present session which will, inter alia, make provision for the complication of the voters’ roll on the basis of the population register. The population register is already more complete today than the separate voters’ index. The latest comparative figures of potential voters in the population register and the voters’ index are: Population register 2,6 million voters, and voters’ index, 2,37 million voters. Consequently there is already a considerable improvement. Since almost 75% or more of the White voters whose names have been included in the present voters’ lists are estimated to have been included in the population register already, special arrangements are being put into operation to include as far as possible the names of all the voters whose names appear in the present voters’ index, but who have not yet been included in the present population register. At present we are taking special steps to accomplish this. The voters’ index was compared with the population register to determine which voters do not yet have identity documents, and the names of voters who not yet have identity documents are referred to the various regional offices of the department for the purpose of obtaining applications for identity documents from these people. In the draft legislation to amend the Population Registration Act, 1950, which is going to be introduced during the present session, officers and employees of Government departments, provincial administrations, statutory bodies and local authorities are being empowered, where they deem it necessary for the discharge of their functions and for effective staff administration, to require that they be shown identity documents. This will encourage people to obtain identity documents without any further delay. I think this ought to help considerably.

As regards the reporting of changes of address, I agree that we can to a large extent make use of local authorities—the hon. member for Hercules also referred to this—to assist us. I shall furnish the hon. member with full replies to the other points which he raised at a later stage.

The hon. member also requested that we should compel immigrants to become citizens of our country. I want to say at once that I agree with the hon. member that it is preferable that people who enjoy permanent residence in this country should become citizens of the country so that they may also fulfil their civic obligations. However, it has always been the standpoint of this Government that the obtaining of South African citizenship by immigrants should be a voluntary step and that we should encourage them to do so.

Do they not automatically become South African citizens now after two years?

This only applies in respect of certain age groups, and I shall come to that in a moment. To possess South African citizenship is something one is proud of, and I maintain that if a person obtains citizenship through immigration, one must deserve it. Therefore we are selective in respect of the admission of immigrants to our country, and for these specific reasons we are also selective in respect of the granting of citizenship to people who have permanent residence rights in our country. There are none of us in this House who are not descended from immigrants. Immigrants have after all made a tremendous contribution, and are still doing so today, to the economic development of our country and to the cultural enrichment of people because an influence is exerted which can be to the good of the country. In addition I just wish to point out—I am not saying that the hon. member advocated this—that compulsory citizenship might discourage immigration to our country, something which we should not allow to happen either. In terms of the legislation passed in 1978, immigrants under the age of 23 years automatically acquire South African citizenship after having been resident in this country for two years. Moreover, I want to point out that the children of immigrants who are born in South Africa automatically acquire South African citizenship.

†The hon. member for Mooi River has made a plea for the Griqua people. Let me say immediately that the Griqua people are a divided people. I am just stating the facts. They have organized themselves into two organizations, namely the Griqua National Conference and the Griqua National Council. An assertion that this community is not consulted does not reflect the true position. I should like to inform the hon. member, and he may use this information, that I do have consultations with the leaders of this community from time to time. In fact I met leaders of the community, at their request, as recently as 2 July and 7 September 1981. As the hon. member will remember, the Government has appointed a departmental committee, the Mentz Committee, to inquire into the status of this population group with reference to its constitutional and its socioeconomic position in South Africa. The deputation I have met has requested that the Griqua people not be identified as a subgroup of some other group but that they be identified as Griquas. I think the hon. member will agree with me that that is their point of view. The findings and recommendations of this committee of inquiry will now be referred to the President’s Council for further advice.

With regard to the secondary school, I may just sat that the school is in a bad condition, but there is no classroom accommodation problem. In other words, there are fewer children than the capacity of the school. However, because of the condition of the school the priority allocated to this particular scheme has in fact been advanced. In terms of the building programme it was originally anticipated to start with the school in 1985. Depending upon the availability of funds, we now hope to start next year with its construction. It will be a conventional building, and therefore one must anticipate that it might take about two years to complete. But we are attending to this matter.

Secondly, I wish to point out that we encourage participation of parents and communities in school activities because we believe that if education is to be effective, there must be a partnership between the teacher, the parent and the community and that the object of that partnership must be the interest of the child. Therefore I agree with the hon. member in this particular regard.

*The hon. members for Durban Point, Brakpan and Randburg referred to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act of 1968. First of all, I wish to rectify something for the sake of the record. In one of the Sunday newspapers a report appeared on a standpoint which the hon. member for Randburg was alleged to have adopted in this specific connection. In my opinion, however, that report did not reflect the standpoint of the hon. member for Randburg, and I therefore wish to quote the hon. member’s speech in this connection. The hon. member for Waterkloof can then judge for himself—if he is capable of doing so in a reasonable way—whether the newspaper report corresponds to what the hon. member for Randburg said. I think the hon. member for Waterkloof will concede that this is fair.

[Inaudible.]

Why, then, is the hon. member making a derogatory remark?

Because last year too the hon. member for Randburg had to correct what he had said.

He did not have to correct it.

Yes, he has to do it all the time.

Is the hon. member for Waterkloof always reported correctly?

No, very definitely not. [Interjections.]

Of course not. In fact, I do not think he is ever right.

In a speech of 19 typed pages the hon. member for Randburg devoted precisely four lines to the specific subject, and I shall quote these lines—

That is all the hon. member said, and it is therefore not fair, on the basis of these four lines, to write the kind of report which appeared on his speech. However, I wish to state the Government’s standpoint in regard to this question.

In the first place, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act of 1968 was placed on the Statute Book after an investigation and report by a commission of inquiry into the possible exploitation by one population group of the political rights and activities of another population group. This Act was the result of that investigation. Today no reason exists—and this is the standpoint of the Government—to amend this Act. In my opinion, members of one population group should not be allowed—and I am referring to the present dispensation now—to be a member of a political party of another population group. Secondly, they should not be allowed, as agents or in another capacity, to render assistance to a political party, or to an election candidate of a political party of another population group, or to address a meeting or gathering for the purpose of furthering the interests of such a political party or of an election candidate of such a political party.

The prohibition on the receipt of financial assistance from abroad to further the interests of a political party or of its candidates, will not have to be lifted either.

For the sake of good order and for the sake of the political standpoint of the Government it is desirable that the respective population groups should practise their politics separately. However, the Act in question does not prevent the hon. member for Durban Point or other political leaders from holding talks with the political leaders of other groups, or from exchanging standpoints or negotiating with one another. They can do this in terms of the provisions of the Act at the present time. After all, the Act is not discriminatory, but affords protection and prevents members of one population group being able to influence, manipulate or even dominate the politics of another population group. Surely the hon. member for Durban Point knows—I am saying this with great respect—to what extent this occurred in the past. That is why I contend that if recommendations were to be made which, firstly, were acceptable to the Government and, secondly, were also acceptable to the party if we referred it to the congresses and, thirdly, were also acceptable to the groups with whom we were negotiating, we will have to examine the Act, and need not consider it in a vacuum now.

The hon. member for Witbank made an interesting speech.

Another one!

I do not know why that hon. member must always be offensive. If he only did so occasionally, it would be another matter. [Interjections.]

What did I say now that was offensive?

The hon. member, inter alia, advocated a ministry for local government. However, the hon. member will understand that the question of the appointment of ministries is the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister. In this specific connection I want to tell him something I have already said in the past. In the days to come we shall, in my opinion, have to consider the functions and powers of various bodies or institutions. What is the factor going to be which is going to determine where a specific function is going to be situated? In my opinion it is going to be determined by who will be able to exercise it effectively or apply it best. Seconly, I think it will depend on the constitutional development in respect of the allocation of specific powers to specific institutions for specific groups. Having said this, I just want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that the provinces have control over local authorities. I agree with him that there is going to be a far greater devolution of authority to lower levels of government. There are many restrictions on local authorities which, in my opinion, need not exist. On the other hand, too, the hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the third-tier government is to a large extent responsible for the implementation of national policy. And I do not mean National Party policy. I need not point out to hon. members that local authorities are to a great extent being misused to thwart the implementation of Government policy. That we shall, of course, not tolerate.

†The hon. member for Parktown referred to welfare services. I shall deal with this matter briefly, but shall give him a detailed reply if he so wishes. I believe that in regard to the various facts of welfare, aspects such as culture, religion, traditions, language and specific environmental needs should always be taken into account. I think that the hon. member will agree with that general statement. Secondly, I believe that it is important, that it is imperative, for the community itself to be actively involved in rendering welfare services for the specific community. I believe furthermore that the modern concept of welfare organization and services is being viewed in the broader perspective of the community services, which in essence means the involvement of each member of a specific community in the rendering of welfare services. Let me just say in passing that the Indian people have the best record of any group in this country when it comes to providing welfare services for their aged. Rationalization in this regard has already been effected, to a very large extent, within that department in that all the planning and control functions have been centralized in one branch in the head office of the department under the Director of Welfare Services, whilst field services are co-ordinated by the various regional offices in the field. An Inter-departmental Committee on Welfare Finances and a Consultative Committee on Social Work Services exist for the formulation of a uniform welfare policy for all groups. Finally there is the South African Welfare Board that represents the services of all race groups. It has been established, inter alia, to promote uniformity and the co-ordination to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member will also know that parity in the salaries of the social workers has been approved for minimum and maximum scales as from 1 April 1982.

For Coloureds and Asians, but not for Blacks.

I do not deal with that. The hon. member will have to put that to my colleague.

No, I am just putting the record straight.

It is the policy of this Government to narrow the gap between the pensions for the various groups, but there are certain factors that must be borne in mind. They are, firstly, the financial resources of the country; secondly, wage structures of people and, thirdly, social services that are rendered by other departments. As the hon. member will know, the pension is related to all the specific services.

*I just want to say that welfare work is primarily the responsibility of the community.

Health, too.

Yes, I am not quarrelling with the hon. member. Secondarily, it is the responsibility of the State. After all, we are living in a time in which demands in respect of everything are being made on the State. It happened again yesterday. I think I must sound a warning and say that the State really cannot satisfy all the demands people are making in this connection. It is not possible. If greater outputs have to be made as a result of higher standards of living, everyone must produce a greater input to make this possible.

The hon. member for Paarl spoke well when he stated his request. I agree with him that the Paarl relations committee is an example to many others. I should like to place this on record. It was with great appreciation that I took cognizance of what was being done there, for example the creation of the trust fund. There is a training school in Paarl—it is not a college—which was established by the churches. The hon. member, and the relations committee as well, made representations to me, and on the basis of those representations I requested the department to replace the existing building, not by changing over old classrooms, but by making new ones available. Consequently, there is no possibility in the short or medium term that Paarl is going to be deprived of those training facilities. On the contrary, the facilities will be improved so that they can be brought into line with the quality of the environment. I hope that we will be able to do so during the present year. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, will have to make haste. As far as the college is concerned, I can say that I agreed with my department that a college will eventually be built which will be able to accommodate 650 students.

I want to thank the hon. member for Kimberley North for the information which he furnished in respect of the progress which is being made in all spheres of education. This also replies to the allegation made by the hon. member for Sea Point that social or economic improvements cannot take place without political power. I really want to thank the hon. member for Kimberley North for his interesting speech in this connection. I shall also convey the appreciation which he expressed to the people responsible for that work.

I turn now to the hon. members for Rissik and Germiston District. The hon. member for Germiston District astonished me. She said that charity turns the recipient thereof into an enemy. In other words, we must not be charitable towards people. I always thought that this was the principal commandment.

Not charity alone.

Let me reply to the other part. The hon. members for Koedoespoort, Mossel Bay, Namaqualand and other hon. members discussed publications control. I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to my colleague, the Deputy Minister, for the effective way in which he dealt with this matter and for the replies which he gave. My only regret is that the replies which he furnished yesterday did not receive wider publicity. I am really sorry about that because I think the statements which the hon. the Deputy Minister made here were important. I cannot improve on what he said, but I wish to add a general statement in order to make the fundamental standpoint clear once again.

It is the standpoint of the Government that this country’s national life should develop on the basis of Christian norms. The fact that this is the standpoint of the Government is embodied in legislation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister explained. It is embodied in the Publications Act, in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, and in the National Education Policy Act. etc.

In the second place, South Africa is a country in which there is absolute religious freedom and freedom of worship. This is also a Christian principle. In the third place—and here I wish to associate myself with the hon. the Deputy Minister—the upholding of moral values in South Africa is primarily the responsibility of the parents, the schools and the churches. It is also the responsibility of the State to play a supporting role in this respect, so that these other bodies will be able to discharge their specific duties and obligations.

There are so many people—and I am nor referring to anyone in particular—who profess high moral standpoints, while their personal lives contradict everything they profess. We cannot transfer our conscience and our personal attitude and existential norms to the State so that the State must be our collective conscience. For that reason I want to ask only one thing. I am asking this in all earnest. Hon. members know how difficult it is to form an objective opinion on these matters, and that, in fact, it requires great expertise to do so. I am consequently making an earnest appeal to hon. members not to allow these matters to become politicized. That cannot benefit anyone.

I shall reply later to the speeches of other hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of the Indian Council elections has already been raised very briefly during this debate. I do wish, however, to address myself further to this issue.

As with many other institutions founded by the Government, there is very little doubt that the Indian Council has in fact reached the end of the road. The recent elections of members of the Indian Council have been a failure by any normal democratic standards. I believe hon. members will readily accept that. It will have to be accepted as just another fact of our democratic existence, however unpleasant it may be for some people. The only winners in those elections were those people within the South African Indian community who would have nothing whatsoever to do with a politically inferior institution such as the S.A. Indian Council.

It appears that during the past years the Indian community has been more patient in their reaction to the Government’s constitutional manipulation than the Coloured community has ever been. One gathers that impression, inter alia, from the fact that the S.A. Indian Council is still in existence while the very people who commanded a majority in the Coloured Representative Council have destroyed that institution. This apparently greater degree of patience must have cost many people involved in Indian Council politics very dearly. That is a factor of which we should not lose sight.

The people elected to the Indian Council will themselves know that they have risked a lot and have done a lot of damage to their own political status. There may well be a few of them who have gone into that situation because they are politically naïve. However, I am sure there are those who have accepted nomination to that body and subsequently been elected because they believe that this is the only way in which to promote the interests of their community. In this connection I just want to issue one word of warning to the Government and that is that I believe that this degree of patience—I think it is correct to describe it in this way—on the part of the Indian community as a whole should not be interpreted as acquiescence in Government political thinking or as acceptance of an inferior political role, and that any dilly-dallying with the constitutional position of the Indian people can only lead to the impasse that exists in the case of Coloured political representation at this time. In view of this and also in view of the fact that the discussion of the political rights of the Coloured people has rather dominated debates and has been pre-eminent in Government statements in recent months, particularly during the discussions of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister’s commitment very specifically to the fact that the role envisaged for the Indian people in any prospective new constitutional dispensation will not in any way be inferior to or even different from that envisaged for the Coloured people. I should like the hon. the Minister’s comments in this regard in due course.

*Mr. Chairman, since the President’s Council is going to report soon on three matters it was directed to ioquire into, this is perhaps the time to comment on a few aspects of that council. There are already indications that the President’s Council is possibly going to be dissolved in the foreseeable future and an elected council established in its place. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned such a possibility and there has been speculation in this regard in other quarters as well. At this stage I think it would perhaps be a good thing if the hon. the Minister were also to comment on this, since he is the person who has contact with that body and who has been charged with the task of liaising with it. I do not think there is any doubt about the PFP’s standpoint on the composition of the President’s Council. This standpoint need not therefore be stated on this occasion. However, there is one aspect in connection with this matter which I do not think was sufficiently debated, neigher originally nor in more recent times, an aspect whicy has since become more important. I am referring to the question of the existence of certain committees of the President’s Council, and in this connection I want to deal with the Science Committee.

At the outset of the debate on the way the President’s Council is constituted I wondered what the actual purpose would be of a science committee of the President’s Council. If the Government had wanted advice on a scientific matter, surely it is customary to appoint a committee of enquiry or a similar instrument consisting of members who are experts in that particular branch of science. The science committee of the President’s Council, however, includes people whose fiend of expertise is so widely divergent that their collective presence on that committee is in fact meaningless. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on this matter. As a result of my concern about this matter, I placed a question on the question paper earlier this year in order to have a little light thrown on the activities of this committee. Unfortunately the reply to my question was a little evasive, but two aspects did become apparent from the reply which was given to me on that occasion. The first aspect was that reference was made to the mandate of this Science Committee, a matter which was referred to this committee for enquiry. This matter was referred to the committee in October of last year. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the only matter which was referred specifically to the Science Committee. If that is the case, what it really means is that there was no work for this committee for nine months of the first year of its existence. This gives rise to a very important question among the electorate and the tax-payers of South Africa. Is there work for such a committee, is there a function for it to fulfil and is its existence justified?

The second aspect is the nature of the terms of reference given to it. In my opinion the nature of the terms of reference and the fact that they were seemingly the only terms of reference given to the committee, emphasizes the concern that there is no justification for that committee. I should like to quote what was referred to the Science Committee of the President’s Council for investigation. I am doing this to indicate that it is a field which is so ludicrously wide that one cannot really expect an intelligent investigation or intelligent recommendations. The Science Committee was directed—

My word!

What a mouthful!

I want to suggest that when a task is defined so widely, it is not possible for it to be investigated intelligently by such a committee. The terms of reference include virtually every aspect of our national life. They include matters of economic importance and political importance, and it is in no way whatsoever a field of enquiry for a scientific committee. In my opinion these terms of reference emphasize once again the doubts as to whether such a committee has the right to exist. I suggest that the hon. the Minister give attention to this matter, particularly since there is a possibility that there may be a restructuring or reconstitution of the council in future.

Mr. Chairman, if the party of which the hon. member for Green Point is a member had not adopted the standpoint that it would boycott the President’s Council from the word go, the hon. member would have known more about the functioning of the committees of the President’s Council and he would also have been able to make meaningful contributions in this connection.

Another scandalous aspect of his speech was the implied denigration of the South African Indian Council and its members. Apart from many other aspects, I feel one should still see the Indian Council as an important medical instrument in which meaningful discussions can take place with elected, representative Indian leaders.

I want to return to an aspect involving publications, of which mention is also made in the annual report of the Department of Internal Affairs. Recently the Publications Appeal Board has adopted a more lenient attitude towards certain publications which have been banned for many years now. Although I personally do not feel inclined to applaud this leniency, particularly in regard to certain literary publications, I should nevertheless like to take this opportunity to welcome the specific leniency with regard to the possession of classical works on communism.

During the discussion of this Vote two years ago I appealed to the then Minister for this entire question of the prohibition of the possession of scientific works dealing with communism to be reconsidered because in my personel experience this prohibition on possession made research on communism extremely difficult. I find the recent announcement by the Appeal Board that the prohibition of the possession of classical works by Lenin and Stalin will no longer be applied, and that this may possibly be extended to other classic works on communism, personally gratifying. From representations by the Philosophical Society of South Africa, and of the University of Natal, to the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation in South Africa it also became quite clear that the prohibition of the possession of works on communism was definitely making research in this connection difficult. I therefore think that the lifting of the prohibition on the possession of scientific works dealing with communism has removed an important stumbling-block in the way of research on communism in South Africa. I want to express my personal appreciation to the Appeal Board for the attitude it has adopted in this connection.

Two further observations will suffice. The fact that the collected works of Marx, Lenin and even Mao Tse-Tung, may in future be kept without hindrance on the book-shelf of any person who wishes to study them, will definitely not serve as a stimulus to the spread of communistic ideology in South Africa. Greater availability of scientific sources on communism therefore does not imply that the membership of the South African Communist Party will increase overnight. It is highly unlikely that the collected works of Marx, Lenin and even Mao Tse-Tung would these days incite anyone to revolutionary behaviour or make him a communist in the real sense of the word. After all, one does not, in these times, become a follower of the communist ideology because, for argument sake, one reads the communist manifesto of Marx or Engels. Nowadays one is more likely to become a communist because one is a victim of some or other form of exploitation, whether it be political or economic. In other words, theory does not make one a communist but practice does. It is not what a person reads that makes one a communist, but what one goes through. That does not mean to say that all pamphlets inciting people to socialistic and revolutionary behaviour may be freely distributed. I think the restrictive measures that apply to material of this kind should remain in force. However, the point I want to make is that the potential to incite of scientific works on communism is minimal and that a prohibition on possession of these works was definitely unnecessary.

A second remark I want to make is in connection with a finding by a committee of experts which was submitted as evidence to the Appeal Board at the recent consideration of the collected works of Lenin and Stalin. This committee came to the alarming conclusion that there was a serious lack of meaningful research in South Africa on communism in its broadest sense. It is ironic that this should be the case in such a country as South Africa, for South Africa is, after all, an important target area of the communist onslaught. According to the committee of experts this lack of research has led to a gross oversimplification of the communist threat in South Africa and that people think and plan according to stereotyped concepts which are no longer valid. I think it goes without saying that this state of affairs dare not be allowed to continue. Thorough scientific research into the nature and strategy of the communist onslaught, particularly with regard to the South African situation, has become absolutely essential. If one does not know one’s enemy one cannot fight him effectively. I think the lifting of the prohibition on the possession of scientific works on communism ought to encourage this research, and that is why I feel it is definitely to be welcomed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a few specific matters before I speak on general matters. The first matter I want to refer to is the matter of referendums. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that once the President’s Council has reported or has made recommendations, and after specific steps have been taken, he will go to the people to test their opinion by way of a referendum or referendums. I should like to put my first question in this connection to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, although he informed me that he could not be here at this juncture. Nevertheless I would be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could give us an indication of his party’s standpoint on a referendum per se before this session of Parliament adjourns. After all, a referendum is foreign to the constitutional set-up in South Africa. It has only been used once and that was when we became a Republic.

It was used in Natal before Union.

Yes, but that was before Union. It was also used in Rhodesia.

*But since Union it has only been used once. I should therefore like to know what the official Opposition’s standpoint is in respect of a referendum per se. In the second place I want to know whether, if the President’s Council’s proposals do not go quite far enough to the liking of the official Opposition and in other words are probably acceptable to the Government, but one never knows—the Leader of the Opposition will then say in the first place that they do not go far enough and that he is therefore going to tell his people to vote “No” in a referendum, or in the second place be going to do what he did in regard to the Group Areas Amendment Bill and say: “Well, it is a step in the right direction; so we shall advise our supporters to say ‘Yes’ to the question when put.” Those are the questions I want to put to the official Opposition.

I now turn to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke of a referendum or referendums. From that I infer that he is considering testing the opinions of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians on the recommendations of the President’s Council.

Most certainly it will be done.

Suppose the Whites say “Yes” and one or both of the other two groups say “No”. What will the Government do? That is my first question. My second question is: Suppose the minority of the Whites say “Yes”, but when added to the Coloureds and the Indians a majority of those entitled to vote say “Yes”, will the Government then proceed with the plans recommended by the President’s Council?

Do you come from Waterkloof or from “Harekloof”?

I do not think the hon. member has the vaguest notion of what we are discussing here. He should rather stick to what he was doing before he came to Parliament. I have a final question in this connection. Suppose two of the groups say “Yes” and one group says “No”. It does not matter which groups says “No”, but I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would deal with the various combinations and then tell us what the standpoint of the Government is going to be.

The second aspect I want to touch on is the question of the sovereignty of Parliament. I am now referrring to constitutional sovereignty.

I assume that the hon. the Minister agrees that at the moment Parliament is the sovereign authority in this country. Can I accept this?

So it is indeed.

In other words, the Government is not sovereign, and the State President is not sovereign. [Interjections.] Parliament is sovereign. This is my submission. I should like to know, if the President’s Council makes proposals which may bring about a shift in or transfer of sovereignty, what is the hon. the Minister’s standpoint or the Government’s standpoint in this connection going to be.

You could have asked all these questions in the caucus.

I now want to put a final question to the hon. the Minister. As far as the 1977 proposals are concerned, the hon. member for Bloemfontein-East stated that as far as the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites were concerned the State President would govern them. Does the hon. the Minister agree with this? Is this being envisaged. I should like him to clear up this point as well. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the CP of South Africa was registered as a party. One month and seven days after the party was formed in Pretoria it was registered as such and I should like to express my thanks to the officials for the quick response and the fine way in which they dealt with this matter. [Interjections.] I should also like to have it placed on record in this House that my party is grateful to the co-workers in our party for the way in which they drew up and prepared a document which was accepted as correct when it was submitted. Now the CP is also a statutory political party.

Now you can put forward your policy.

Talking about policies, I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister made that interjection because the NP said yesterday or the day before yesterday in this House, through its former information officer that they were eagerly awaiting the proposals of the President’s Council, which they hoped would put an end to the impasse in Coloured politics after 60 years. In other words, the NP was in power for more than 30 of those 60 years and it does not yet have a policy for the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] In consequence of the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday, I just want to tell him that he and his NP colleagues must now accept that the CP is a full-fledged party. [Interjections.] The fact that we were members of that party, that on the basis of standpoint of principle …

Which one.

… because of power-sharing and mixed Governments, we were evicted from that party … [Interjections.] It was written down, it appears in writing, and that is the end of the matter. Now we as a party are at liberty to have our own opinion in respect of every level of government and in respect of every aspect of government. When we agree with the Government we shall say so; and when we differ we shall also say so, and when we feel like criticizing we shall definitely do so. That is the task of an Opposition party, is it not? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof put certain questions to specific hon. members, and I assume that at a more opportune moment the replies requested will be furnished.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Sea Point said in this House that the attacks by the Government on the PFP in connection with its policy have an adverse affect on reform. The hon. member also said that these attacks were the reason for the establishment of the CP. This afternoon I want to state categorically that the PFP and its policy are actually the greatest single stumbling block in the way of real reform in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP…

Do you agree with that statement?

… and their Press creates expectations which cannot be met. [Interjections.] This necessarily leads to disappointment and frustration among those people whose expectations have been raised. [Interjections.] This also leads to a lack of confidence in the Government that has to bring about reform. The hon. members of the PFP and their Press also cast suspicion on the motives and attitudes of the Government among people of colour whose co-operation we must have in order to implement these reforms. [Interjections.]

Moreover, the hon. members of the PFP and their Press cast suspicion, among the White voters as well, on the Government’s proposals for reform and the Government’s actions to implement that reform, because it is a fact confirmed at election after election the voters of South Africa show profound disapproval of the radical liberalism the PFP stands for and propagates. [Interjections.] By interpreting the Government’s proposed actions in terms of the policies and philosophy of the PFP, or by suggesting that its actions correspond to the PFP’s policy, the PFP attaches a stigma to those proposals and actions as far as the White voters are concerned. [Interjections.] No reform is possible if the White voters do not accept it, because any reform of this nature must be implemented by this House, and that depends on the support of the White voters.

It depends on the leadership.

I hold that this, rather than the attack by the Government on the PFP and its policy, was one reason—I emphasize “was one reason”—for the establishment of the CP, because I do not believe for a moment that it was the main reason.

I should also like to refer to the question the hon. member for Barberton repeatedly put to me in the course of my previous speech in this debate. He asked whether I personally supported the Bill on constitutional reform which was referred to the President’s Council. Surely the hon. member knows that this Bill was referred to the President’s Council before the Second Reading. This means that the Bill has not yet been approved by the House in principle, nor has it yet been discussed technically in the committee stage. I therefore assume that the hon. member is referring to the caucus discussion of this measure, because that is the only place where this measure was discussed within the context of the party by hon. members on this side of the House.

What are the facts in this connection? This Bill was discussed in the appropriate NP study group. There were questions and reservations as to details of the Bill. I personally also had questions and doubts about details. The fact of the matter is that the Minister then responsible replied to and reacted to those questions and reservations. After the explanations by the Minister, the matter was provisionally dropped.

Do you agree we are not yet finished?

However, the one fact which is as plain as a pikestaff is that in all those discussions there was never any difference of opinion as regards the principles contained in that measure. The discussions only concerned details. There was therefore never any difference of opinion as regards principles. There could not be any difference of opinion on the principles …

What were the principles?

… because the principles were exactly the same as those contained in the 1977 proposals. It is quite clear that the hon. members are now trying to differentiate between the 1977 proposals and the Bill.

Did you vote for power-sharing in 1977?

I know the hon. members opposite extremely well.

We know you just as well.

We have fought side by side in many political battles. That is why it is quite clear to me that the hon. members realize that as far as the 1977 proposals are concerned, they are cornered. After all, those proposals were not only supported by the caucus of the NP and by its four provincial congresses, but also by the voters of South Africa in two elections.

You are right.

That is why they cannot get away from the 1977 proposals.

Nor do we want to.

Now, however, they are trying to differentiate between the 1977 proposals and the Bill.

There is a difference.

I want to issue a challenge to the hon. members. They must indicate in what way the Bill is more liberal than the 1977 proposals.

Where they differ.

In what way it is more liberal …

And in what way it differs.

If they can show where it is different, they can do that, too. However, they know just as well as I do that that Bill is in no way more liberal than the 1977 proposals. The contrary is closer to the truth. [Time expired.]

Did the study group approve it?

Mr. Chairman, a number of speakers on the Government side have placed great emphasis on the fact that we should look to the future, and not to the past. Bearing that in mind, of course, I will not follow the hon. member for Mossel Bay who criticized the PFP in the first part of his speech and the CP in the latter half of his speech. I shall try to look a little to the future instead of to the past, because I believe the past is behind us.

Very often in looking to the past, one might lose one self.

Yes. Be that as it may, however, I believe that in looking into the future at a new dispensation one cannot altogether forget the past. We cannot do that because we have to remember the mistakes we have made in the past, and ensure that we do not make either the same mistake or similar types of mistakes in the future. When I say this I am not only referring to the Government, but also to the Asiatic and Coloured communities, as well as the Whites in general.

I believe it must be borne in mind—and it is indeed frequently overlooked—that way back in the middle ’forties the late Gen. Smuts offered a package deal to the Indian community which would give them representation in Parliament and in terms of which an attempt would also be made to grant them direct representation at provincial level.

In what year?

That was in the middle 1940s. The said package deal also offered them positive political representation in general. It was, however, all part of a package deal in terms of which the Indian people were expected to accept the system of group areas. Very unfortunately, I believe, at that time the Indian community was led by the nose by the Indian Congress, and rejected the whole offer on the principle of all or nothing. The result was that except for the one thing they particularly did not want—group areas—they received nothing. This, I believe, was very unfortunate because for many years thereafter they had absolutely no political representation at any level.

It was only in the early 1960s, when management committees, local affairs committees, etc., began to come into being that they had any say at all. Therefore it is important to look to the history in order to find out what happened and also to take care that the same mistakes are not made again. As a consequence of those mistakes made in the middle 1940s the Indians lost virtually two generations of political development, and I believe it would be a bitter mistake indeed if they did not learn from history that one cannot negotiate from a basis of all or nothing.

Quite frankly, I believe it is their duty to drive as hard a bargain for their own future as they possibly can, because they would be betraying their own cause if they did not. I believe they will indeed drive as hard a bargain as they can, and I also sincerely hope they will not do what they did in the past and close the door for the second time.

The hon. member for Maitland gave us a very interesting thumbnail sketch of the history of the South African Indian community. Of course most of it was factually correct. When he stated that they were never considered South Africans at all until the time of Dr. Verwoerd, about 20 years ago, I believe he may have been technically correct. In actual fact, however, I do not think it is altogether correct because in the very early days of their presence in South Africa they in fact did have a municipal franchise, which presumed of course that they were, to say the least of it, citizens in the areas.

You are referring to, their status in the former colonies, not so?

In the colonies, yes: Natal and the Cape Colony.

But you will concede that they had that franchise because they owned property in particular areas.

Yes. Anyway, they had a franchise at that time. Whilst I am not arguing on the technical exactitude of what the hon. the Minister has said, it is doubtlessly right that in Natal they were considered to be bona fide South Africans. Until relatively recently there was in fact still an Indian member of the council of one of the local authorities at Stanger, a gentleman by the name of Moola, who retained that office, with White voters voting him in virtually up to the time of his death. His son is now one of the leading lights in the Local Affairs Committee system.

I must say that I was very pleased to listen to the eulogies on the Indians given by certain hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Umlazi. I found this most fascinating because the hon. member for Umlazi and myself served together on the Natal Provincial Council 20 years ago when it was almost official policy not to shake a Brown or a Black hand and that, as far as the Indians were concerned, the best place for them was on a ship going overseas. At that time the hon. member for Umlazi did not have quite the same views in respect of Indians that he has today. I must admit that I was delighted to hear that he has had this change of heart because there is no doubt about it that the Indian community is a very industrious community and is also very civically minded.

The hon. member for Umlazi also raised the issue and made the point of the four fully-fledged Indian local authorities that we have in Natal. Once again, I am not sure whether I have mentioned this before, but those local authorities are fully-fledged Indian local authorities. They are viable of themselves and they do not receive subsidies in the way that, for example, Pacaltsdorp receives a subsidy. They receive no subsidy at all. They generate their funds themselves, they levy their own rates and they live within their means. I firmly believe that this question of the development of additional local authorities of a similar nature can proceed at an increasing pace and that there can be more such bodies. I say this particularly if one moves towards the system of having a metropolitan authority to take care of the infrastructure items. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we should very much like to see this happen.

As long as they are viable.

If they cannot be viable then they must not be established. In any event, that is my thinking.

The hon. member for Constantia said that he believed that if one had racial voters’ rolls they would create tension. I do not agree with that. The only time that I ever experienced tension in regard to a voters’ roll was, funnily enough, in regard to an Indian voters’ roll where there was tension between the Hindus and the Muslims. There was a great deal of bitterness during an election when that situation obtained. However, I do not believe that there will be much tension in respect of individual rolls. If one has them, one does not have problems.

Although I do not have very much more time, there is one important point I should like to emphasize and that is that when it comes to this new dispensation, the Coloured and Asiatic communities that are likely to be brought into some sort of dispensation with the White community are going to be embarrassed by many of their own people. They will be embarrassed particularly by the Black community because there is not likely to be a dispensation covering the Black community and the urban Blacks in particular. I believe that they are going to be subjected to a great deal of pressure. They are also going to be abused by many because many of these people are going to work on the principle of all or nothing. I believe that they are going to have to have a great deal of courage and wisdom to accept the principle that this is, if not what they want completely, at least progress, and the fact that if they do accept it, they will be part of the governing structure and will be able to assist in including a new Urban Black dispensation at a later stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to start with I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister most sincerely for their courteous and enlightening contributions to this debate. I feel it was of very great value to this House and that accordingly I thank them most sincerely.

†I do not intend reacting to the arguments of the hon. member for Umbilo. He gave us an historical overview. I agree with him that it is in the interests of both the Coloured and Indian communities that they should not lose time again as generations before did, before their political future is settled.

*I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay. It was really an extremely good speech. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Rissik said in reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay’s question to him as to whether they stood by the 1977 proposals, that they did not want to get away from the 1977 proposals. The hon. member for Rissik is not present at the moment and I therefore turn to the hon. member for Waterkloof, who is a senior member of that party and was sitting next to the hon. member for Rissik when he made that reply. As a matter of fact, I think they were conversing at the time. I do not want to get this wrong, and I therefore ask the hon. member for Waterkloof whether the hon. member for Rissik did in fact say that the CP did not want to get away from the 1977 proposals.

I did not hear that.

In that case I shall not pursue the matter further. [Interjections.]

The NP is being attacked on its policy for Coloured politics, but the CP itself has not yet told us what its policy for Coloured politics is. While I am discussing this I should like to mention what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He said the CP was a party in search of principles whereby to justify its disloyalty to the NP. [Interjections.] To this I want to add that the CP is in search of a policy for the political development of the Coloureds. That is in actual fact the policy they are seeking wherewith to justify their disloyalty. I am going to motivate this statement because we must understand each other correctly.

The CP’s standpoint does not involve the Blacks—this I say here and now—because as far as I can see, their policy is exactly the same as that of the NP as far as the Blacks are concerned.

Also as far as the urban Blacks are concerned?

Has the CP, then, changed its policy in this connection as well in the interim? [Interjections.] The point is simply that the Black people are not at issue; the issue is the Coloureds.

I want to ask the CP in what respect they disagree with the NP as regards the political development of the Coloureds?

We disagree on power-sharing.

That is very easy to say, but allow me to take the matter further. In the first place I want to tell you what the NP does not stand for. We do not stand for a common voters’ roll for the Coloureds and the Whites.

Why not?

Is the CP for or against that?

Are you one nation?

I am not getting a reply to my question. The hon. member cannot reply because they have not yet decided on a policy. Is it still the policy of the CP that they are not in favour of common voters’ rolls?

Of course that is our policy.

Then we are still together. I come to the second question: Does the CP believe, along with the NP, that it is not our policy that the Coloureds should sit in the House of Assembly together with the Whites? Is that also the policy of the CP?

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, because I have very little time.

Does the CP believe that it is still the policy of the NP that the Coloureds will not sit in the House of Assembly with the Whites? [Interjections.] Is that also the policy of the CP? Would you believe it, they really do not know whether it is their policy that Coloureds will not sit in the House of Assembly with the Whites! Can you credit that?

I now come to the third question: Does the CP believe in a homeland for the Coloureds? Does the CP believe, along with the NP, that there cannot be a homeland for the Coloureds? Sir, now they are quiet as mice. The hon. member for Rissik has returned in the interim and I shall therefore put this question specifically to him, because he is the ideologue in the CP. Does he believe, along with the NP that there cannot be a homeland for the Coloureds? [Interjections.] Can you credit it? They split from the NP because of the position of the Coloureds, but at the same time they do not have a Coloured policy. I have already put three questions to them, but now I am going to make it much easier for them by putting another question to them. I want to remind them of what the hon. member for Waterberg said on 19 August 1977. He said—

What is the policy of the CP today? Do those hon. members agree that the Coloureds can never have an equal say in politics? Do they not agree with what Dr. Treurnicht said in 1977? Sir, they are in a dilemma if they say they support Dr. Treurnicht then they are in trouble because on 3 October Mr. John Vorster repudiated what Dr. Treurnicht had said as follows—

Those hon. members must now choose: Do they stand by John Vorster or by Andries Treurnicht? You see, Sir, they do not know where they stand. I cannot discuss things with them because they do not know where they stand.

However, I want to give them another chance to tell us whether they stand by the idea of a Coloured homeland. I now want to read to them what Dr. Connie Mulder, who was recently elected a member of their executive, said on 21 November 1969.

He was still a member for the National Party then.

I quote—

Do those hon. members agree with Dr. Connie Mulder? [Interjections.] Sir, they do not know. Further—

Dr. Connie Mulder said he believed in a homeland, and I now want to ask the hon. members of the CP: Was Dr. Connie Mulder right? Is that the only solution?

One of these days he will be back in this House; then you can ask him that yourself.

The hon. member for Langlaagte never stops talking, but he says nothing. Those hon. members are afraid to reply, because Dr. Connie Mulder believes in a Coloured homeland. That is their problem. They must be careful, because he serves on their executive.

At one stage he was also your leader. You supported him at the time.

I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg that he repudiated the former hon. Prime Minister Mr. Vorster, and I shall tell hon. members why he repudiated him: Because the hon. member for Waterberg arrogates to himself the sole right to interpret policy. The hon. member for Waterberg does not agree with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, because when Mr. Vorster was in favour of a joint say, Dr. Treurnicht repudiated him and said that he did not interpret the National Party policy in that way. In February we had the breakaway by the CP for exactly the same reason they are not prepared to have the hon. the Prime Minister interpret policy. Only the hon. member for Waterberg must interpret policy.

In conclusion, let me quote what the hon. member for Rissik said—

Hon. members of the CP have not said anything today which would give the voters reason to trust their moral rectitude, nor have they replied to any questions. I therefore agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that the CP is a party in search of principles.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West addressed himself to the CP, so I shall not follow his argument.

The hon. member for Umbilo contended that there should be separate voters’ rolls at local level. I just want to say that in Buthelezi Commission that party contended that there should be common voters’ rolls at local government level. What equivocation! We in this party have nailed our colours firmly to the mast but that party has, as always, nailed its colours firmly to the fence!

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said in brief that the PFP was the greatest impediment to change because we cast suspicion over the changes proposed by the Nats. I just want to take one example to prove exactly the opposite. The example I want to take is the example fo the single most important event in the lives of the Indian community in South Africa last year and that was the election for the S.A. Indian Council. It must be remembered that over 80% of Indians had registered as voters and it must also be remembered that they were all obliged to register by law. However, we all know that there was very low poll and that the hon. the Minister was very disappointed. The Government will say that that was because of intimidation and the hon. member for Mossel Bay will say that maybe the PFP were influential in bringing about that low poll or something like that. [Interjections.] However, the truth of the matter is that before that election thousands of Indians attended public meetings about the elections. They were not intimidated. They attended public meetings voluntarily. For example, at Lenasia there were 3 000 at one meeting. Those were just the ordinary voters who were not intimidated by any group of agitators. Secondly, it must be remembered that the Cabinet, just before the elections for the S.A. Indian Council took place, rejected out of hand the President’s Council’s request that Pageview go the Indian group. Now that was not a PFP move; that was a Cabinet move. Then the S.A. Indian Council executive committee asked the hon. the Prime Minister to reverse that Cabinet decision.

The third thing that must be remembered is that this very month, April 1982, without any campaign of intimidation, a by-election for the Indian Council was held in Fordsburg. The winner got 57 votes. On polling day the total number of votes cast for the opposition and the winner was only 14.

A healthy majority!

Quite obviously, neither intimidation nor the PFP was the cause of the disinterest of the Indian people in their voting for the council.

Fourthly, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in 1977 the S.A. Indian Council rejected the constitutional plan of the Government and at that time Senator Worrall said that Whites would not use their advantage to force through a measure which they alone supported. That brings me to the point I want to make, forcefully to the hon. the Minister. In the formulation of the Government’s policy in regard to Indians it must bear in mind what the history of the S.A. Indian Council is. Firstly, it is not acceptable to Indians. Indians do not want a council, even an elected one. Secondly, Indians do not want to vote as Indians. Indians see themselves as South Africans. That is how they want to be seen. Thirdly, Indians are not only South Africans; they are particularly good South Africans. They are industrious people, a loyal group, a peace-loving group and a productive group in South Africa. They are resourceful and they help to enrich the economy. Fourthly, they have never been a threat to the existence of any other group in South Africa. One cannot use the argument in regard to Indians that if they were on the common voters’ roll they would be a threat to anyone. However, they do not want to be pawns in the hands of the Whites. They do not want to be pushed around like pawns on little white and black squares. They do not even favour Indian universities. They simply want to be treated as South Africans, and that is what we in the PFP are suggesting. The Government cannot engineer loyalty to an Indian council or to an Indian parliament. I want to quote the hon. the Minister of National Education when he said in 1981—

I urge the hon. the Minister to take account of what the hon. the Minister of National Education said in regard to the formulation of the policy concerning Indians. There is no longer any need to plan for failure. We do not have to tie ourselves eternally to rejection. Let us for once plan for success. Prof. Heribert Adam was reported in The Sunday Tribune as having said—

We know from the history of separate Indian bodies what that “pressure from below” is. It is that the Indians want to be part of South Africa; they want to be part of the legislative and executive process, like any White person in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will in the near future be concerned in the formulation of the policy of the Government in regard to Indians, and if there are any right-wing groups in South Africa who oppose treating the Indians on the same basis as Whites, I want to urge the hon. the Minister to disregard them. Plan for success and not failure.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I react to what hon. members have said. Hon. members will understand if I speak somewhat rapidly, because I need time for the hon. members for Sea Point, Durban Central and Waterkloof, because I should like to spend more time on them.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Rissik, because he referred to the report of my department with regard to universities. The hon. member is aware that over the past 20 years the Government is gradually been transferring more responsibilities to the councils of the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville. The stage has now been reached at which they can be granted greater autonomy, and legislation is to be introduced during this session to give effect to that.

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. member for Rissik had better tell the hon. member for Kuruman to be quiet. I want to give some good advice to the hon. member for Kuruman, viz. that if one remains silent, people think one is wise. The hon. member had better not, therefore, open his mouth and thereby prove the contrary.

As I have already said, the time has come to grant greater autonomy to these community institutions, and we are going to introduce legislation during this session to bring this about. This means that as far as their activities are concerned, the two universities mentioned will link up with the Committee of University Principals and the Universities Advisory Council. I also wish to say at once that the use at certain points of the expression “open universities” is merely aimed at distinguishing those universities that are not identified for a specific group by way of statute. As the hon. member for Rissik knows, many universities fall under the Universities Act and are not identified for a specific group or community. That is the explanation for that. However, I think it is an unfortunate use of the word and should be avoided, because it could cause confusion.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the shortage of qualified teachers, and he also suggested that where there were vacancies in training colleges for Whites, these should be used for the training of Coloured teachers. Briefly the position is that in 1982 there were 1 020 places available at the various colleges for first-year students. Of those who applied for admission, only 881 met the entrance qualifications.

Is that for Coloured students?

Yes, I am talking about Coloureds. These 881 students were accordingly admitted to the colleges. There are thus 139 vacancies for Coloured students at these training colleges. Overall there are 4 100 places available at the various colleges for students in their different years of study. The first figure I quoted relates to first-year students. At present, however, there are only 3 185 students enrolled. In other words, there are still vacancies at these institutions. Nobody has therefore been deprived of his training as a teacher under these circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I have to reply to several people and I do not have time to waste.

This brings me to the hon. member for Constantia. He dealt with a television programme on which certain members of management committees, he suggests, were allocated too much time. He thought there has been an unfair allocation of time to those hon. members in relation to the time allocated to the members of the council. I do not take responsibility, however, for the time allocated to people appearing on television or radio, but I do have some comments to make about the hon. member’s statement that it was not the council that was at fault, but the system that was wrong. He said that the system of local government was wrong. Perhaps the hon. member is too young to remember how Coloured people were manipulated out of their municipal franchise by the City Council of Cape Town. Be that as it may, however …

By provincial ordinance.

No, that was not the case. They collected the rentals weekly, instead of monthly, to get them off the roll.

By provincial ordinance. [Interjections.]

No, but I do not want to argue with that hon. member now, because I am addressing myself to somebody else, and he must not interfere now. I shall be getting to him. What is the position? The management committees of Wynberg, Rylands, Kensington and Athlone approached me. What their representations amounted to was that the City Council of Cape Town—I am now talking about representations and am not forming any judgment about the correctness or otherwise of the situation—disregarded their request for the provision of amenities in residential areas. They alleged that the fact that the council did not acknowledge the management system contributed to the unwillingness to meet the needs of the management committees. In other words, the allegation was that because the council did not agree with the system, it refused to accede to the legitimate needs of the communities. Furthermore, it was alleged that the council recognized and negotiated with non-official bodies such as civic and sports societies without reference to the management committees within the specific areas. This was contrary to the procedure laid down by the council itself, and because this was the situation, these management committees decided to suspend their activities until such time as I was prepared to meet with them to discuss their problems. I met with them, and to resolve the impasse between the council and the management committees I arranged for a meeting between the executive committee of the council and the chairmen of these committees. At this meeting a request was put to the executive of the council to the effect that members of the management committees should be allowed to sit in on committee meetings of the council. The executive committee of the council acceded to this request, but the council voted it down, and what is more, I had to read about this in the Press. Therefore, firstly, I submit that these gentlemen had the right to take the stand they did. Secondly, I do not believe that these gentlemen should be penalized because the council does not like the system. Therefore, I believe that the SABC radio and television services were fully justified in giving them the opportunity to put their point of view.

The hon. member for Durban Central discussed the question of education. The reply I have is rather a long one. I wonder whether the hon. member would be prepared to have me give him a written reply, because it will take some time if I have to give all the information now in connection with the points he discussed. In regard to the findings of the inquiry I should just like to correct one thing: I did not appoint the committee of inquiry into matriculation results. The Director of Education appointed that committee. I discussed the findings of the committee with officials of the department and also with the Director of Education.

What were the findings? Let me indicate what the most outstanding causes were according to the committee. The first was the loss of teaching time during the period of unrest and boycotts. The 1980 teaching programme was disrupted for up to five months and the 1981 teaching programme was disrupted for up to three months. The second cause was the attitude of the pupils involved in the unrest and their revolt against authority. The third was that at first some teachers, more often out of fear for their own safety and that of their possessions than because they approved of the boycott, sided with those involved in the boycott. Fourthly, a large degree of ignorance exists as regards presenting subjects on either the higher or the standard grade. I am referring to the question of differentiation. At some schools the pupils, irrespective of their academic ability, are practically without exception enrolled in the higher grade in contrast with the practice in other departments of education. Fifthly there is a shortage of experienced and suitably qualified teaching staff. I am giving the facts as I have them. In 1980 only 1 236 teachers were in possession of a degree and a teacher’s diploma. A further cause was the influence of external pressure groups with political ends in view. The rescheduling of three examination subjects most probably also had an effect. I think it did. It has been proved statistically that the results in the subjects that were rewritten were either just as good or even better than the results of the examinations that were declared null and void. In the eighth place, large number of teachers are in fact improving their own qualifications by means of private or part-time studies in order that they can be placed in a higher category with the resulting salary adjustment. It would appear that in many cases the efforts on the part of the teachers to improve their qualifications had a detrimental effect on the quality of the teaching the pupils enjoyed. One can understand that. Lastly, arrangements to afford leave to teachers for examination purposes and study prior to examinations resulted in teachers being offically absent from school at the end of the school year just when pupils required their services most for rounding-off the year’s work.

We have taken steps in this regard. I can point to the following recommendations. The first is that every effort must be made to instil in the schools an atmosphere conducive to effective teaching and studying, and to curtail the loss of valuable teaching time. A second recommendation is that intensive in service training be provided for underqualified teachers. Experienced and capable staff members of secondary schools must be encouraged and induced to remain at secondary schools rather than to accept promotion to primary schools. In consultation with other examining bodies attempts should be made to arrange examinations for in-service teachers at a more suitable time. One would have to do that in collaboration with universities and the colleges that assist us with the in-service training of teachers. The department should insist on a more effective application of the system of differentiated education. Courses should be arranged for principals and prospective principals to equip them for their tasks. Stricter security measures should be introduced in order to prevent leakages of examination question papers.

Finally, the principals and staff members should make a concerted effort to effect better communication between the parent and the school, thereby restoring the authority of the schools. Steps have been taken in the short, medium and long term to put these recommendations into practice. I shall give the hon. member full details in this regard.

*The hon. member for Helderkruin referred to the findings contained in the report issued by Sabra relating to the constitutional development. I have no reason to depart from the standpoints put forward here by the hon. member. I do just want to know, however, how it is possible that scientists can permit themselves to make so many unscientific statements. I believe that by putting it in the form of this cautious question, I am putting it in a friendly way. In this particular case the same question was asked by the hon. member for Caledon.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West asked to be excused. He said that the Coloureds should exercise patience in regard to the reforms which are in progress. I believe that we should all exercise the same patience. The hon. member said that one ought to have self-respect. I believe we ought all to have self-respect. The hon. member went on to say that sacrifices would be demanded, and that they would be demanded from the Whites as well. I agree with him on that score. I said yesterday that we could not satisfy the expectations of all, everyone’s maximum expectations. We cannot satisfy the maximum demands of everyone. That is not possible within the bounds of the country’s capabilities—neither politically, financially or emotionally.

The hon. member for Stilfontein addressed the hon. members of the CP. According to him their slogan is: Hear no Coloureds, see no Coloureds and speak to no Coloureds. He said that the CP wanted to place the Brown people in a reserve, like the American Red Indians.

You surely do not agree with him.

Well, I do not know whether I am to agree with him or not. The hon. member for Rissik said that he would tell me later this year what his party had in mind with regard to the Coloureds.

At least you know what my attitude is, or do you not?

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a contribution for which I want to thank him. He accused the hon. leader of the CP of having adopted a standpoint in regard to the coalescence of Whites, Coloureds and urban Blacks. He went on to refer to the distinction drawn by the Government and the NP with regard to the way in which Black peoples had to be accommodated in a political system, on the one hand, as against the way in which the White, Brown and Asian populations, on the other, have to be accommodated in that system. Surely it is true that as regards the political development of all the peoples and all the population groups in the country, a simultaneous process is occurring as far as the political future is concerned. In any event, it is surely wrong to contend that an identical pattern must be followed with regard to the different population groups and peoples in the country.

The hon. member for Welkom referred to the standpoints of previous leaders. For my own part, I want to say that I have great respect for all the Prime Ministers of this country, specifically since 1948. I believe that each of them had a specific role which they also played in the politics of our country. However I believe that we all have a responsibility to give the man who is governing now, an opportunity to govern the country in accordance with the demands of the times we are living in.

The hon. member for Randburg addressed himself to the hon. member for Sea Point and said that the Government had to be given a fair opportunity to consider the proposals of the President’s Council and to negotiate with Brown and Indian leaders in this particular regard. He also said that we should refrain from making emotional statements. I want to declare that as far as I am able, I shall negotiate with the leaders of these population groups and with the leaders of any other population groups for the sake of a peaceful solution of the question of the country. No one should therefore expect of me to alienate Brown people or Indian people or Black peoples and chase them into a hostile camp, and by so doing isolate the Whites not only within this country, but also in Africa and the world. The enemies of South Africa are seeking its downfall in isolation, and we must not do their work for them.

I have already thanked the hon. member for Kimberley North for his contribution.

The hon. member for Caledon said that we should get away from the pattern of defence. He said that we should initiate things and provide creative leadership. I agree with him. I think we should do so fearlessly. We must not stand like pale, White children—and I do not mean White in the figurative sense of the word—like timid, fearful White children standing next to a diving board, afraid to get on, but preventing other people from doing so. If we want to be relevant in the future politics of the country, then we must do what the hon. member for Caledon proposed.

The hon. member for Algoa—and I want to thank him for this—referred to relations and the relations committees. I agree with him. Constitutional models are not the cause of attitudes. I have said this on several occasions. They are the result of attitudes among people. The creation of a climate is the first priority. A consensus among leaders that there is a need for reform is the first priority, and the standpoint of leaders not to follow but to lead, is of cardinal importance on the road ahead.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North gave a critical and correct analysis of the content, as opposed to the model, of the 1977 proposals, and I thank him for that.

The hon. members for Umlazi and Maitland made a fine contribution—and I wish to thank them for doing so—concerning what education and the improvement of education has done for the Indian population. The hon. member for Maitland mentioned the special role played by the Indian population. I just wish to say that nowadays we are so fond of speaking about the informal sector of the economy. We often speak about the small business man. There is no population group with more experience of the informal sector of the economy and the small business sector, than the Indian population. In this particular regard they have a fine reservoir of knowledge which the country can use to good effect, and I want to thank them for their contribution in this regard.

The hon. member for Sunday’s River spoke about our sincerity in regard to the upliftment of the Brown people and the fact that it is manifested in practice. I agree with the hon. member. In this regard he referred to the annual report. I want to say today that the fact that we have conducted this debate for three days now and that there has been virtually no criticism of education—although it is not perfect—of welfare or of the services rendered to communities, serves to prove the point the hon. member made. It is proof of the tremendous progress that has taken place. That is not to say that there are no deficiencies.

The hon. member for De Kuilen asked to be excused. He referred to the progress made in the socio-economic sphere and I want to tell him that that is true.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North contributed an illuminating speech about the progress that has been made as far as the Coloureds are concerned. It is true that we are on the threshhold of a new era in Brown politics, but to that I want to add that we are also on the threshhold of a new era in the White, Brown and Asian politics of the country, because they are indivisible. I thank the hon. member for his contribution and his help. The hon. member for Benoni said that at the moment, Coloureds had no political rights, and that is true. Those of the Indians are limited. He said that the position in this regard was unacceptable. I agree with him.

I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point and to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North as well.

Do you want the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North here?

No, not particularly. The hon. member for Groote Schuur can inform him on what I have to say.

*The only discordant note with regard to accents—I say this in all honesty—and with regard to formulation and attitude, came from the hon. member for Sea Point. He levelled the accusation at this side of the House that our attacks on the PFP were counterproductive for reform. The hon. member for Mossel Bay dealt with that. I say that the opposite is true. The hon. member must refrain from accusing Whites.

It was not an accusation, it was a warning.

Oh, really, the hon. member for Greytown was not even present.

The hon. member for Sea Point must refrain from accusing Whites, because the record of this Government, with all its faults, as regards its relations with and attitude towards Brown, Indian and Black, and with regard to what has been achieved, cannot be equalled at any period in the history of our country.

Yes, because it stinks.

It is difficult to contain oneself when that hon. member opens his mouth.

The fact is that if we wish to succeed with any reform in the country—leaving aside other preconditions, of which there are many—then we must convince the Whites of the merits of the change. I say to the hon. member that we shall not succeed in doing so if they constantly put the Whites in the dock, as in that hon. member’s statements. We shall not succeed in doing so if the hon. member for Sea Point and some of his colleagues—not all—virtually never make a stand on the rights of Whites. Nor shall we achieve it if the hon. member wants to call in other population groups as arbiter in the political struggle between us in this House.

I want to contrast what the hon. member for Sea Point says, with the words of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. In the first instance, he says that without political power there can be no reform. I am not one of those who say that political power is not necessary. [Interjections.] I have never suggested that a political say is not a powerful instrument with which to negotiate things for oneself. However, it can also be a dangerous instrument, because it can destroy. I shall prove to him in a moment that it can be an instrument of destruction. Political power has destroyed large parts of the continent of Africa.

Let us see whether what he says is true. I have said that there can be no question of reform in one sphere of human activity alone. I said that reform in one sphere, whether social, educational, economic or political, has an influence on the other spheres; and indeed, that if one concentrates on one sphere and ignores the others, one is not engaged in reform, but may in fact destabilize society. Accordingly I said that we had to synchronize the adjustment and reform, causing it to take place simultaneously in all the spheres.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that we had deprived the Coloureds and Indians of political power.

I did not say that.

The hon. member also said that without political power, economic or social reform could not take place. Has economic reform not taken place, relatively speaking, among the Coloureds and the Indians, reform of a far greater extent and nature than was ever the case when they had political power, as the hon. member said they had?

I did not say they had political power.

The hon. member did say that we had deprived the Coloureds and Indians of political power.

They had a political say.

Call it a political say then, if you wish.

They had political rights.

At the time when the Coloureds and the Indians had political rights …

I never spoke about that.

At the time the hon. member said that I had deprived the Coloureds and Indians of political rights, and now he is saying that he did not speak about that. When the Coloureds and Indians had political rights, limited though they were, was there a system of compulsory education?

They had inferior rights, not political power.

The hon. member must not try and make a speech now. I am asking him whether there was compulsory education at that stage. What participation did they have in the economic life of the country?

[Inaudible.]

I contend that it was specifically the improvement in education facilities and standards and the increased standard of living of the population group that also requires that they participate in politics. The hon. member cannot, therefore, come and tell me that the Coloureds and Indians needed political power to achieve that, because surely that is not true. The facts contradict what the hon. member says.

There is a difference between political power and voting rights.

The hon. member states—

He also says—

Something odd is going on here; hon. members of the PFP do not want to be responsible for the creation of the President’s Council. Nevertheless, they want to adopt its children. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon. member for Sea Point also expressed himself poorly, as the hon. member for Green Point did, because it seems to me as if there is something inconsistent. Let me quote what the hon. member said—

Furthermore he says, and this is interesting—

I was dealing with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North.

Mr. Chairman, I am talking to the hon. member for Sea Point now. He said that he was looking forward to the day when the first Coloured man arrives, whether it be in a system with one, two or three chambers. That is what the hon. member said.

He did not say that.

The hon. member for Houghton must not interfere with this. I am talking to the hon. member for Sea Point now. [Interjections.] Furthermore he said—

*All I want to know from him now is whether I must interpret this as meaning that if there are recommendations; and the recommendations are acceptable, the hon. member’s party will also accept them?

When the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks all arrived …

You did not say that. I am very sorry. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, you see that this is the sort of thing we get. But let us now compare what the hon. member has said with what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has said. This is very interesting.

It is in another context.

No, it is not in another context.

*Let us take a brief look at what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has to say. I contend that what he said is in fact representative of what most hon. members of the official Opposition think and want. Listen to what he says. He says that he thinks that political power is very important. He says he thinks that political power and identity are very important. However, he goes much further than that. He defines what he means by this.

†I should like to read this, because it is very important because this is where we fundamentally differ from the official Opposition.

*He said that if we in this country wanted to survive, then as far as he was concerned it was not an issue of “baasskap”. Well and good. He says that one need not be a politician to predict the future of this country. He says that all one needs is to be a mathematician and to know one’s statistics. He says that we are saddled with a tremendous problem, and that is the survival of White Africans on the subcontinent of Africa. The question is: How are we to guarantee that survival. In other words, it is logical to infer that the statistics to which the hon. member referred are the African statistics.

He went on to say that as far as he was concerned, in this African set-up the issue was not one of a political say. The issue was only whether he would survive physically; no matter how. What are the statistics that form the basis of the hon. member’s prediction of the future? There are 54 States on the continent of Africa, including the islands. Three of these States are military dictatorships, 11 are totalitarian one-party States without any parliamentary institutions whatsoever, 22 are one-party States in which the opposition parties have been banned and 18 are multi-party States with limited political participation. That is the mathematical calculation done by the hon. member in regard to his own country.

He never said that.

No other conclusion could be drawn. The hon. member and some of his people on the other side over there reached the simplistic conclusion that the Whites should forfeit a political say merely for the sake of survival. If I were one of the enemies of South Africa today, I should pray for members of the Opposition to say what the hon. member said yesterday.

That is an absolutely distorted interpretation.

Those are the facts. In this way some of the hon. members opposite—some, because some of them offer resistance—advocated foreign pressure.

Where did we advocate foreign pressure?

That hon. member has been following the policy of abdication throughout his life. I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Pinetown with regard to the question of the Indians. I said yesterday that the outcome of the election for the Indian Council was influenced by the ANC—I referred incorrectly to the Black Alliance. What I meant was “Black power”. I should just like to rectify that. Not one hon. member can tell me that he thinks that local government is not important in this country. Does the hon. member agree with me?

Of course!

They say they agree with me. What are the percentage polls for municipal elections in many cases? How many seats are totally uncontested? Does that imply that because the percentage poll is low or because many people are elected uncontested that we must reject the system?

You are comparing apples with pears.

I am not. I want to take this matter further.

You yourself said you were very disappointed.

Of course I was disappointed, but that does not mean that I must destroy the institution.

There is a second point that I should like to make. The hon. member knows how many of the Indian leaders who did not participate vacillated between one party and another from time to time. He knows how they vacillated in terms of their request for an election or not an election. The hon. member also knows that there is a lack of experience of political party operation in that community. The hon. member has never taken sides against people who wanted to destroy the S.A. Indian Council. Therefore I should like to suggest to the hon. member that we are committed to constitutional reform in this country. We have created instruments to see whether it is possible to attain that objective. We are committed to negotiate with leaders, and I do that almost every day of my life.

How far are you prepared to go?

I negotiate almost every day of my life with Coloured leaders.

But you must give them a negotiating base.

Yes, I am coming to that. I have put them in an institution where they can assist to devise that base. I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that he should shed some of his arrogance. Why talk about Coloured leaders disparagingly, as he did? Why talk of people who serve on management committes as “Uncle Toms”? Is it not a fact that many of the management committees in this country are being controlled by the Labour Party? Is the hon. member suggesting that the Labour Party represents Uncle Toms?

I thought that television programme was scandalous.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about that hon. member’s description of other people.

I am talking about the people who appeared on that programme. [Interjections.]

These people who talk about freedom of expression, reserve the right of expression only to themselves, and when people disagree with them, they are called Uncle Toms. I think it is a disgrace, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point put a question to me about the future of the Indian people. He should, however, know what the standpoint of this Government is. Firstly, the Government accepts that the Indians should serve on the President’s Council. Secondly, the Government has committed itself to the idea that the constitutional development of the Coloured and the Indian people would be the same provided that we can negotiate with them.

*I now come to the hon. member for Waterkloof. He put a few questions to me, and I should like to reply to them. In the first place, he asked what we were going to do if the outcome of the referenda among the various population groups differed. However, I am going to introduce a Bill with regard to the referendum during this session and I suggest that we discuss the matter at that stage. We shall then have an opportunity to discuss it. I hope the hon. member accepts my word in that regard.

He also asked what the standpoint would be if the President’s Council were to recommend that there should be a change in sovereignty. However, I now wish to ask him whether the 1977 proposals did not entail a change in sovereignty.

That is not my standpoint.

I am not asking what the hon. member’s standpoint is now, but what the implications were of the 1977 proposals which the hon. member vociferously supported.

Give him a chance to reply.

I am not talking to that hon. member now, but to the hon. member for Waterkloof.

But the hon. the Minister is not giving him a chance to reply. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member for Waterkloof agree that the proposals of 1977 effected a change in sovereignty?

We are still talking about that.

No, I am not talking about the Act, but about the 1977 proposals.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says no.

Powers would be transferred to the other parliaments.

Well and good, powers would be transferred to the other parliaments. However, does that not mean that we would hand over those powers? And if one hands over powers, then surely that affects one’s sovereignty, does it not? A change has indeed taken place. It seems to me that the hon. member agrees. Then the change in sovereignty is not, after all, such an alien idea that the hon. member thinks he can corner me by questioning me about it.

The proposals of 1977 also contain a second element of shifting of sovereignty, and that is that there would be three parliamentary institutions, and one would have the right to decide on matters of common interest. This is a submission and is not in the Act. Provision is also made for a procedure to settle conflicts, whether right or wrong. Ultimately it is also provided that the final decisions of Select Committees that cannot settle conflicts, will lapse, and the State President with executive power, one of the parliamentary institutions, will have the final say. After all, that is a change in sovereignty.

Yes.

The hon. member says yes. Why, then, is he arguing with me? Why does he put questions to me in this regard? Surely he knows what the standpoint is. [Interjections.] I now wish to say to the hon. member that we regard recommendations of the President’s Council, including those relating to sovereignty, in the same light as he has just assessed the proposals of 1977. I believe he will agree with me that that is a reasonable approach.

I want to thank the hon. member for Welkom wholeheartedly. Fundamentally I agree with him, because he wrote his thesis on Maoism, and I think that we must make scientific books on this subject available to people to enable them to study it. I think I have answered all the hon. member’s questions as far as possible.

In conclusion, I just wish to convey my sincere thanks to the officials of my department who have worked very hard over the past year. This is probably the department with one of the biggest staff shortages, a department which, in the course of rendering its services, deals with the man in the street every day. I should like my thanks to be conveyed to those who are not present at the moment, the people who do not work in the limelight. Many thanks, too, to hon. members for their contribution to this debate. In my opinion, we could sum up the debate by saying that the debate in general has been to the credit of this House.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Third Reading of this Bill. As we said at Second Reading, the most important thing is that the Land Tenure Board has now been done away with, having been incorporated in the Community Development Board. The fact that two boards have become one is an excellent rationalization measure. We also appreciate that the large number of legal provisions that were contained in a large number of other Acts are to be brought under control on this one board. This will provide for a greater degree of rationalization.

We also feel that the provision in regard to a person seeking election to any party is dealt with quite fully in this legislation, and we are equally sure that the hon. the Minister will ensure that when any person signs a nomination form, this immediately becomes effective.

Another aspect that we appreciate is the fact that the executive committee of the board has now been given the necessary powers to carry out its duties, and also that standing committees may be formed. In the light of this rationalization, we look forward, with interest, to the report of the Community Development Board.

We on this side of the House wish to make it clear, however, that if there are things that have to be criticized, we shall criticize them openly and fairly, in accordance with the policy of this party.

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the official Opposition’s support for this legislation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout quite rightly pointed out that this legislation actually forms part of the programme of rationalization which the Government is carrying out. In the process the Land Tenure Board is in fact being done away with. It is becoming part of a single statutory body which will deal with this entire matter of community development.

I feel we should also appreciate the fact that provision is being made in the legislation before this House for the hon. the Minister to delegate the powers entrusted in him to this Board and also to the committees. This will expedite matters and also lead to the elimination of unnecessary red tape. One has great appreciation for the work done by the Community Development Board. This board’s field of activity extends across the dividing line of colour. That is why it is so important that in these times in which we are living we should express the necessary appreciation for the work that is being done by the Community Development Board. We appreciate what has been done in the past. I should also like to make an appeal to the other parties in this House and ask them at all times to give the Community Development Board the necessary support in the tremendous task they are performing.

During the past few weeks we have spent hours debating the word power-sharing in this House. However, I want to refer to another important word to which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development also drew attention. I think we should mention this word again here this afternoon. I am referring to the word attitude (gesindheid), and the attitude with which we approach certain matters. Because we must give our final approval for this legislation today, I want to ask that when we make a contribution by dealing with the activities of the Community Development Board, which affect all the various groups in the community, we should at all times be understanding and approach our task with the attitude that we want to build up a happy community which will be to the advantage of this country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, we have no fault to find with this legislation. Our attitude towards the department will always be a good one because we have never found fault with the officials. It is only the political matters arising in the department which sometimes lead to our attitudes differing. I just want to tell the hon. member for Witbank that as far as “power-sharing” is concerned, it is a new word in our vocabulary.

It is a four-letter word.

Not in our vocabulary.

I agree that it is not a new word to the Progs. That is the word we came to know them by. One cannot expect the NP to understand everything about it straight away. Their explanation is that it is healthy power-sharing.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

Thank you, Sir. I think our discussion can now proceed in a better manner.

To my mind this Bill has something of a sting in the tail in clause 4(b). Here reference is made to any person who “attempts to have himself nominated”. It reads as follows—

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member must please keep quiet.

†Sir, I do not know why this hon. member is always trying to interject when it comes to the law. I have so often in my life dealt with articled clerks that I do not want to do it again. [Interjections.]

He is not a lawyer.

It is quite obvious that this provision in the Bill can be misused. It may be construed in entirely the wrong way when a man in a certain position for instance just says to someone else: “You know, I really like that party; I would like to be nominated by it.” That in essence could be looked upon as an attempt by such a person to have himself nominated.

I do not think you could even get a job as an articled clerk. [Interjections.]

I have nothing further to say to you.

I want to make it quite clear that I do not like this definition because it is susceptible to a very wide interpretation. If we take a close look at clause 4 we see that even an attempt to have oneself nominated is prohibited. Who decides when an attempt has been made and when not. When a man is nominated he must sign a nomination form. He is then in the process of being nominated. However, I cannot understand how it can be alleged that someone has attempted to have himself nominated if he has not signed a nomination form.

I do not want there to be anything obscure in legislation we in the CP have supported. That is what I am asking, that the hon. the Deputy Minister clear up this matter for us. I want him to give us the assurance that the intention of this legislation is merely that the specific provision only applies to someone who has already signed a nomination form. We must be quite clear what is at issue here. The exact wording of the provision, in line 12 on page 5 is as follows—

Very well. Let us assume that someone is annoyed with a member of the relevant board and he sends a letter to the Minister in which he alleges that the relevant member of the board is attempting to have himself nominated. The letter writer may even allege that the member concerned approached him and asked him to nominate him. Would this in terms of the provision under discussion suggest that an offence had been committed? I just want the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this to us. We do not want to vote against the Bill, but we are nevertheless asking that this be explained to us. We believe that the provision is much too wide, that the field covered by it is too wide. In other respects we have no problems with this legislation. A variety of existing Acts are being repealed by this Act and I believe that the legislation is making things more streamlined. We therefore support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but enjoy the speech by the hon. member for Langlaagte, because it appears that at long last somebody has picked up the point of which I made a big issue during the Committee Stage.

It also seems that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout still does not understand the purpose of clause 4 of this Bill. He commented that he was very delighted that when a person signed a nomination form he would be removed from the board. The whole point is that the Bill does not state that at all. This is what I was in fact asking for during Committee Stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, felt that his experts knew more about it than others and he was prepared to accept their word. I rather suspect he will have trouble with this at some stage in the future if contention should arise on this point. However, as far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, it quite obviously contains a number of considerable improvements, which we are very happy to accept.

Having fought my battle as it were during Committee Stage, I do not propose to start the argument all over again now. We will support this Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who on behalf of the official Opposition, expressed support of this legislation. The hon. member for Langlaagte expressed the CP’s support of this legislation. However, he raised certain objections with regard to clause 4, and he said that he felt the provision in clause 4, concerning even an attempt to obtain a nomination for a particular election for the House of Assembly or a provincial council, was altogether too rigid. We have already debated this matter during the Second Reading.

Our standpoint was basically that the decision about the question of an attempt should be at the Minister’s discretion. In fact, there are very sound reasons for this. An important reason is that because someone who is a member of that board, a board which, by the nature of its activities, deals with tremendously sensitive matters, we are of the opinion that the Minister should, as far as possible, retain his discretionary powers. This concerns the purchasing of land, the development of group areas, etc. These people are dealing with politically sensitive issues and we felt that the hon. the Minister should, as far as possible, retain his discretionary powers. Theoretically, the hon. member is correct in his argument that if anyone were to tell another person that he wished to be nominated or elected, this could also be regarded as an attempt. Theoretically this could be true, but I think that there should also be a degree of confidence in the discretionary powers which the Minister reserves for himself in this particular provision. I shall tell hon. members why I argue this way. This particular provision is, contained in the Act which we transferred from the Land Tenure Board. In fact, this same provision is also contained in a series of other Acts and in the past, this posed no problem. For this reason too, we did not want to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo.

In conclusion, I just wish to say that I am grateful for the support I have received. The board will now be extended, and this means an extension of the functions and the responsibility of the board as well. A considerable amount of red tape will also be eliminated, as was stated by the hon. member for Witbank. In the process, the expertise of the board will be improved, inter alia by the inclusion of people who are experts in the field of the valuation of rural areas and farm properties and who also have a sound knowledge of agriculture. This also means the consolidation of land transactions and land affairs within one board. I therefore believe that new information in respect of the land market will be available in a much wider field, and I also believe that this board will be able to gather more information for us concerning the property situation as it exists in South Africa today. Therefore, together with hon. members on all sides of this House, I wish to express the hope that this board, with its new functions and new powers, will be able to fulfil its task successfully.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the discussion of this Bill was interrupted, the Opposition had made certain statements to which I wish to refer briefly. Because this amending Bill does not contain any new principles, I find the official Opposition’s resistance to it rather strange. The compulsory contribution by employers to a subsidy on transport for their employees is in fact contained in existing legislation.

In his speech the hon. member for Berea specifically emphasized the fact that they had received representations in respect of and objections to this amending Bill from Assocom. It is of no concern to me if Assocom uses the PFP as its mouthpiece. I just wonder what the official Opposition’s attitude would have been if Assocom had informed them that it supported this amending Bill. I wonder if the official Opposition would then still have opposed this legislation.

Now I have come to the conclusion—and I hope I am being just—that the PFP is opposing the increased contributions their wealthy friends will probably have to make because they have a large number of employees in their service. The reason I feel this is not an unfair inference lies in the fact that that party is usually in favour of a better dispensation, higher subsidies and aid for people of colour. Their attitude in this case is therefore contrary to their usual reaction to matters of this nature. However, the fact remains that those who benefit from the labour must also pay to get those workers or employees to work.

The current levy is not realistic. Rising transport costs necessitate the payment of higher subsidies. The current levy is no longer a realistic subsidy for the service. The burden must be divided between the travellers, the State and the employer. Due to rising costs an imbalance has occurred. I just want to mention that since 1975 bus fares have risen by 240% and this gives hon. members an indication of the rising trend in this connection.

Having said that an imbalance has occurred, I want to point out that this is borne out by the fact that according to estimate, the contributions of employers to the subsidy dropped from 42% during the 1974-’75 financial year to a mere 13% during the 1981-’82 financial year.

The fact that the Government appointed the Welgemoed Commission to carry out an in-depth investigation into bus passenger transport proves that the Government is in earnest about this matter and that it is attempting to eliminate any defects which may exist. That is why I feel that this side of the House, at any rate, can support the Bill with a clear conscience, because the matter will be investigated in depth by the commission, and if there are indeed deficiencies, these will come to light and receive the necessary attention.

I think it was the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who objected to the fact that the Minister will determine the tariff of the levy. This objection does not carry much weight. The Minister will announce the tariff in the Gazette in terms of the provisions of the legislation, and the Minister can therefore be held accountable in Parliament if, in the opinion of the hon. members, the tariffs are not realistic or are even irresponsible. After all, tariffs will certainly not be worked out haphazardly, but on a scientific or accounting basis, which can also be checked by the department’s cost accountant because this matter will be handled by the National Transport Commission.

I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also questioned the desirability of the broad principle of subsidies. He also questioned the payment of subsidies by one group on behalf of another group. I want to be fair to the hon. member and concede—this is my personal opinion—that he does to a certain extent have a case. I think we must strive—if at all possible—to reach a stage where all population groups are in a position to pay for their own services. But because this cannot be achieved overnight this matter must be dealt with realistically. We on this side of the House do not for a moment doubt the desirability of submitting the amending Bill at present before this House and it therefore gives me pleasure to give my wholehearted support to the hon. the Minister’s proposal in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welkom, who has just sat down, has made the same sort of incorrect assessment of the attitude of the PFP as was made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He suggested the PFP made up its mind to oppose the Bill because a telex from Assocom made us decide to oppose the Bill. I want to inform both those hon. members that this is not the case and that the PFP had in fact made up its mind to oppose the Bill, and had put it to the caucus, before we ever received the telex. Of course, the hon. the Minister also has a copy of this telex; so it was not anything which was exclusive to the PFP. I am not aware whether the NRP also received a telex or not.

I believe this Bill is to a certain extent premature. It does not alter our dislike for the Bill, but it is premature because right at the moment the Welgemoed Commission is investigating and will be making additional recommendations. It has already submitted an interim report, but will in due course be reporting further, I understand. I would imagine that it is possible that there might either be additional legislation necessary as a result of the further recommendations, or that their recommendations could in view of their further investigations perhaps be slightly altered.

Let us look at the reason why this Bill is being pushed through at this time. I believe that reason lies in the policy announced by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Cape’s Good Hope conference. I will come back to that subject in due course.

The hon. the Minister, in his opening speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, started off by saying that it is “Regeringsbeleid weens sosio-ekonomiese redes” that this Bill should be passed. We in the PFP do not believe that that is the whole story at all. Of course there are socio-economic reasons why a bus subsidy should be paid, but we believe that the situation is very badly aggravated by the separate development policies of this Government in this particular regard. I only have to point to the situation in an area which I know very well, the East London area, to prove my point in this regard. In that area, traditionally and over many years, the Black population had lived in an area called Duncan Village. In terms of the policy of the Government a new township was started, called Mdantsane, which, at its closest point, is no less than 11 miles from East London. The policy of the Government was to ultimately move all the Blacks from the Duncan Village area to Mdantsane, but the total programme has not yet been completed. Those Black people now have to live a minimum of 11 miles from the city in which they work. Almost all of them work there, because the industrial development of Berlin, which is much closer to them, has not yet been a success.

So, instead of having a short trip to make which many of them could have made on foot or by bicycle from Duncan Village, they now have to use public transport of some nature, either train or bus, to travel at least 11 miles to East London. This is one of the reasons why such enormous sums have to be spent by the taxpayers of this country on subsidizing bus transportation and, of course, as the hon. the Minister well knows, rail transportation as well. Therefore, I cannot accept this this Bill is only for social or economic reasons.

The hon. the Minister says that even in the most highly developed countries subsidies are paid. This is perfectly true. He also says that where the subsidies come from is something which can certainly be argued. That is what we are doing in regard to this particular Bill because while we in these benches go along with subsidization, the way it is being done in this Bill we believe is certainly very open to argument. Just as one small example we do not agree with the principle of selectively taxing businessmen in terms of their employees. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that the estimated figure for 1981-’82 which the businessmen will pay is a mere 13%. However, if he increases the subsidy from R1 to R2, which he can do through legislation, it will make it 26% without giving him the right to impose any figure which he sees fit. I shall return to that particular argument in due course.

In his speech the hon. the Minister also said—

Really, whenever has it been a yardstick by which taxation is measured whether a particular taxpayer receives a benefit or not? As far as I am aware, this has never been a principle of taxation. Take for instance the old age pension. Many people who contribute directly towards old age pensions will never benefit from them at all. Therefore I do not believe that that is an argument that can be advanced at all.

Our reason for opposing this Bill which the NRP also seem to have some difficulty with—we are glad to note that they will also be opposing the Bill—is found primarily in clause 3 on page 7 of the Bill. Clause 3 seeks to amend section 3 of the principal Act by deleting the provision that the Minister can impose a levy of R1 per employee per month and substituting therefore a provision that the Minister may levy a contribution at a rate at which the Minister, after consultation with the commission may, from time to time, determine by notice in the Gazette for every month or part of a month. We in these benches believe that this is actually againt one of the principles of parliamentary government. That principle is that Parliament must have the right to debate any form of taxation as and when it is imposed. The hon. the Minister of Finance himself has to come to this House to increase or to reduce taxation. However, in terms of this Bill this hon. Minister is giving himself the right to impose a tax—this is basically what it is—on employers. He has to consult with the commission but he has the basic right te determine what the rate of the levy should be. We believe that this is a bad parliamentary principle. We believe that that hon. Minister should have to come back to this House any time he wishes to increase this particular levy on employers. He should not have the right to do it himself. It is also interesting to note that Assocom also finds this to be not acceptable.

I am trustworthy.

Far be it from me ever to deny that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is trustworthy. But does it demonstrate a lack of trust if he makes it R20 per employee or R5 per employee? That has nothing to do with trust at all. Of course we do also realize that this is now extending the principle of selective taxation. A small percentage of employers are now going to have to pay for the transportation of their employees, and we believe that this should not in any way fall on one section of the population only. After all, these businesses are also all taxed in the normal way of business. In this particular financial year 46,2% of the businessman’s profit is taken from him by the Government in the form of taxation. Now, of course, the hon. the Minister can take even more. We do not believe that there should be selective taxation at any stage. There is, however, a reason why this Bill is being put through during this particular session and I think this can be found in a couple of reports that have already been tabled. For instance, there is the first interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Bus Passenger Transportation, the so-called Welgemoed Commission. This commission has made a few statements that I should like to quote. In chapter 3, paragraph 3.12(i), it states—

I think that if one looks at the Government’s White Paper on promotion of industrial development one will also see that “the aim is only to recover as far as possible from the metropolitan areas concerned those costs of locating in these metropolitan areas which are currently formed by society as a whole”. When one looks at these two statements, I think the picture becomes reasonably clear. The powers contained in this Bill will enable the Government to apply disincentives to metropolitan areas. In terms of this legislation they will be able to apply differentiated rates to employers. For instance, they could charge the employer in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg an enormous figure to have them paying for the transportation in their own area. Then they could charge nothing in the centralized or decontrolled areas if they so wished. It makes it quite clear that the subsidy collected in one area from the employers cannot be spent in another area. Of course the effect is the same, because then the subsidy that the Government provides from its own taxation sources can be used totally in the decentralized areas and not in the metropolitan areas at all. I think that this is a point that needs to be very strongly made. I believe that this is almost the first gun that has been fired in this disincentive campaign for metropolitan areas. I think Assocom has every right to be very concerned about this situation. I believe they realize that this is what is happening. It becomes even more clear—and this is the final point that I want to make on this Bill—when one looks at clause 10 of the Bill where there is a proposed section 10A that states—

There, I think, it becomes quite clear that in regard to the decentralized or decontrolled areas, particularly those relating to the homelands and the independent States that were formerly part of South Africa, the hon. the Minister will be able to enter into agreements with the governments of those states in order to subsidize passenger transport in those areas.

Because of all those reasons, we in these benches believe that this Bill should not be proceeded with and, as the hon. member for Berea has said, we shall therefore vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea and other hon. members put a few questions. The Opposition is now objecting to the granting of certain powers to the Minister in terms of this legislation. The hon. member said, for example: “We are giving him a blank cheque”. However, there are no ulterior motives in this matter. Indeed, that hon. member did not oppose the Act of 1957; he was satisfied with it. The only objection to this legislation is that the amount which can be levied, is now being deleted, and that the Minister can decide on the matter. However, we cannot come to this House every year and say that costs have increased, that the price of fuel has been increased, that tyres and buses are more expensive and that the Act must therefore be amended. Surely the hon. member for Welkom explained that this is going to be done by way of a proclamation in the Gazette, and that it can be discussed here. The legislation has also been amended to provide that 12 months notice will be given, and this was done precisely in order to accommodate the employer so that he can plan his affairs over a period of 12 months.

The hon. member was not unhappy about the Act of 1957, but whereas in 1957 we collected R6 million through this Act and had a subsidy of R9 million we are now, by way of this legislation, collecting R15 million for Blacks, while the subsidy is R99 million. Does the hon. member find it difficult to do a small calculation?

†The hon. member said that I must give him an indication. If one compares the R6 million that was contributed by the employers against the R9 million as a subsidy the Government with the present R15 million as a levy and R99 million as a subsidy, it gives one a figure of 2:3 in 1975 as against 3:20 now. We do not, however, intend increasing it to this amount, and the hon. members should not hold me to it. To be practical, I can foresee a maximum of about R3.

That is our trouble; we cannot keep you to it.

I cannot amend the legislation year after year when in practice we have debated the whole question.

The hon. member also says that “any village can be declared”. There is no amendment of the Act in this regard. If a subsidy is paid in respect of a certain area, we have the right to implement the Act.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central expressed sympathy with the people compelled to stay far from their place of work because of Government policy. He also said that these people are compelled to stay far from their place of work because of separate development, and pointed out that Mdantsane is 11 miles from East London. What a comparison, Sir! Eleven miles from East London! Hon. members should go and have a look at places such as Plattekloof and Panorama, this side of Parow, Bellville and Kraaifontein, and they will find that they are 22 km from the centre of Cape Town. However, people living there do not get a subsidy.

*Even if the various population groups did not live separately, people are forced, as a result of the ever-increasing population, to travel between 20 and 30 km to their places of employment. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now objecting to people having to travel 11 miles or 17 km to reach their places of employment. As long as I am part of this political business, we shall live separately. It is no use arguing with me about that. I am prepared to make any other concession, but if we want to see this country in a nice mess, we must have mixed residential areas as those hon. members want. [Interjections.] I believe in orderliness. I have said before that I would be happy if the people of colour had a better residential area than my own, but…

Has it led to a problem in South West Africa?

… I just do not want to have mixed residential areas. To me this is not an example or a reason why this sort of thing happens. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred to the telex from Assocom.

†I also received a telex message from Assocom, but I do not know whether I received my message on the same day they received theirs. The people of Assocom are not stupid. They are members of the NP. Those hon. members really cannot think the members of Assocom would ever vote for the PFP. If that were the case, those hon. members should be ruling this country.

They are actually members of the CP.

Surely those people are not stupid. Good heavens, where have you ever seen that somebody from Assocom, with a clear head, would vote for those boys? No, surely not!

Order! The Chair has already ruled that hon. members may not be referred to as “boys”.

All right then, “hon. members”. I am sorry.

†I received telex messages from other people too and sent them replies on certain points about which they wanted to have clarity. I had one, for example, from the Chamber of Mines, and I replied as follows—

*I have received various representations from people, and they are satisfied. The hon. member for Roodeplaat gave me, the department, the hon. member for Welkom and other hon. members of the study group very valuable advice, and for that I thank him. He said that we would get nothing out of certain housewives who make use of casual labourers. This is a fact. One cannot have these provisions applied to the letter, but one can, after all, narrow the existing gap. I therefore thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Langlaagte agrees with the legislation. However, he asked that we should give attention to domestic servants who also travel by bus during peak hours. However, the fact that domestic servants do not travel by bus outside peak hours, means that one has to have a lot of transport for people who use it at certain times. The hon. member mentioned a very important point. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Langlaagte left this party, because he so often talks sense. He asks why pensioners have to pay for the workers in the factories. He is absolutely right, and this is a reply to the question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

The hon. member for Vasco put his case very clearly. In my view the hon. member for Vasco spelled out the principle of subsidies very clearly.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said Parliament must decide what the amount of the increase would be. I disagree with him, and that is why we are going to have a division on this measure. Let us therefore agree to differ in peace.

With luck you might win the division!

He also said that his wife employed a domestic servant, but that she was already paying for the transport. In future, however, she can have this amount deducted. She only has to reach agreement with the domestic servant.

It would be against the law.

The hon. member asked whether we had consulted with Assocom. I have already replied to that question.

*The hon. member for Welkom said that those who wanted the benefit of labour, had to pay for the transport. I cannot disagree with the hon. member for Welkom.

†This brings me to something the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said, and I think it is very important. Can hon. members believe that anyone would ask: Is it correct to ask only those who benefit from the employment to pay for the subsidy on transport? He says that is a differentiated tax. In other words, can one expect a pensioner without a motor car to pay for the building of roads in South Africa?

But he does.

It is a contradiction from beginning to end. We do not do it. We expect from a person who buys petrol to pay 2,354c per litre of petrol to enable us to build national roads, but we do not expect it from a pensioner who never uses these roads. Exactly the same thing applies here.

You do not want pensioners to have cars.

He wants them to ride bicycles.

The hon. member also said this serves as a disincentive to metropolitan areas. This matter has nothing to do with any other undertaking of the Government.

*This is only a rectification of something which has gone wrong over the past seven to eight years. Hon. members will see that we shall not be unreasonable in the implementation of this provision. If we have to vote, let us vote, but hon. members must afterwards please support the other stages so that we can dispose of the Bill tonight.

Question put,

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main principle contained in this Bills is the same as the one contained in clause 3 of the Black Transport Services Amendment Bill, on which we have just divided. Hon. members will understand, therefore, if my discussion of this Bill is less detailed.

The subsidizing of Coloured bus commuters in those cases where they cannot afford the economic fare is done in terms of the Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indian Act, Act No. 27 of 1972. Since the commencement of the Act in 1972, employers of Coloured persons in those areas in which the Act is applicable—the so-called declared areas—have been contributing at an unchanged rate of 20 cents per employee per calendar week.

In 1980-’81, subsidized transport was introduced for Indians in Lenasia as well. This is done from appropriated funds. No levies are imposed, because problems are still being experienced in identifying employers, and this is preventing the declaration of an area. The relevant amount in 1980-’81 was R31 816. It is estimated that the amount for 1981-’82 will be R84 000.

†The contributions received from employers are not sufficient to cover the payment of subsidies. Consequently additional funds have to be appropriated by Parliament under the Vote of the Department of Transport. I now wish to indicate how the amounts paid from these two sources have increased during the period 1974-’75 to 1980-’81, the last year for which audited figures are available. In 1974-75, R613 507 was paid from the Coloured Transport Account to bus companies conveying Coloureds. No additional funds were required from the State Revenue Fund, and accordingly this figure represents the total payment of subsidies in respect of Coloured bus commuters. For 1980-’81 the figures are R2 715 076 in the form of contributions and R7 610 708 in the form of funds votes, a total of R10 325 784. The estimated corresponding figures for 1981-’82 are R3 000 000 in the form of contributions and R8 700 000 in the form of funds voted, a total of R11 700 000.

Looked at from another angle the position is as follows: In 1976-77 the income from employers’ contributions represented 86,7% of the bus subsidy payments in respect of Coloureds. In 1980-’81 this percentage decreased to 26,3% while the estimated figure for 1981-’82 is 25,6%. As in the case of bus services for Blacks, these figures clearly demonstrate the complete disparity that has developed between these two sources of revenue of the Coloured Transport Account, a situation the continuance of which the Treasury cannot shoulder alone any longer. The only way to correct the disparity between subsidies paid from contributions and those from appropriated funds to some extent, is by increasing the contribution payable by employers. I am therefore providing in clause 2 that the Minister of Transport Affairs shall determine the rate of contribution by notice in the Gazette after consultation with the National Transport Commission. What the increased rate will be, has not been determined yet. Apart from my consultations with the National Transport Commission, I shall also deliberate with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Internal Affairs before the rate of the contribution is fixed. As in the case of the Black Transport Services Amendment Bill, I shall move an amendment to clause 2(a) during the Committee Stage which will enable employers to plan for an increase in the rate of the contribution.

*In order to spread more evenly the burden imposed upon employers of having to contribute to the transport costs of their Coloured employees, section 3(3) is being deleted, which means that contributions will also be payable in respect of domestic servants employed by private houseowners. More and more domestic servants are commuting between their homes and their places of work every day with the help of subsidized bus tickets to which their employers have not contributed anything. However, I intend to exempt domestic servants living in approved accommodation on the premises of private houseowners from the provisions of the Act in terms of section 3(4).

I want to emphasize that the provisions of this Act are not applicable everywhere in the country. They are only applicable in declared areas as defined in section 2. Transport contributions will only be increased in those cases where the contributions received are insufficient to meet the subsidy requirements. Contributions received in one area may not be used in any other area. The attention of hon. members is also specifically drawn to section 3(4) of the Act, in terms of which contributions are payable at a reduced rate under certain circumstances, or even not payable to all. For the rest, the Bill contains technical or administrative improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the State has proved over the years that it is not unwilling to make a generous contribution to the subsidizing of bus services used by Coloured workers. However, the State cannot provide the full amount, because their are many demands on the Treasury. That is why a levy is imposed on employers in declared areas, because they benefit most by the labour of their workers. The ratio between the amount derived from employers’ contributions and the amount appropriated by the Treasury has so strongly deteriorated to the detriment of the State that the employers’ contributions will have to be increased by the Minister from time to time as required, at the recommendation of the National Transport Commission.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated this Bill provides for the same principle as that provided for in the previous Bill and it is therefore not necessary to take up any great length of time of the House in discussing our opposition to the Bill which is based on the same reasons which applied when we opposed the previous Bill which we discussed this afternoon.

The Bill provides for an extension of a principle which we believe to be a bad principle. Once again it gives the hon. the Minister authority to determine the amount paid by employers in respect of the transport needs of their employees and, as in the previous Bill, it once again extends the provisions as to make it also applicable to employers of domestic servants. We believe this is bad in principle; we believe that while the hon. the Minister may indicate that he, will be reasonable in applying the levies and that he will consult the various people concerned, it should in fact be the right of Parliament to do so. There is really nothing to stop the hon. the Minister if he is in difficulty, even in terms of this legislation, having to come to Parliament in order to amend the law. The hon. the Minister, however, says this is too cumbersome and he now arrogates the right to suggest what levy should be paid by employers. It is true that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will move an amendment whereby he will at least give employers 12 months’ notice of the amounts concerned, and that is an improvement. Nonetheless, the hon. the Minister is still vested with the power to determine what amount should be paid. He indicated, in his reply to the previous debate, the disparity between the amounts of subsidy received from the various sources. If one were to take that on a pro rata basis, this could mean a considerable increase.

The hon. the Minister also indicated in his introductory speech to this Bill the amounts received from the various sources and the disparity in regard to those subsidies. Whatever the case, one merely wonders what sort of yardstick the hon. the Minister is going to use in order to determine the levy that is going to be paid. It seems to be a totally arbitrary situation because the hon. the Minister is never going to reach parity with the subsidy paid by the State unless he is going to impose an impossible levy on employers. One wonders exactly what sort of yardstick he will apply in these matters.

The hon. the Minister mentioned by way of example in his introductory speech the question of Lenasia and the people living there. Lenasia is the product of the policies of this Government. This is exactly the same situation as we have indicated previously, i.e. that we are now paying the price of separate development. We are paying the price that is an inevitable consequence of having moved people many kilometres away from their normal places of employment and away from the places where they would normally reside. In any other society they would tend to reside closer to their place of employment, but in South Africa the situation is different because of Government policy. One thinks particularly of the Coloureds and Indians who have through the years been the principal victims of the Group Areas Act. One can think in this regard of the situation in the Cape where the Coloured community are now living in Mitchells Plain and elsewhere, whereas in the past they were able to live in District Six and other areas much closer to town. This is therefore a case of the chickens coming home to roost as far as Government policy is concerned, because it is Government policy which has determined very largely, particularly in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians, that they should live greater distances from their places of work, thereby imposing a tremendous burden on these employees in regard to their transport requirements. It is therefore necessary that they be subsidized, but I believe that in this instance where the subsidy is now to be extended in this way, we are extending what is in any case a bad principle. We are now giving the hon. the Minister power which is excessive in respect of a matter which should, I think, be determined from time to time by Parliament. I certainly do not believe that there is any justification for including employers of domestics in having to pay the subsidy as proposed in the Bill.

One wonders, as far as the employers of domestic labour are concerned, why this particular change is now proposed at this stage. If one looks at the 1972 Act, one sees that they were specifically excluded. What does the hon. the Minister estimate the benefit is going to be from the subsidy from this new group, the employers of domestic servants? Again, this is going to be an irritant on housewives who employ Coloured or Indian servants and it is going to add to the administrative problems in collecting these levies. We believe it is totally unnecessary because most reasonable employers in any case make some sort of voluntary allowance for the transport costs of their employees if they do not live on the premises of the employer. We believe the whole situation is just adding to the administrative responsibility, it will cause difficulty in collecting the levies and it will be a total irritant in so far as the housewife is concerned.

It is also curious that in this Bill, as in the previous Bill, reference is made in Clause 5 to the Minister’s being able to enter into an agreement with the Government of any State or territory with regard to any matter relating to this Bill. We are dealing here with the Indian and the Coloured community and presumably the hon. the Minister will be able to enter into an agreement with Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Ciskei or Venda in relation to the transport requirements of Coloured and Indian people to and from these States. Again, as in the previous Bill, one can refer to the representations made by Assocom on this particular point. I want to quote their reference to agreements with foreign Governments—

Particularly in the case of Coloureds and Indians I cannot see the necessity for this sort of provision to be included in legislation of this kind for the hon. the Minister to enter into agreements in regard to these matters relating to these people with the so-called foreign States. The Assocom message also says—

One wonders what type of agreement the hon. the Minister envisages he will have to enter into with regard to these territories. Assocom goes on to say that—

I am not aware that there has been any delay in the passage of the Bills. I also believe that the points that I have made and the points which Assocom have made, particularly in regard to the agreements with foreign countries and other governments, are valid points and we are therefore unable to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Berea, but before I do so I just want to point out that I see these two Bills, the one we have just voted on and this one, as being two sides of the same coin, because the contents of the two Bills are in line.

However, I want to start off by saying that my fellow-commissioners and I have been punchbags for the Opposition ever since these two Bills were tabled, and since last Friday when the Transport Vote was discussed. I am not prepared to turn the other cheek but would prefer to debate these Bills with the Opposition.

It is quite clear to me that the discussions we have had with the official Opposition thus far, that at present, ideological considerations are leading the Opposition to overlook many things. What is most important is that it is blinding them, because they continue to say that it is apartheid and that legislation on residential areas and the like that has created these problems. For example, the hon. member for Berea spoke of “the price of separate development” and said that “the chickens have come home to roost”. If that is so, then let us now roast these chickens, for his sake and mine. The hon. member, as the Opposition’s chief spokesman on transport, also referred to the Assocom telex received the other day. Unfortunately I do not know what was stated in the Assocom telex. I am not, therefore, going to wear myself out trying to elaborate further on the Assocom telex. All I want to say is that I think the Assocom telex is receiving far more than its fair share of attention here at the moment.

What I do, in fact, want to discuss here is something the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central touched on. He also referred to the Assocom telex and said that these measures looked like interim measures to him. In this connection I want to agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I think this is the first time we are in agreement and I hope it is the last time, too. I agree that in this case the Bill is an interim measure.

The crux of this Bill is the acquisition of additional funds. Why is it essential to obtain additional funds? The hon. the Minister spelt out quite clearly what the amounts were. In 1976 the State’s contribution was less than R1 million, and it has risen to approximately R8,7 million this year. Since 1974 no-one on the other side has contributed more. When one does research one finds that a 1974 rand is only worth 37 cents today. If the hon. the Minister referred to it in this case, as he did in the previous legislation, and said that in his opinion it could be R3, this is fully in accordance with the inflation rate. No-one has contributed more, because a 1974 rand is still only worth 37c today. When this legislation is implemented, a 1974 rand, which is the last time this amount was increased, will be worth about 33c or 34c. So in actual fact there is no additional contribution. There will merely be a rectification if the amount goes up to R3.

I want to touch on a few more points in connection with the entire subsidy problem. The whole issue of subsidies in this country, including tariff increases for bus transport, has been taken out of context and politicized. Recently a number of people have died as a result of strikes, boycotts, etc. This happens solely because people are incited not to accept tariff increases. Another detrimental effect of this is that these people are not only urged not to accept the tariff increases; they are also incited to make their contribution by means of boycotts, etc. to get a higher subsidy. This does not work. I maintain here today that the whole issue of tariff increases for bus transport, as well as the issue of subsidies, have been politicized and exploited by certain dark forces that pursue certain political ideologies. I do not think it is necessary at this point to discuss who they are and what they are. There will be ample opportunity during the discussion of other Bills in which law and order are at issue to indicate why this is essential. At this stage, however, the situation surrounding tariff increases is an unhealthy one.

There is another matter which must be set straight. It is not the bus company that is getting an increase in subsidy. The bus companies get an economic tariff determined by that bus company and submitted to a statutory body. That statutory body examines the books—it either does so itself or with the aid of auditors appointed by it for the purpose. Only then is a tariff increase granted. When that tariff increase is awarded to the bus company, the NTC comes into the picture with other information at its disposal—in the case of Black transport there is also a committee of the Department of Co-operation and Development—and they see what the passengers can afford. The subsidy, therefore, goes to the passengers. It has never been the case, in terms of the subsidy system supplied in this country, that this subsidy has gone to the bus company. I hope I have made this quite clear, because it is not the bus company that receives the subsidy. It is the passenger who receives it.

I now want to get back to the principle that this is politics and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Let us now go back and look at a few figures. I should like to ask the hon. member for Berea whether there is apartheid in Paris or in London. Is their apartheid in the USA? I want to give that hon. member a few figures on bus subsidies. On London, the passenger pays two-thirds of the bus fare—one-third, therefore, is subsidized—and there is no apartheid or separate residential areas. [Interjections.] In Paris, France, half of the fare is paid by the passengers, while the other half is subsidized. In certain sectors of Paris 40% of the tariff is subsidized and in other sectors 50% is subsidized.

By whom?

Just give me a chance, I shall indicate in a moment who pays the subsidy.

In Rotterdam—and Rotterdam represents the great freedom which is always criticizing this country—28% of the fare is paid by the passenger and the rest is contributed by the Government. At the moment the commuter in the large cities of the USA pays 54%. In the wealthy USA the commuter only pays 54%, and 46% is contributed by the State. [Interjections.]

What do the employers pay?

Let us consider what the employer in Paris, France, pays. The passenger pays between 40% and 50%, depending on the district he lives in The central Government pays 26% and the pay packet contributes 25%. In France there is a levy on pay packets. In the centre of Paris the employer pays a transport tariff of 1,9% on the total pay packet of all his employees, and in the suburbs he pays 1,5%.

Whites and Blacks and Coloureds?

There is no apartheid in France. Do not talk about apartheid now—the chickens are coming home to roost; they will be home soon and that hon. member and I are going to eat them. The important point is that there is no apartheid in France.

At the beginning of his speech on the previous Bill the hon. the Minister said that the Government subsidized public transport in terms of a socio-economic principle, and the same principle applies in all the other countries. In all the other countries it is also a matter of a socio-economic principle. However, the hon. the Minister’s intentions were then questioned and the apartheid idea was linked to them. However, I have indicated what percentages the Government in various countries pay. In America, for example, the employer pays between 20% and 25% in the various States.

Let us, however, try to ascertain why the Government subsidizes public transport. The Government pays subsidies on public transport on the same basis as that which applies in other countries, with the aim of helping those who cannot afford the high bus fares. In overseas countries it is mainly poor people who use public transport, and that is why it is subsidized. However, in South Africa we have rich Black men, Indians and Coloureds. Hon. members should take a look at the position at Uncle Charlie’s. The hon. member for Langlaagte made a very commendable appeal regarding Uncle Charlie’s. Ten to one he will speak after me, and maybe he will tell us who is causing the traffic jam at Uncle Charlie’s. Nevertheless hon. members on that side of the House do not want to give the hon. the Minister the powers he wants in terms of this legislation.

I perused a few Hansard reports of the past few years, and on every occasion this matter was made a political issue, just as every tariff increase and subsidy that is paid, is made into a political issue.

I support the principle that the Minister must consult the NTC. It has been asked on what basis this consultation is to take place. At the moment, it takes place on the basis that costs are examined. It will be decided on the basis of a person’s income and the cost of transport what the subsidy must be. While we are discussing the passenger, I want to make an appeal here today. In future the passenger will also have to contribute his fair share. In the case of the Coloureds—and this is even more true of the Indians—salaries have more than doubled since 1974, while the inflation rate has been in the vicinity of 150%. The position of the passenger has also improved relative to the inflation rate, but if the inflation rate is taken into account we see that the passenger has not contributed his share. We need only consider the total subsidy to the Black, Coloured, Indian and White bus companies. Of course, the White people are also subsidized. It is said that they are not subsidized, but Johannesburg, for example, subsidizes its White passengers indirectly by using part of the money obtained from property rates as a subsidy. These matters are being studied by my commission at the moment. This is something that will really have to be rectified so that everyone can contribute towards subsidies on the same basis. However passengers will have to make their contribution too. It cannot be expected of the State and the employers to be the only ones to make a contribution. There are three interest groups involved in the determining of passenger fares and subsidies. Those three partners are the passenger, the employer and the State, and we shall have to find a formula for them in terms of which we may in the future be able to work out how much must be contributed towards subsidization, otherwise we shall have to consider other forms of transport. We may, for example, have to make more use of train transport if this is economically justified. At the moment the necessary transport exists, but I want to make it quite clear that between 1974 and 1982 the passenger has not contributed his fair share.

I am convinced that the subsidizing of commuters is an explicit example of the Government’s willingness to help those people socio-economically. The problem of subsidizing will, however, really have to be given more attention in the future with regard—and I consider this the most important aspect—to the employer’s share. However, it is also true that we shall have to take a careful look at the share of the worker and the State, because at the moment, the passenger is the one who pays the least. However, I do not want to suggest here that we prejudice the passenger. All I ask is that there must be a balance between the contribution of each of these three partners.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister said, this principle is also contained in the department’s report. Today a case has been made for the fact that the group areas are the cause of this. However, this is not quite true. Let us take as an example a railway worker who lives in Krugersdorp. Say he has to work in Germiston tonight. One might say that he has the right to go and live in Germiston, but what if the work in Germiston is only temporary? Or let us take a man who lives in Lenasia. He has to work in town, or let us say he works as far away as Germiston. He never has a problem with school uniforms for his child, because she attends a school in Lenasia. That is where he returns to; that is where he lives and that is where he has all his facilities. He need not buy a new school uniform for his child because he must go and live in another area. He has all the benefits of a group area except that he does not have the right to say he does not want to live there. This is the policy in South Africa. I hope, too, that it will continue to be the policy and that we shall not have mixed residential areas in South Africa. I hope we shall be able to give more facilities to people. [Interjections.] That is why this legislation is there—to ensure … That is why we have this Bill before us. Its aim is to ensure that the employer who has his employee travel long distances and has thus far not contributed to his transport costs will in future contribute to them. I want to re-emphasize that we in this country cannot allow pensioners and other taxpayers who are not employers to pay for people they do not employ and have nothing to do with. We are only discussing bus transport here, but we shall also have to consider the position as regards the Railways. We are going to have to do this. The line between Soweto and Johannesburg transports 212 000 people within the space of an hour to an hour and a half. We must bear in mind that energy is becoming more expensive by the day. These are situations we shall therefore have to go into. We support this Bill. We have no alternative but to implement this Bill.

With regard to the Coloureds, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the inclusion of the new section 9A, as contained in clause 5. It reads—

It is to help you. I understand you want a homeland for the Coloureds.

Even if he only had the idea of wanting to help, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is on his way to joining us.

We shall take him too.

Yes, we shall take him. He is one of the few members we would still consider taking. We cannot keep making place for everyone, because the people in the constituencies are already putting forward candidates. I can, however, assure the hon. the Minister we shall take him.

We shall make him Minister of Agriculture.

While the hon. the Minister made that statement jokingly, I nevertheless want to ask him to give an explanation of this. I think this is necessary. We do not want there to be misunderstandings about legislation from the outset. We support the Bill because the CP will always support whatever is good for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte has just expressed his support of this Bill, and in the course of his speech he said that he hoped that the White residential areas would remain White. The hon. member need not be concerned. I wish to give him the assurance once again that the residential areas will remain White. He knows this as well as I, or any other member in this House.

What does the President’s Council say?

For how long?

For as long as the sun keeps shining, my friend; for as long as the NP is in power. [Interjections.]

Remember Ian Smith.

Yes, and the moment the PFP comes into power, there will be chaos. Then we shall no longer have White residential areas.

It can be justified that certain people do not pay for their bus transport. In this regard, one calls to mind the mining industry, for example. The mines have compounds and they provide their own transport. This also applies to construction workers who are accommodated on the premises.

There is another point I want to deal with. As far as the whole question of subsidies is concerned, I should just like to associate myself with what other hon. members on this side of the House have already said in this regard. I understand that Putco’s annual report appeared recently and that in that annual report, the chairman mentions that tariffs were adjusted four years ago. I do not know whether this is correct, and I am speaking under correction, but if this is true, I can understand that there is a serious problem in respect of subsidies which would repay careful study. If it takes a company four years to adjust its tariffs, I maintain that by the time it has adjusted them, the backlog is once again so great that it will have to start from the beginning. I also believe that we shall have to look at subsidies as a whole. We should not only look at bus subsidies, but also at subsidies on suburban train services and every other form of subsidy. If one does this, one necessarily has to ask oneself where this is going to end.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill and in conclusion, I just want to say that I think it is time the Cabinet looked at the whole position relating to subsidization in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended the hon. member for Kimberley South had just completed his speech. I do not see him in the House right now. I do not intend, however, to deal with anything he had to say. I should rather like to refer to what the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed—who, I see, is entering the House right now—had to say. He said that the gravamen of this Bill was to get additional funds for the hon. the Minister in order to assist him in subsidizing bus passenger transport in South Africa.

I think the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed is quite correct. This is indeed the whole reason behind this Bill. If one studies the principal Act one notices that this was indeed the motivation behind the Act in the first instance. That is to say that way back in the early 1970s the then Minister of Transport and the Cabinet decided that certain employers should pay levies in respect of—in this particular case—Indian and Coloured employees, and that that money would go into a fund to which the Minister of Transport and the Government would also contribute certain amounts of money. The money in that fund would then be used to subsidize bus passenger transport. I think the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a very important statement when he said it was not the bus company that was being subsidized but that it was the public, the user of the bus that was being subsidized.

The hon. the Minister’s problem at the present time is clearly revealed by the figures he quoted here in the House. That is that in 1976-’77, when this legislation was first enacted, employers’ contributions to this subsidy fund represented 86,7% of the bus subsidy payments in respect of Coloureds. In 1980-’81 this percentage had decreased to 26,3%, while the estimated figure for 1981-’82 is 25,6%. Moreover, the Department of Transport has been bearing the burden of this ever increasing amount. It is for this very reason that the hon. the Minister has now brought this amending legislation before the House in order to impose an increased levy on employers so that he and his department will not have to carry the entire amount.

I believe we are indebted to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed for giving us some background on transport subsidies in other parts of the world. He pointed out that in some countries passengers pay up to 50% of the total cost while the State or employers paid the balance in various proportions. I believe this is very important because, I am sure, very often many members of the public lose sight of the fact that this is indeed a subsidy for the public, and as such, I really believe, it is a privilege and not necessarily a right.

We are, however, opposing this Bill for exactly the same reason for which we opposed the previous Bill, which is a very, very similar measure to this one. The previous Bill was to amend the Act dealing with transport for Blacks. As I said during the Second Reading stage of the previous Bill, we are opposing this measure because we are entirely opposed to the principle which the hon. the Minister is now trying to establish. That is that whereas in the past the hon. the Minister had to come to this House to ask for an increase in the levy, he is now asking us to give him a blank cheque, as it were, so that he can impose whatever levy he wants to. He will do so after seeking advice from others. I do concede that point. Nevertheless, he will be able to levy an amount which he decides on rather than an amount on which Parliament decides. As I said during the Second Reading stage of the previous Bill, we believe that any legislation which is passed in this House and which extracts from the public their money—whether it be in the form of taxation or whether it be in the form of levies—should come before this House so that we as the representatives of the people can have our say in the matter and can decide whether it is right or not. I reject totally the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill when he told us that he could not come to Parliament every year with amending legislation in order to increase the amounts. The hon. the Minister has two Acts which he is administering at the present time and which were enacted in the mid 1970s. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many times he or his predecessors have come to this House in order to have that levy increased. Can the hon. the Minister tell me that? I doubt whether it was even once. Neither the hon. the Minister nor any of his predecessors has ever come to this House with amending legislation in this regard. Therefore there has been no burden on him. There has been no burden on Parliament in this regard either. So I cannot see his reasoning in this connection and I reject totally his statement that he has to have this provision in order to avoid the nuisance—I think this is the way he sees it—of having to come to Parliament to ask hon. members for their approval to increase the amount of the levy. This is one of the reasons why we oppose this legislation.

Another reason—I said this last week as well—is that this is a form of selective taxation. It is taxing a particular or select group of South Africans, namely the employers. Because of this fact, I believe that this type of legislation must always come before Parliament for scrutiny. I do not believe that it should simply be left to the hon. the Minister and his department to decide when to increase or decrease the levy.

Another aspect of this Bill is that once it is enacted the hon. the Minister will also be imposing levies on employers of domestic servants which we believe is not necessarily a good thing. There is also the provision in one of the clauses empowering the hon. the Minister to negotiate with any neighbouring States on any matter concerning the provisions contained in this Bill. As the hon. member for Berea said earlier today, even Assocom is concerned about this because they would hate to think that their members were being levied certain amounts in order to subsidize the transport of people from another State. I also said last week that it would appear that the hon. the Minister has not had close consultations with organized commerce and industry. In fact, there is no provision in this amending legislation to compel the hon. the Minister to consult closely with organized commerce and industry at any time in the future when he may decide it is time to change the amount or the extent of the levy. This is another reason why we on these benches will oppose this legislation.

Before I resume my seat I want to say once again that I appreciate what was said by the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed when he spoke about the whole concept of subsidies. I believe that subsidies for certain sectors of our community, whether they be in respect of bus transport or in respect of certain groups of people who use certain types of buses or certain routes, or whether they be in respect of bread which is the staple food of certain sectors of our community, or whether they be in respect of housing, should, as I had said before, at this stage of our economic development in South Africa be paid in respect of certain people who do need to receive these subsidies from the State or from employers by means of legislation enacted by this Parliament.

However, having said that I believe that we have to be very wary of subsidies, of the whole concept of subsidies. Subsidies can be used as a political football. We know what happened in London just a few months ago when in the municipal council elections the Labour Party made a promise to the people of London, of the Greater London area, that it would reduce fares by paying a higher subsidy to the London Transport Commission. That was part of their election platform and because of it a large number of people voted for the Labour Party. What happened then? The moment the Labour Party was elected, in order to meet its commitment to the electorate, it immediately raised the rates on property in London and, consequently, there was a huge outcry from property-owners in the London area. What did one find? One found that the people who were being subsidized were not the people who lived within London itself where property owners were paying a subsidy, but were people from outside London and also an awful lot of people from outside the United Kingdom; in other words, this subsidy was subsidizing tourists rather than the people who really needed it. Here was a case where politicians used the concept of subsidy to buy votes from people in order to get into power. This is the thing that we on these benches fear. We have seen in the past in recent years that—as the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed pointed out—when it came to increasing fares on certain bus routes, that certain politicians, political groups and groups of agitators used this issue to stir up problems. There were strikes, boycotts and, as the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said, some people actually lost their lives as a result of these activities. It is for this reason that we believe that one has to be very wary of the whole concept of subsidies because it tends to distort economic values within a country. I think we have had the opportunity of seeing this very clearly in recent months from what has happened in Poland where the country’s whole economy was starting to collapse because of the subsidy system on foodstuffs etc. and where in order to try to resolve the problems the Government decided to increase the prices of food, rentals etc.—Poland is a communist State where these things are controlled—not by a meagre 10% or 15% but by hundreds of per cent. This just shows one how much the concept of subsidies has distorted the entire economic system in a State such as Poland. For that reason we believe Ministers and the Government should be very careful about how they deal with subsidies. It is not only the governing party that should be careful but also we as Opposition members. This applies especially to the PFP because they are so often in the forefront of the agitators agitating for greater and greater subsidies by saying that the State must pay.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Amanzimtoti allowed to say that we on these benches are agitators?

Will the hon. member for Amanzimtoti please explain what he meant?

Mr. Speaker, what I mean is that there are certain politicians and political parties who use subsidies to agitate the people. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

I was talking about subsidies distorting relative values and I think the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a very good point in this regard when he referred to subsidies in other countries and where he said that in London two-thirds of the fare is paid by the passenger, in Paris 50%, of the fare and in the United States 46% of the fare. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us, in respect of bus companies or bus routes where fares are subsidized, exactly how much the State and the employer are paying towards subsidizing the fare. He must also tell us how much the employee is actually paying. We would all be very interested to hear these figures.

I believe the public must pay their fair share. After all, we are not a welfare State and nobody owes anybody a living. As I have said before, we on these benches believe in the work ethic and we believe that our economy should be such that people should be able to find job opportunities in order to be able to pay their own way in life.

I just want to make a point in regard to this legislation, and it concerns Coloureds and Indians. In recent years there has been a removal of job reservation and there has been a greater tendency towards paying the rate for the job. I think figures today will show that the Coloured and Indian communities are advancing very rapidly economically. I recently received a reply to a question on the number of vehicles of various types registered over the past seven years for the various race groups, and the figures clearly show that the greatest growth area for the registration of vehicles is among the Indian, Coloured and Black population. This must therefore indicate that there are rising living standards among our Coloured and Black people. For this reason I believe that one has to assess correctly the people’s ability to meet their fair share of bus fares. This is why I said the other day that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, as chairman of the commission that has been set up, has a very important task. I sincerely hope that he and his commission are going to investigate this matter to the extent that I certainly would like it to be investigated.

Having said that and getting back to the provisions of this Bill, I want to say, as I have said before, we are not going to support it because it goes against one of the basic principles of Parliament and that is that the people’s representatives who sit in this House should have the right to approve or object any legislation which extracts money from the public in any form whatsoever. For this reason we are going to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for supporting this party’s opposition to this Bill. We are very pleased that the NRP is supporting us on this occasion.

We are opposing it on principle, but you are opposing it for the sake of expediency.

I confess that I often find that the best way to deal with interjections of that nature, particularly from members on that side of the House, is in fact to ignore them.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a couple of rather remarkable statements and I would like to mention these statements. At one stage he said that it was the aim of the NP to help the Coloured and Indian people—and of course, in respect of the Black Transport Service Amendment Bill, also the Black people—to the greatest extent possible from a socio-economic point of view. I want to ask him a very simple question: If it is the intention of this Government to help the Coloureds and Indians from a socio-economic point of view, does he believe that it would help them socially and economically to be allowed, as the President’s Council has recommended, to move back into District Six and to Page View? If that is his view, then they should do it.

Answer him, answer him!

I think that in his reply, the hon. member deliberately twisted what we said in the previous debate.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

The word “deliberately” or the word “twisted” or both?

The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberately twisted.”

I withdraw the words “deliberately twisted”. [Interjections.] I would say that the hon. member turned around what we had said and put the wrong sort of interpretation upon it. I am sure that he did not do so deliberately but he put the wrong sort of interpretation on what we had said because he suggested that we were not in favour of subsidies and then went on to talk about London, New York and Paris. He is obviously a well-travelled member. He suggested that they had subsidies there but they did not have any apartheid. He said that for us to say that apartheid was the problem, was therefore incorrect. Of course it is incorrect. It is not the problem but it is part of it and it is a fairly major part of it. That hon. member must know that if you have to transport people shall we say 25 km, as compared with transporting them 5 km, it is going to make a material difference to the costs involved and, therefore, to the subsidies that must be paid. We know perfectly well—to take the Coloureds and the Indians in this particular instance—that many Coloureds lived in the District Six area and we know that they have been moved to other areas. They have been moved a considerable distance from the centre of Cape Town. I do not think there can be any doubt in any sane thinking person’s mind that these people have to pay a lot more for transport to the centre of Cape Town. The Government also has to pay a lot more in terms of subsidies.

Then, if one looks at certain municipalities, where the use of buses is reserved for certain population groups, the situation becomes even more extraordinary. I understand from one of my colleagues that in Pretoria, for instance, the Black staff come into the centre of town and then catch buses out to the suburban areas to their jobs. At the same time, what happens is that buses are coming from the suburbs into the centre of Pretoria bringing White people in because they cannot travel in the same buses. The buses cannot travel out of the city with Black people in them and come back with White people in them because of apartheid on the buses. [Interjections.]

The last thing I want to refer to that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed mentioned is that he said that he thought that too much attention had been paid in this debate to the telex from Assocom. I think this is an extraordinary statement coming as it has not only from an hon. member of this House but also a person who is heading a commission in this regard. What he is saying is that we have discussed the views of organized commerce too much in this House. What can be more important in this regard than the views of organized commerce? The view of organized commerce is that these Bills should not be passed in their present form. The view of organized commerce is that there should not be selective taxation of employers in this regard. However, that hon. member says that we are paying too much attention to the views of Assocom and to the telex from Assocom in this debate. I hope that Assocom hears about this and I certainly hope that that hon. member will pay more attention to the views of Assocom in relation to the activities of the commission which he has the duty of heading at this moment.

I shall now leave that hon. member and come to the hon. the Minister.

He looks like Charlie Weir now.

The hon. the Minister made the most extraordinary statement in connection with taxation benefiting people and he suggested that, for instance, pensioners who did not use the roads because they did not have cars did not have to pay the 3,8 cents per litre levy which was levied on the cost of petrol by this Government. This reminds one of the housewife who keeps all her little bits of housekeeping money in different tins, because it is the same sort of thought that the hon. the Minister has. Does he imagine that the pensioner is not paying that 3,8 cents? Every article that the pensioner has to buy in the shops has the element of transportation in its cost and within that cost that 3,8 cents is there. Therefore, just like everybody else, the pensioner is paying whether or not he actually physically buys a litre of petrol or not. I think that is a ridiculous argument. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister in his farming operations keeps his maize money in one tin, his dairy money in another tin and his groundnut money in another tin.

There is no tax on diesel for farmers.

This again precisely demonstrates my argument. I was not necessarily only talking about food. I was talking about any type of article. It might even be clothing. In the processing of clothing or food this money is used. All these different companies use petrol.

There can be no question about the principles of this bill. The principles of this Bill, first of all, provides for selective taxation. Secondly, they provide for selective taxation in an amount which is set arbitrarily by the hon. the Minister without any reference to this Parliament. We do not believe that this is a correct procedure. We believe that any moneys that are levied in South Africa by Government should be levied as a direct result of speeches and decisions made in this Parliament and not of decisions made by the Minister whoever he may be and whomever he may consult. Therefore we shall be opposing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Amanzimtoti, as I was hoping that they would shed some light on why they are opposing this legislation.

You can get some light from us!

That hon. corporal is not participating in this debate and he should therefore rather be quiet.

Throughout his speech, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central tried to justify his standpoint by trying to twist the figures quoted by the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, although I believe he was not doing this on purpose. However, he had to give us some reason for their opposition to the legislation, but thus far we still do not know what that reason is, except that, as the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed described it, the official Opposition is displaying an ideological obsession.

I also listened carefully to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and I should like to know why that party is also opposing the legislation. The hon. member’s entire speech was devoted to an attack on the statements of the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed. However, at no stage did he say why they were opposing this legislation. If I had not heard it with my own ears, I would not have believed that they were opposing the legislation. The problem with the hon. members of the NRP, is that recently, they have been agreeing with the NP too often. Now they have to make a gesture to the outside world to show their voters that they are still anti-Nationalist. [Interjections.]

I am probably the last speaker in this debate. There are really not many arguments left, as those hon. members on this side of the House who participated in the debate have replied effectively to all the arguments which were advanced. I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed in particular. He is an authority in this field, and he made a very fine speech. In fact, he is chairman of the commission, and he put forward sound reasons for all the proposals in the Bill. He quoted comparative figures here, and he referred to America, France and other countries. These are arguments which are well founded and which no one can dispute. [Interjections.] In contrast, we did not hear a single argument from the ranks of either the official Opposition or the NRP which was really well founded. [Interjections.]

†What is really the problem, Sir? Why does the official Opposition oppose this Bill? Firstly, their problem lies in the fact that they very seldom speak for themselves.

Who, in heaven’s name, do you think we are speaking for? [Interjections.]

They flourish under the protection afforded them by the Government of this country, the protection of their particular way of life. Furthermore, their problem lies in the fact that they are the great pretenders in this country. They always pretend that they are speaking on behalf of the other colour groups; that they speak on behalf of what they term the so-called “poor and deprived people”. [Interjections.]

We do!

It is time those hon. members woke up, time they began to live with the realities of this country.

They are poor in spirit! [Interjections.]

However, they are obsessed with one idea only, and that is that nothing of value can come from this Government and from the ranks of the NP. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti were also guilty of this when they launched an attack on the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] They are merely trying to cast suspicion on the NP as the powers vested in this hon. Minister do not mean that he can do as he likes. When these tariffs have to be determined, this is done on the basis of facts put before him by the NTC. In addition, he only does this after talks with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Those hon. members must therefore stop their attempts to create suspicion, as it does not only affect this amendment. In fact, it goes much further than that. It is a question of perpetually creating mistrust in this Government. [Interjections.]

I wish to conclude by saying that I support the Second Reading of this Bill wholeheartedly. I really hope that for a change, those hon. members will perceive some good in the activities of the National Government. [Interjections.] Their voters will be grateful to the Government one day for the fact that this piece of legislation was passed by this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot identify myself with the praise heaped upon the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed by the hon. member for Kroonstad, at least not altogether.

Don’t, because it would be a kiss of death.

Although the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed is a transport economist, and definitely an expert in this field, he should rather confine himself to transport affairs and refrain from entering the field of politics, for in doing that he is making a big mistake. [Interjections.] The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed compares us with the large cities of the world, like London, Paris, New York, etc.

What about Sun City?

He says that they also subsidize their transport services, but they do not have apartheid. It is therefore not apartheid, but something else, which makes subsidies necessary. I concede that this is true, but that apartheid makes subsidies necessary is only part of our argument. I accept this argument, but then he should also accept that apartheid does, in fact, contribute to the uneconomic nature of the transport services in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House are not against transport subsidies in principle, as we know that there are various reasons why transport economists advocate transport subsidies. I think the first and perhaps most important reason is that in the early stages of a transport system, private transport is the primary means of conveyance, particularly before there are sufficient numbers of people to make mass transport systems an economic proposition. However, when the break-even point approaches, one makes use of subsidies to bring about a shift, for instance, from private transport to express trains or perhaps under-ground trains, etc. This is of course, the main reason why the cities he mentioned make use of subsidies for their mass transport systems. It is order that an attempt can be made to bring about a change in the means of conveyance for economic reasons.

The second reason, which is related to this, is of a technical nature. I am referring to the fact that at a certain stage there is no longer sufficient space for anyone to drive to their destinations in motor cars. Then one tries, by means of subsidies to discourage people from using private transport and to encourage them to use public transport. In this way, one makes better use of land. There are also secondary reasons, such as a reduction in pollution, or the maximum use of energy. The hon. member will be well aware of the fact that if one calculated one’s subsidies in those large cities purely on an economic basis, one would even have to pay the people to make use of the transport system, as they are quite satisfied to pay more and more to be able to use private transport.

But where in fact is apartheid a contributing factor? Firstly, in this country, it is in the allocation of areas …

Those are fine words!

… to people according to the colour of their skins … [Interjections.] … and not on a socio-economic basis. The fact is that one cannot decide for oneself where one wishes to live. [Interjections.] In other words, whereas in a free society, people are free to decide where they want to live relative to their place of employment or their place of recreation, this is not the case in South Africa. Additional journeys or additional transport is therefore necessary because of these restrictions placed on the Black, Coloured and Indian members of the population with regard to the areas where they may live.

It is also very alarming that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed should say that employees do not contribute their fair share to bus transport in general. It is particularly alarming when one bears in mind that that hon. member apparently does not want to recognize that apartheid does, in fact, play a role. [Interjections.] That hon. member and his commission will make no contribution to the depoliticizing of transport if he does not take into account the fact that, to begin with, people have to travel a certain distance which has been imposed on them. [Interjections.] If he does not take this into account in considering subsidies, he will not be able to depoliticize transport.

There is a second reason why we say that apartheid does, in fact, play a role in transport economy, or rather, “transport uneconomy”. It is because the buses are segregated. Of course, this also applies to trains. We are therefore not subsidizing an economical, or the most economical system. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has already referred to Pretoria in this regard. I personally know that in Pretoria, the Black people’s blue buses to the suburbs are full in the mornings, while the White people’s red buses drive out to the suburbs completely empty. In the afternoons, the blue buses go to the suburbs completely empty, while the red buses, filled to capacity with White people, travel in the same direction. This is what we are subsidizing. In other words, we are being asked to subsidize completely uneconomical services because of apartheid.

For these two reasons—and there are others which one could mention—we cannot support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea would be my successor if the official Opposition came into power.

Hear, hear!

There is many a true word spoken in jest.

I want to praise the hon. member for Berea, because he is not an embittered person. We have often argued about transport, and it is his duty to oppose. His opposition has always been reasonable. Today he was speaking about clause 5. He asked me about foreign Governments and agreements and why clause 5 was included. He wanted to know whether it could not be deleted in this instance, where it concerned Coloured people. The hon. member for Langlaagte asked me the same question. I can tell the hon. member for Berea that I am going to withdraw clause 5. He asked me to do so. I am not unreasonable. I can tell the hon. member for Langlaagte, too, that I am going to withdraw it. He gave me to understand in his speech tonight that he was not happy about the fact that we were providing for a homeland in this Bill, as in the Black Transport Services Amendment Bill. In other words, the hon. member would not advocate a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.]

That is quite right.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Berea that the same reasons that applied in respect of the Blacks are being repeated here.

*To the other questions I have already replied. As I have said, I agree with the hon. member for Berea that the provisions of the other Bill are being repeated here. However, I shall move in the Committee Stage that clause 5 be withdrawn.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed gave us some information about countries where there is no separate development. In London, Paris and other European cities, people are free to live wherever they want to. Nevertheless it is alarming to see the enormous amounts of money that have to be contributed by the State, by employers and by employees to finance public transport services in those countries. These amounts are absolutely astronomical.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said something else which was very important. In terms of its value in 1974, the rand is worth only 37 cents today. Therefore the adjustment we want to make will be more or less of the same order.

The hon. member for Kimberley South asked a question about the annual report of Putco, a company which last increased its fares more than three years ago. I know that Putco experienced a specific problem. In this connection I quote from the interim report on Puteo, as follows—

I should like to reassure the hon. member for Kimberley South by pointing out that the delay in this particular case was exceptional.

I think it was the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who asked me some questions in connection with the contributions. Putco’s contribution in the form of a subsidy amounts to 34%. The rest comes from contributions paid by those who make use of the bus service.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said I was going to be given a blank cheque. It is not a blank cheque. This has to be published in the Government Gazette, after which employers will be given 12 months’ within which to lodge any complaints, should they so wish.

To postdate the blank cheque!

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to selective taxation, and said the hon. the Minister of Finance could increase general sales tax without having it approved by Parliament and without giving notice by way of publication in the Government Gazette. How can one compare the two? How can one say that what we are dealing with now is a selective tax? I pointed out clearly that following discussions with Assocom and other bodies we decided to give 12 months’ notice by way of publication in the Government Gazette before imposing the levy. It is a completely different matter altogether.

*The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also wanted to know—with regard to many other cases—what contributions were made by the commuter, the employer and the State respectively. I want us to be quite clear about one thing. The ideal position would be for no subsidy to be paid at all. However, then the salary of the bus or train passenger should be such that he is able to bear the full cost himself. In some cases, however, the application for a subsidy is submitted to the Minister after the National Transport Commission and its auditors have fully investigated the matter and made a recommendation. I can testify to cases, on buses operated from KwaNdebele, for example, where the cost of a weekly ticket is R7. The passenger on that bus pays only R2, however, while the Government contributes R5. That is why the amount in subsidies is R99 million at the moment.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central maintained that organized commerce was opposed to this measure. We know, Mr. Speaker, I once bought a Landini tractor. Landini tractors are sold by the Malcomess company. But I am very glad indeed that I got rid of it. [Interjections.]

What did you get for it?

No, I practically gave it away for nothing. [Interjections.]

Are you not interested in buying a windmill? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also added—can you believe it, Mr. Speaker—that a pensioner without a motor car was paying a tax which was used for the building of roads. He argues that because a pensioner buys foodstuffs transported by diesel vehicles …

I did not talk about foodstuffs, and simply nothing about diesel fuel.

But how can a man without a motor car be paying a levy of 2,354 cents a litre for petrol so that the building of national roads can be financed? It is a ridiculous argument.

*I shall not even bother to argue with the hon. member about that any further.

The hon. member for Greytown used the old argument again that people should be free to live where they want to. I have said before that there are a great many people who would like to live in the centre of London but who have to travel up to 40 km every day to get to their places of work. The man who has a lot of money can afford a flat in the centre of London, but the man who is less well-to-do has to commute 40 miles by train to get to London, and he receives a subsidy. There is no separate development in that country.

I come now to the hon. member for Kroonstad. He said that the position was not speaking for itself. That is very true. [Interjections.] Sir, I am telling you now that I shall be speaking for the poor man in this country from now on. They speak for the rich man. Who is the rich man in our country?

You are the original fat cat.

The employer is the rich man. What are we doing here? We are taxing the employer, who is the prosperous man in the country today, and we are paying a subsidy to the employee, the poor man in this country. The Opposition received a telex from the employers, and then they met and decided to oppose this legislation. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

Of course. As a result of the representations of Assocom and other people, they have opposed this legislation. When we come to the budget of the S.A. Transport Services, we find that the Railways shows a loss of R590 million on passenger transport. Then those hon. members tell me that it is unfair of me to increase the rates. They take me severely to task for doing so, but meanwhile I have to obtain that money. I say that from now on we should rather tax the employer, who is the rich man, the man who is their customer, to subsidize my people, who are the employees. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was replying to the hon. member for Wynberg on certain matters relating to abattoirs in this country. I just want to mention again that the hon. member asked me who was going to police the introduction of meat into an area. It will be up to the local authority which is requesting protection to provide the machinery for the introduction of meat into its area. The so-called protection tariff will only be introduced by the Minister after consultation with the Abattoir Commission and will be limited to abattoirs belonging to a local authority. In practice it is likely that such protection will only be required by and granted to new or recently improved abattoirs. The basic purpose of the legislation is to protect recently improved abattoirs. Several hon. members made the point that we should be careful not to promote inefficiency by introducing this tariff. This is a valid point and it is a matter which will have to be approached with great circumspection. I do want to point out, though, that in terms of the machinery for the introduction of the levy, the municipality concerned must in the first place apply for the protection tariff. The Abattoir Commission will investigate the whole matter, including the management of the abattoir, i.e. whether it is being economically operated, whether there are enough labourers or too many, whether there is redundant equipment, etc. When the commission has investigated the abattoir concerned, it will make a recommendation to the Minister in co-operation with the municipality. Furthermore, the Minister will lay down in the Government Gazette the serving area of the abattoir which is to be protected. Meat introduced into that area will be taxed by means of a levy which will then accrue to the owner of the abattoir concerned. The implications of the proposed provision are that all meat introduced for consumption or processing into an area which has been determined in this way will be subject to a levy. However, the main purpose of the provision—I should like to emphasize this again—is to impose a levy upon raw meat introduced for commercial purposes. Furthermore, I want to point out to hon. members that section 42 of the Abattoir Act, which deals with exemptions and exclusions, contains sufficient machinery for it to be made quite clear in the notice of levy under what circumstances and in what way the levy on meat will be payable. In determining the serving area—this is also important—provision will also be made for regional abattoirs, i.e. abattoirs with a wider serving area that just municipalities which operate only in their own municipal areas.

The hon. member also asked me what the policy was with regard to the private sector and the establishment of abattoirs. I want to say at once that I would welcome this. In fact, it is something we are already implementing in practice. When the private sector applies for an abattoir in a particular area, we really bend over backwards to accommodate them, provided, of course, that they accept full responsibility for the capital cost of such an abattoir, as well as for operating the abattoir. We welcome this, and I want to emphasize this as strongly as possible. I should like this trend in our country to grow, because it is bound to relieve ratepayers and municipalities of the risk involved in abattoirs.

The hon. member also asked me whether the Abattoir Commission could also undertake the transportation of meat, something which is also covered by this legislation. I want to say at once that the Abattoir Corporation is being authorized under this legislation to transport meat for remuneration in the areas in which it operates.

I should like to react now to a statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg, because I believe it to be very important. He said that it would appear to him that the smaller butcher no longer had access to the auctions in controlled areas. The other day a Paarl butcher phoned me and told me that he could no longer come to buy meat at Maitland. I asked him why not. He then told me that the wholesalers manipulated the market and excluded him. Now I want to state categorically tonight that the system of open auctions is used for the sale of meat at all abattoirs in controlled areas. We have repeatedly said in this House that even the housewife is entitled to attend an auction at an abattoir.

It does not work that way in practice.

I am stating an extreme case. Even the housewife should have access to abattoir auctions. From time to time, however, it comes to our attention that wholesalers are behaving in such a way at the auctions that the smaller butcher no longer has access. In the first place, the wholesaler provides the smaller butcher with transport, and in the second place he provides him with financing, and in this way he keeps him out of the market. If proof is brought to me that the open auction system in the meat market is being manipulated in any way, we shall immediately take steps to have this rectified. I know that these people are very shrewd and that they behave in such a way that one cannot lay a finger on them. But I nevertheless say that if any hon. member feels concerned about this matter, like the hon. member for Wynberg, who raised the matter, and if any proof is furnished, we must immediately put a stop to this evil—I am specifically calling it an evil—because it immediately reduces competition on the market, and that is not in the interests of the producers in this country.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp replied very effectively to the hon. member for Mooi River on his objections to this Bill. I have already given a reply with regard to the promotion of efficiency at abattoirs and how we shall try to bring this about. Then the hon. member made a statement which I should like to repeat. Just as slaughter tariffs are laid down by the Minister, this levy will also have to be approved by the Minister.

The hon. member for Barberton asked me whether biltong and sausage would also be classified as meat in terms of the provisions of this Bill. I really do not want to deprive the hon. member of the pleasure of obtaining a little biltong and sausage from other places, or even the occasional kudu or impala that is shot. The provisions of this Bill do not apply to any form of processed meat.

The hon. member for Barberton also stated that this was not the final solution. I readily concede that. The hon. member for Mooi River made the same point. However, if hon. members could come to me with a final solution, I would be only too glad to accept it. The hon. member for Barberton also said that the projections of municipalities were unduly optimistic. I think the hon. member for Mooi River also made the point that the owners of abattoirs, especially municipalities, were too ambitious in their plans, and as a result, costs are so high now that they have to impose levies so as to make a profit out of the abattoirs.

The Abattoir Commission has acquired a great deal of expertise in this regard, and it is in fact the body which advises municipalities as to the size and the suitable type of structure for abattoirs. We have even gone so far as to make standard plans for abattoirs of every grade available to all municipalities, in an attempt to comply with the minimum requirements for meat hygiene. However, we find that some bodies plan and build their abattoirs on such a grandiose scale that their levies are so high that butchers have no option but to move. I therefore want to appeal to municipalities tonight to make use, on the one hand, of the expertise of the Abattoir Commission and, on the other, of the standard plans which are available, in an attempt to erect the cheapest structures.

The hon. member for Fauresmith asked whether co-operatives or private owners would also be protected in terms of this legislation. Definitely not. The protection under clause 5 is only meant for local authorities, so co-operatives and private owners cannot lay claim to it.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with regional abattoirs. I have already said that where a regional abattoir is established with a serving area which is bigger than that of a normal local authority, it will also be entitled to impose a levy on meat introduced from towns which make use of its slaughter facilities. The hon. member also said there should be close liaison between local authorities and the Abattoir Commission. After all, he has a lot of experience of this, especially since there are a number of small towns in the southern part of the Free State. Therefore he has reason to ask for this, and I am glad to have been informed of the problem he had in this respect. As far as I am concerned, we have already been able to bring about close liaison between the Abattoir Commission and local authorities.

The hon. member also referred to the planning which, in his opinion, was too comprehensive and too expensive. I have already replied to that. The hon. member rightly said that the growth potential of such an abattoir should be ascertained. It should be ascertained, in advance whether there is any growth potential in the town concerned, and then the abattoir should be planned in such a way that expansions can be undertaken at a minimum cost so as to accommodate any growth.

†The hon. member for Mooi River indicated that his party could not support the Second Reading of this Bill. I was quite surprised, to say the least, because in all earnestness I have always found that hon. member, as well as his party, most reasonable in regard to measures of this nature. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member for Ventersdorp replied I think most effectively to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Mooi River. However, for the sake of the record, I should like to raise a few other matters that, in my view, make it absolutely necessary that we pass the measure in this House.

There is a tendency in the meat industry that causes me serious concern. Some of the large organizations in the meat industry are transporting fresh meat over very long distances, and mostly from controlled areas. A further tendency is that many of the local butchers are being bought out by these big organizations. This tendency must have a detrimental effect, especially on the viability of the smaller towns. Everyone would agree with that. Firstly, it must have an effect on the viability of the local abattoir, because it would definitely be under-utilized. This is causing great concern to our smaller municipalities which have had to spend lots of money in an effort to get their abattoirs up to minimum standards. Most of them have had to negotiate big loans to make this possible. I want to concede to that hon. member that this measure might perhaps be counterproductive as far as the concept of free enterprise in South Africa is concerned.

Hear, hear!

I hope that hon. member will say “hear, hear!” again when I qualify that statement by saying that on the other hand it is also counterproductive as far as the viability of small commercial enterprises and our smaller municipalities are concerned. Hon. members will concede that an abattoir can be classified as a small industry. That hon. member also knows very well—everybody knows it—that in this country we are struggling with the problem of the depopulation of the smaller towns. That is something everybody knows. Whilst I therefore concede that we should, at all times, try to maintain the free-enterprise system in our country …

Hear, hear!

… we should also adopt every measure possible to maintain the viability of our smaller rural areas. [Interjections.] I say that we must take very possible steps to try to maintain the viability of our smaller rural areas. [Interjections.] No, the main objective of this measure is to do just that, i.e. to try to maintain the viability of our smaller towns.

It also cuts across free enterprise.

It is aimed at protecting an industry and the municipalities from what I would like to call unfair competition. On 1 March of this year I had a long discussion with a delegation sent to me from the United Municipal Executive. We discussed, at great length, the policy of this department in connection with the future of abattoirs in South Africa. One of the main representations of this delegation was that we should take the strongest steps possible to protect municipalities against unfair competition.

What about the Meat Traders’ Association?

They were absolutely delighted when I informed them that this measure would come before Parliament this session. They were absolutely delighted to hear that.

Satisfied now, Brian?

There is something else I should like to say. Only yesterday the secretary of the Cape Municipal Association had talks with me—arising from the congress which has just been held—during which he also informed me that the Cape Municipal Association in particular strongly supported this measure because—apart from the NRP—they shared our concern about the establishment of abattoirs, especially in the smaller towns.

Secondly, I am worried—and I want to spell this out quite clearly this evening—about butchers in rural towns being bought out by bigger organizations. I do not wish to do anything tonight to prevent these people from using the free market mechanism in this country, but I do have a request which I want to put to them. When this is done, the well-being of the town and community concerned should be the primary consideration, because its viability will determine whether it will be able to survive in the future. On the one hand I am concerned about the buying out of butcheries because the bigger organizations do not slaughter locally. I have already spelt this out. On the other hand, I am worried because in most cases, they do not buy their slaughter stock at the local auctions, because most of the meat is provided by the big abattoirs in the controlled areas. I want to make the point that local auctions form an integral part of the meat marketing system in this country. In fact, it is part of rural culture. Local auctions relieve the pressure on the controlled areas and they automatically create an additional market for the producer. If all butcheries in the non-controlled areas were gradually to be bought out by the bigger organizations, therefore, this would in my opinion break an important link in the meat marketing chain in this country and it would definitely eliminate healthy competition. Therefore this is a further reason why I believe this measure to be absolutely essential. It provides some protection for the local butcher and it protects the smaller municipalities in particular.

I want to conclude. After what I have said, and in the light of the information I have now given them, I should like to ask the hon. members of the NRP whether they will not reconsider their standpoint on this measure. I really do not believe that those hon. members wish to be known as members of a party which does not want to protect small businesses and small communities.

You are the fat cats.

As a result of their opposition to this measure, they will be known for the fact that they do not want to give the smaller communities and the smaller businesses …

You want to put all the little butchers out of business.

… the support they need. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Mooi River is not here tonight, for I believe that with his knowledge, he would have persuaded hon. members to support this measure.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. G. S. Bartlett, B. W. B. Page, W. V. Raw, P. R. C. Rogers, A. G. Thompson and D. W. Watterson) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will notice, amendments to two laws administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development are being proposed in this Bill. The amendments deal more specifically with two subjects; in the first instance, the protection of the documents of the Commission for Co-operation and Development against unauthorized publication, and secondly, the extension of the powers of Community Councils.

As far as the first aspect is concerned, viz. prevention of unauthorized publication of the documents of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, recently confidential or secret documents and reports of the commission have repeatedly come into the posession of the public and the Press, and the contents thereof have been publicized with a view to sensation, among other things. An investigation resulting from this, found that there was no legislation which makes sufficient provision for secrecy and the prevention of unauthorized publication of the commission’s documents. To enable the commission to perform its functions properly, it has been deemed necessary to rectify this situation.

Therefore it is being proposed that the Black Affairs Act, 1959, be amended by extending the State President’s power to make regulations, in order to include the aspect of the preservation of secrecy of the commission’s documents and reports. Provision is also made for appropriate penalties for contravention of these regulations. These amendments will mean that the Commission for Co-operation and Development will be able to enjoy protection in respect of secrecy similar to that of every other commission of inquiry appointed in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947.

†The second aspect of this Bill deals with the Community Councils Act, 1977, particularly with the borrowing powers of Community Councils. The purpose of these amendments is solely to make it clear beyond any doubt that the Community Councils do in fact have the power to take up loans and apply money as and when necessary. There are at present in legal circles conflicting opinions as to this matter and this amendment will put the whole question beyond dispute.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear that we find the Bill unacceptable and that we shall therefore be opposing it.

I immediately wish to say that as far as the second section of the Bill is concerned, the section dealing with the borrowing powers of Community Councils, we have no real objection. I agree with the hon. the Minister that the present legal position in this regard certainly does contain a considerable degree of uncertainty.

If one looks at section 5 of the Community Councils Act which does, in fact, make provision for a community council to have the same powers as an administration board, as set out in section 11 of the Black Affairs Act, one notices that it is not section 11(1)(d) being referred to, but, fact, section 11(1)(e). It therefore seems to be correctly stated that there is indeed doubt about the borrowing powers of Community Councils. Therefore we have no objection to the second section of the Bill.

Our fundamental objection—it is indeed a fundamental objection—is really concerned with the first section of the Bill, the question of secrecy. Perhaps it is a pity that the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill at this particular juncture, shortly after the commission’s membership had been increased considerably, as the question could perhaps be asked whether the increase in the commission’s membership is the cause of the introduction of this Bill. [Interjections.] I realize that it is a coincidence; nevertheless, it is unfortunate that this coincidence has occurred.

If one considers the history of the commission, one observes that its functions have, in essence, remained unchanged since it was first established in 1920. What has changed, is the composition of the commission, and as the hon. the Minister indicated in a speech last year, and as last year’s Bill provided, either the Minister or the State President is empowered to increase the membership of the commission to enable it to carry out its increased functions. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech last year when the Bill was being discussed, the intention was that the commission should also give its attention to Blacks and to Black affairs outside the national States and in the urban areas in particular.

I can find no justification for the introduction of a Bill which is aimed at enforcing secrecy both by changing the number of members as well as changing the functions and the activities of the commission. Neither am I at all convinced that secrecy should, in fact, exist in view of the hon. the Minister’s justification for this.

If I were to elaborate on this, I would say that firstly, in our opinion, there is unfortunately too strong a tendency on the part of the Government already to withhold matters from the public. Many matters are kept confidential and are withheld from the public despite the fact that, in my opinion, the public has the right to be informed. It seems to me that this is increasingly becoming the pattern according to which the body politic is being governed these days. In this regard we think of the large number of departmental committees which are appointed and from which we never receive the reports, or we only receive them when we ask for them or under certain circumstances. We therefore oppose this tendency of increasing secrecy on the part of the authorities.

What is being dealt with here is the activities of the commission, in which the public in fact has the greatest interest, particularly as a result of the extension of its activities. With this in mind, it seems to me to be of importance that the commission should do nothing to jeopardize its position of trust with the public. When it is said that the commission is being empowered to keep its documents secret, this seems to me, under these circumstances, and particularly in view of the important new work which it has, completely uncalled for and unnecessary. In addition, I wish to say that I have serious doubts that the power of making regulations which is being granted in terms of clause 15 of the Bill, is wide enough to make provision for regulations for preserving the secrecy of documents. I have serious doubts about this. However, if one provisionally accepts that it is correct that regulations in order to preserve secrecy may, in fact, be issued in terms of clause 15 of the Bill, it seems as if that preservation of secrecy could really apply to two aspects of the commission’s activities.

The first aspect is that which the hon. the Minister mentioned, viz. that documents which the commission draws up or which are drawn up for the commission and which are supposed to be confidential or secret, are divulged. In all honesty I put the question: What kind of document is so secret that if its contents are divulged, it could do tremendous harm? The hon. the Minister did not indicate what harm could be done if such documents of the commission were made public in some way or other. What harm can be done? Until the hon. the Minister can convince us that real harm can be done …

If I convince you, will you support the Bill?

There is the feeling that this provision has a bearing on the publication last year of one of the commission’s reports affecting King William’s Town. I think the people of King William’s Town, the people of the Ciskei, as well as the people of South Africa in general, had every right to know what the commission had decided on King William’s Town.

Even more so because it was just before the election.

If this kind of motivation applies, I honestly cannot understand why statutory powers have to be laid down to authorize the commission to keep such documents secret. If there is carelessness on the part of officials or employees of the commission in that they leaked documents to the Press, or to whoever it may be, documents which should not be made public, then administrative action or disciplinary measures are the appropriate means, and not legislation, to try to ensure the preservation of secrecy. It is not at all clear to me why there should be secrecy in respect of the commission’s documents.

There is also a second possibility which I am concerned about. The clause speaks of the preservation of secrecy, and this also includes the secrecy of the commission’s activities. In view of the new functions of the commission, this means that the commission will be continually talking to various interest groups, inter alia, urban Blacks, community councils, agricultural unions, chiefs and headmen. What guarantee have we that, in terms of those regulations, the same situation which already applies with regard to the Commissions Act will not arise? We are all the more concerned because the hon. the Minister referred to the Commissions Act. We are concerned that someone who appears before the commision and who adopts a standpoint, will not be able to tell the outside world what his experience before the commission was and what the standpoint was which he put before the commission. If he should do this, he is in danger of being accused of contravening the preservation of secrecy clause. I cannot understand how the commission can hope to function and do its work effectively if it does not create that relationship of trust between itself and the public. The hon. the Minister could say that it is not his intention that the preservation of secrecy provision apply to the commission’s activities. However, nowhere in the Bill is it stated that the preservation of secrecy provision will only apply to the commission’s secret or confidential documents. The hon. the Minister cannot expect us to support such vague and general principles by merely saying that regulations may be announced which enforce secrecy and that contravention of the regulations are punishable by a certain penalty. In all honesty, I do not think the hon. the Minister can expect us to support this measure.

What I am therefore saying, is that these provisions as they stand, are entirely too vague. With the best will in the world, I cannot see what the hon. the Minister wishes to achieve. With the best will in the world, I cannot see what broad field they are going to cover. I do not know what their primary intention is. I do not know what kind of matters are going to be excluded from the provision pertaining to the preservation of secrecy. I repeat that the hon. the Minister’s reference to the Commissions Act has made the matter even more confusing than it was when I originally read the Bill. I wish to say at once that under these circumstances and in view of the commission’s work, we are totally opposed to the creation of a new criminal offence. In all honesty, I have to ask what the intention is. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order already has so many problems, and to create new offences concerning a matter in respect of which new offences should not be created, will only make the task more difficult. I cannot understand why this is being done. Let me say at once that we are opposed to the State being empowered to create offences of which we cannot foresee the consequences at this stage, by way of regulations such as those for which provision is being made here. If the hon. the Minister returns to this House and tells us that there are specific cases in respect of which he wants secrecy, and the Act provides for secrecy in such cases, we could consider it, but it is completely unthinkable that this side of the House could endorse a vague, general provision such as this. If, apart from the vagueness of the definition of the offence, we bear in mind the penalty attached to the offence, this Bill is completely unacceptable to us.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commence by saying that the Bill before us provides for three aspects. The first, as the hon. member Prof. Olivier said, is the preservation of secrecy in connection with certain matters dealt with by the Commission for Co-operation and Development. A second important aspect is the authorization granted to community councils to borrow money. The third aspect is the authorization of the community councils, in terms of this legislation, to apply or invest money not immediately required for the purposes of such councils in such manner as the Minister may approve.

I think we should touch briefly on the second aspect, the aspect dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. I think clause 3 is a very important clause. It provides that community councils may negotiate certain loans on such conditions as the Minister may approve. I think this is a particularly important amendment since until now there have been reservations as to whether community councils could in fact negotiate such loans. This impeded development since the financier is a fairly conservative person. To my mind, therefore, this represents a tremendous development as regards the finance which may be obtained by community councils. I think this point should be emphasized more. I am surprised that the hon. member Prof. Olivier did not emphasize this. This is a tremendously positive step. I hope and trust that people involved in financing projects in places such as Soweto, for example, will take due cognizance of this fact.

Clause 4, too, is very important since it provides that any money of a community council which is not immediately required for the purposes of such council may at least be applied for purposes of earning interest. This presupposes that sufficient money would be acquired for there to be money left which could not be utilized immediately. One could wax enthusiastic about the provision that is being made here. I repeat: clause 4 is therefore an extremely important clause. It proves that we in the NP have an absolutely positive attitude towards this matter.

I now want to come back to clause 1. This is really the clause which the hon. member Prof. Olivier dwelt on. I concede at once that the functions of the commission may have remained the same, but the extent of the activities and the delicate nature of the issues dealt with are not the same as before. Let us consider certain aspects of the urban population. Let us consider consolidation. The hon. member will concede at once that the commission could become involved in negotiations which could be very sensitive. But I shall come back to this later on.

The hon. member stated here that to preserve secrecy where the public had the fullest right to be informed, was something to which he was opposed. I, too, am opposed to it. So he merely stated an axiom. He said that where the public had the right to be informed, matters should not be kept secret. I agree with him. But now I ask the hon. member: When does the public not need to be informed? Obviously, when it is in the interests of the country as a whole that they should not know.

Oh, really!

Of course! Does the hon. member want to tell me that there are not certain things that have to be kept secret in the interests of the State? Is he opposed in principle to keeping anything secret in the interests of the State? Surely this is nonsense. I am asking the hon. member Prof. Olivier—and he will agree with me, for he is a reasonable man—whether it is not possible that these things could not be so delicate that it would be in the interests of the country that they should be kept secret? That is the real question. I shall come back to that later on.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier serves on the Select Committee which is at present dealing with legislation on Black local authorities. That legislation is the result of a great deal of investigation and a great deal of work. However, when it comes to legislation—and that is what really matters—the hon. member is informed. The Government is completely open with him, to such an extent that he, too, has a say with regard to the legislation before the Second Reading. I find it comewhat unfair, if one looks at the history of Black affairs, that the hon. member should express his views in such exaggerated terms. Perhaps the hon. member and I read clause 1 differently. I do not take it to mean that the proceedings should be kept secret. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly. Let us read it. The proposed words in clause 1 read—

So in point of fact, nothing is said about secrecy. Therefore I think the hon. member will agree with me that much of his argument is not entirely valid. This does not cover the proceedings. The second part of the proposed phraseology reads—

That is really the part about which we differ. I do not think the hon. member was quite correct in saying that this covered the proceedings too. Let us argue about this for a while. The hon. member knows, after all, that certain negotiations take place between Black and White leaders. These people are open with one another. They speak openly to one another and documents are revealed on a basis of confidence. For example, when one tries to settle a matter in court, certain documents relating to the settlement are drawn up and those documents may never be used in court since they were drawn up without prejudice of rights. Here we have people involved in a process of negotiation—and they are leaders from all communities—who, in their own interests, do not want them revealed.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the more than 60 years of its existence the commission has often been involved in negotiations of that nature. Could the hon. member, therefore, tell me why a secrecy clause in its regulations had not been deemed necessary in the past?

I understand the hon. member’s question and I shall try to answer it. However, the hon. member will concede at once that at many levels, political development is more intense and rapid today than it was 60 years ago.

No!

Oh, is it not?

That does not answer my question.

Of course it does. As you know, circumstances have changed. For example, were there discussions about consolidation 60 years ago? We should really not get stuck at 1966 like the HNP. The hon. member is now getting stuck at 1922, i.e. 60 years ago. With great respect, Sir, every reasonable person will concede that circumstances have changed. Does the hon. member concede that the circumstances which the commission has to deal with have indeed changed?

Does it have to be kept secret then?

I am coming to that. In fact, circumstances have changed to such an extent that the membership of the commission has constantly had to be extended. The introduction of this legislation, then, is an acknowledgement of the fact that circumstances have changed and that the commission’s activities have increased. In fact, at present the commission comprises 12 members.

It is also true that nowadays we have to conduct increasingly delicate negotiations. The hon. member can accept this, because it is a fact that I am stating here. I am stating a fact, I am not asking a question. I do know what I am talking about, for I am myself a member of that commission. Negotiations which are becoming increasingly delicate have to be conducted all the time, and such negotiations make it very difficult for the negotiators, for example, to state their views in public. When we hold talks it is very difficult for any negotiator, Black or White, to state his views openly if he is not sure that his views will be kept secret at that stage. Suppose I were a representative who had to negotiate certain discussions, but my government still had to ratify my actions. In such a case it would be logical that at that low level, the same level at which the commission operates—and that is not cabinet level, but a lower level-—the various cabinets, governments or authorities would have to take the final decision.

I cannot put it more clearly, but I repeat that it is in the interests of our country that at the level of the commission, open discussions should take place between leaders when delicate matters such as the consolidation of land are dealt with. This is not only in the interest of the commission; it is also important that the commission should be able to carry out its work and, for example, that inter alia the Black leader should feel at liberty to say what he has on his mind. This, then, is an important reason for this stipulation.

However, there is a second reason I want to advance. The commission is, of course, not omniscient—it relies on expert advice and requests people to carry out investigations. It is also true that the reports of other commissions which may cover confidential matters are referred to the Commission for Co-operation and Development. The point I wish to make is that experts—perhaps attached to some university or organization—are given assignments which they have to carry out scientifically. As the hon. member knows the purpose of each such investigation is very important. However, these experts would be very hesitant to express their absolutely honest and unprejudiced views to the commission if they were not sure that they or their organization or university would not be prejudiced in the process.

Who could prejudice them except the commission itself?

Is the hon. member now questioning the honesty of the commissioners?

No, I am only putting a logical question!

If no one breaks the law, we should have been able to go to sleep with open doors every night, would we not? However, the fact of the matter is that we do not live in Paradise. We live in a world full of sin. That is just the way it is. Surely we cannot argue as though our society was perfect. It is simply not the case. My point is that it is in the interests of our country, our community, that experts should be quite sure that the evidence or documents that they submit to the commission are covered by the provisions of the legislation. This is necessary in order to enable those people to deal with the matter with an open mind. [Interjections.]

I have now mentioned a few aspects to that hon. member and indicated that they were indeed very delicate. I have also, in passing, touched upon one aspect on which I wish to elaborate briefly. The hon. member must bear in mind at all times that the commission does also make recommendations, and those recommendations are by no means Cabinet decisions. In point of fact, we make recommendations to the hon. the Minister. That is our function.

But who can back them if not the commission?

The commission does not handle everything from beginning to end. Surely it is not the commission’s job to carry documents from one place to another. Does that hon. member understand it now? If the hon. member does not understand it, I am very sorry. I have, however, tried to explain. [Interjections.] I think that in principle it is of the utmost importance that we should have this protection so that the “preservation of secrecy in connection with matters” can be maintained, not in order to hide anything—not at all—but to ensure that those consulted will be able to talk or speak to the commission with absolute honesty and openmindedness. I think that in the present circumstances this is in South Africa’s interests. I do, of course, agree with the hon. member that one does not want unnecessary secrecy. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that score.

Therefore I agree with the legislation in principle and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Pretoria West that I find myself in a curious position this evening. For many years I looked at legislation from the Government side. I can understand many of the things the hon. member said this evening. I can understand how his argument works. However, one encounters a different dimension of the activities of Parliament when one is on the Opposition side.

Well done, Daan!

When one is working in a team that governs, with a Minister and departmental officials behind one, and one has had more time to examine legislation and Bills, one must obviously understand them better. However, it is another dimension to sit on the Opposition side among opponents and to look critically at Bills so that one may adopt a standpoint and find a basis for one’s arguments. [Interjections.]

Then you will have to work a little harder.

We on this side of the House feel that this is a very important commission. This commission has been doing very good work for many years. I think the fact that the Government has enlarged this commission’s membership emphasizes the importance the Government attaches to the commission and its activities. We can understand this.

In the second place, we can also understand the sensitive work this commission is doing. We can also be understanding about this.

In the third place, it is difficult to govern under today’s circumstances because one not only has a critical Press opposing one but also a Press on one’s side which must also make a living out of sensation. I can therefore understand that unnecessary and erroneous leaks or sensation-seeking people can harm or hamper the good intentions and good work of a specific commission. I can understand this as well. For these reasons I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

However, I want to add that hon. members must understand that the activities of the commission are of importance not only to the Government, but also to the hon. members on this side of the House. Of course there are no members of the Opposition parties serving on this commission. When one is an Opposition member, therefore, one cannot look at what the commission is doing day by day and week by week. We should very much like to have the assurance that when work is being done in respect of certain regions and our voters have an interest in that work, we shall be kept informed of matters. We should also very much like to have the assurance that the reports on the activities of the commission will be made available to the Opposition parties so that we may know exactly what is going on.

It is also not quite clear to me how this Bill is going to be implemented in practice. I do not know how the hon. the Minister wants to do that. The hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech in this connection was not nearly clear enough.

That is true.

He did not say exactly what the underlying reason for this Bill was or what had led to the drafting of this legislation. Nothing was said about how exactly it would function or what its effect would be on our society. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us more information on this in his reply.

We shall therefore support the principle of the Bill. We are doing so because we very much want the commission to make progress in its activities and because we want to help the Government with the important task entrusted to the commission. On the other hand, we want the assurance that we shall receive the necessary information and that we shall also be told what the commission is doing and how it is progressing.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the hon. member for Rissik, with a certain degree of responsible openheartedness, said here that since his colleagues and he were now on the Opposition side, dealing with legislation had acquired a new dimension for them. This goes without saying, and one does not necessarily hold against them the fact that this is the case. The new dimension is that the Opposition is at liberty—indeed it has the duty and the right—to be critical, in public as well. The new dimension is also that that criticism need not be coupled to the responsibility of implementing any of what Opposition members say. This is why, for example, when dealing with the budget, it happens from time to time that one Opposition member—I am referring now to the official Opposition to whom we are accustomed—states that taxation is too high, and another states that insufficient services are being provided. This is the kind of attitude one can expect from an Opposition party. The dimension is the lack of responsibility which goes with it. In fact, the hon. member for Rissik has just said that the Opposition, inter alia, views measures of this nature in a new dimension. I do not necessarily wish to criticize or detract from this. It is true that when one is in the Opposition, it is perhaps far more enjoyable, from the point of view of a politician, because one has a freer reign in regard to the things one says.

No responsibility. [Interjections.]

But let us now consider the circumstances which gave rise to the statutory amendment which is now under discussion. The hon. member for Pretoria West has already indicated that the functions of the commission include, inter alia, that very sensitive matters are referred to this commission for enquiry. I have been a member of the commission for just over three years now. It is true that when the task of reviewing the entire matter of consolidation afresh was entrusted to the commission, it was clearly apparent that there were investigations that it would have to undertake, which included dealing with extremely sensitive matters. At that stage already, three years ago, we …

Such as?

I shall still come to that. We then asked our law advisers whether the activities of the commission were of a confidential nature and whether the duties of the commission could be made subject to the requirements of confidentiality. The law advisers said that while the Commissions Act did in fact make provision for confidentiality, the activities of the Commission for Co-operation and Development did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Commissions Act because the commission has its own Act which makes provision for certain aspects. That is why we realized three years ago that that necessity ought to exist. However, the commission adopted the standpoint that it would, to the best of its ability, try to proceed with its activities in as responsible a manner as possible, and with an understanding for the need for confidentiality and secrecy as far as certain sensitive matters were concerned.

Of course not all the activities of the commission are confidential or secret. Many of the activities of the commission are not confidential or secret, and from time to time statements on such activities are issued by the chairman or the Minister. Not everything is subject to secrecy therefore. The activities of the commission are not such, however, that they produce a final product. The commission is performing its activities under instructions from the Cabinet. These entail that the commission has to institute certain investigations and report on them to the Cabinet. When the commission therefore has to report to the Cabinet, it is for the purpose of enabling the Cabinet, with the help of other information which it already has, to take its decisions. After all, the activities of the Cabinet are for the most part of a confidential and secret nature.

I think that the PFP as well as the NRP and the CP will also accept that the activities of the Cabinet entail a major element of confidentiality and secrecy. That is why every member of the Cabinet, when he accepts a position in the Cabinet, has to swear an oath of secrecy. The activities of the commission entail the supply of information to the Cabinet in order to enable the Cabinet to make a final submission to Parliament. However, the activities of the commission do not include the final submission. The commission merely provides the Cabinet with information, and the Cabinet itself makes the final submission.

That is why it is essential that these aspects which could be considered to be secret or potentially secret may be subject to the legal implications of secrecy.

The commission is involved in other tasks as well. In its investigation into certain aspects it also investigates the declaration of certain areas to be areas either for inclusion or exclusion as Black areas. Surely those aspects have economic and financial implications. They have economic and finacial implications for individuals and for communities in general, and surely it is only logical that it is undesirable that, as a result of investigations which are instituted—which are by no means final—individuals should acquire information on the activities of the commission which would enable them to enrich themselves, if they could obtain the information at an early stage. Surely it is only logical that certain information must be of a confidential nature and must remain so until the business of the committee has been finally disposed of or until the report of the commission has been submitted to Parliament.

Another aspect is that, to enable us to make a balanced assessment of our activities it is essential that certain documents of a confidential nature be submitted to us. I do not wish to spell out the nature of such documents, but hon. members can accept that there are in fact documents of a confidential nature. Without those documents the commission is not able to make a balanced assessment. If a matter must be stated before a commission in order to enable that commission to evaluate its work properly, surely the Opposition will concede that it is desirable that confidential and secret documents may be submitted to the commission.

What kind of document?

I realize that because the hon. member for Durban Point has been a member of an Opposition all his life, he does not know how this kind of thing works.

Give us examples of secret documents which might be submitted to the commission.

I need only refer the hon. member to secret reports from the State Security Council and secret reports on defence which come up for discussion in the consideration of consolidation proposals.

That falls under other laws.

Yes, but these confidential reports become documents of the commission if they are submitted to the commission by Government departments. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that a relatively large proportion of the activities of the commission are in fact of a confidential and secret nature, until a certain point of finality has been reached. However, there are aspects which are not of a secret nature. We have no desire to withhold information which the public have a right to know about. The fact that the hon. member Prof. Olivier emphasized the secrecy aspect and said that the PFP objected in principle to secrecy, falls into the category of the tendency which exists at present in the world, viz. an overemphasis of “the right to know”. It is becoming increasingly prevalent to say that the public has a right to know. This is one of the aspects which had an undermining effect on the CIA in America. I want to make it very clear to the Opposition that in the activities of the Government for which it can be held accountable to the public, a need for secrecy does exist up to a certain point, particularly when what is involved is the possibility of self-enrichment, or implications of an extremely sensitive nature.

Consequently I want to declare my strongest support for this amendment. I can see why the Opposition cannot understand it, because they have been members of an Opposition for many years now, at least for 34 years. In this House there is not a single hon. member of the NRP or the PFP that has tasted the fruits of responsibility on the Government side. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply to one point made by the hon. member for Klip River in relation to the question of an unfinished document being submitted to the Cabinet. The hon. member maintained that such a document should be kept secret until the Cabinet had dealt with it. To my mind that is absolute non-sesnse. By the time the Cabinet receives it, there will have been no reaction whatsoever to this highly secret intrigue that is going on and the Cabinet will receive the document without having any concept whatsoever in regard to what the reactions of the landowners are going to be. The Cabinet will then have to begin all over again by going back to these people and trying to find out whether it is an acceptable solution or not. If the matter had been in the open, they would have had a far better idea of whether or not it was acceptable in the area in question as well as of the sort of problems and opposition being experienced there.

There is consultation, where necessary. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be opposing this amendment outright and the reason is that it makes an ogre of a body which is already under considerable suspicion because of the way in which it has gone about its job and because of the leaks that have created rumour and uncertainty and put all sorts of fears into people quite unnecessarily, which, had this been done in the open in the first place, would not have happened. I say that the Government has a very poor record in regard to this policy of consolidation. It is already under suspicion and anything it does to cloak this work in more secrecy will make that suspicion worse. Let us talk about areas like Port St. Johns and Alice in regard to which they made solemn promises which were not worth the paper they are written on.

At this stage the whole question of consolidation has almost reached fruition as far as the work of the commission is concerned in regard to the consolidation of the homelands. We are now entering a phase in which we have an enlarged commission which will be dealing almost entirely with the question of urbanization, housing, freehold rights and 99-year leases, which is a totally new field. I would say that the more open the discussion in this regard is, the greater the input they will have from the public and the more participation there will be on the part of the public to solve the urbanization problems and the question of the urban Blacks, the more involved the public become and the more aware they are made in regard to the problems in this connection, the better. In many cases the commission is going to keep a great number of its problems to itself which will perhaps make the public feel that they are doing things in a certain way which, had the public known about them, would have put the public more on their side.

I wonder whether this action on the part of the Government in bringing the question of secrecy into the work of the commission is not related to what happened just prior to and during the election when the candidate for the HNP in King William’s Town got hold of a certain document which he used. This is a typical example of what happens when there are only half-truths to go on. When there are only half-truths to go on, one can bring all sorts of emotions to bear in a situation which, had the matter been dealt with quite openly, might not have come about. By the time that document was made public, the rumours that had been flying around and the various stories that had appeared in the local Press in regard to where the boundary was going to be, whether King William’s Town was going to be incorporated, whether Berlin was going to be incorporated, whether East London was going to be incorporated, were so varied and the boundaries had encompassed so many properties that the commission had caused itself an enormous amount of harm which would not have occurred had the matter been dealt with in the open. I think this was actually done in a fit of pique on the part of the Government because they threatened that gentlemen with action and then found that they could not take action. So having made the threat and not having been able to take action they are now going to close the gap but they are going to do it to their own detriment. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. member is going to experience quite a lot of that kind of thing in future from the party on my right. Perhaps he will also be glad of a little support in future.

Another point that I should like to mention is that quite recently the Press carried reports about decisions made by the commission in respect of the granting of freehold title to Blacks in the urban areas. The indication was that there was a voting situation there in a proportion of 7:5 against granting freehold title to Blacks in the urban areas. One wonders whether in fact it would not be far better for the public to have access to that sort of situation, for them to know the points of view of people in relation to these matters, i.e. whether they are for or against them. Certainly the voters might like to know because then they would know which of these people were verkramp and which of them were verlig. The different parties, in knowing exactly how people argue their case for or against, might then have a better understanding of what exactly the problems are relating to urbanization. I think this is possibly another reason why the Government is so keen to introduce this legislation.

We all know that the hon. member for Klip River voted against it.

I wonder whether in the case of King William’s Town it would not have been far better if the whole question of consolidation had been brought out into the open. Everybody knew that boundaries would have to be drawn in logical places. They could not be drawn just anywhere. If certain things had been done a ridiculous situation would have been brought about. The land deals that might take place which were referred to by the hon. member for Klip River, where people would be able to enrich themselves as a result of negotiations that had not become final, are in fact already taking place. People take a guess at where the boundaries are going to be, they have a reasonable indication of what is going on and, if they have the finances, they buy these properties and hope that they will come out on top. The suggestion that if this work is kept secret it will stop this practice, is only going to make it seem in the eyes of the public as if it benefits one section of the population and not the other.

Information for pals!

That is all it will bring about. The other point that was made by the hon. member for Klip River was that people will be far more prepared to give information to the commission on a basis where they will have no fears because the matter will be kept secret. In fact, this works in reverse because if one goes into a situation where there is a shroud of secrecy over the goings-on and where the people sitting on the commission have power to lock one up in gaol for a year or to impose a fine of R1 000 upon one if one leaks the tiniest thing, one is going to be very circumspect about what one says to those people. One is not going to divulge one’s innermost feelings in regard to exactly what the circumstances are. Therefore the whole Bill is counter-productive to the very points that were made by the hon. member for Klip River.

I feel that the stage has now been reached in regard to consolidation where the freehold title rights of urban Blacks, the whole aspect of urbanization has reached the point where the whole country knows that it is a phenomenon that is not going to be stopped by legislation. There is nothing that the Government can do with regard to the legislative procedure that will turn that tide. It knows that an enormous problem is being experienced in regard to housing and the Government has now changed its views in respect of Black guest labourers who are going back to their homelands and who are exercising their rights elsewhere. That was all pie in the sky. It is now having a new look at the whole thing.

The more intense participation there is by people in solving this, the more willingness there is on the part of people to give evidence before this commission and the more open the inquiry is, the greater the results will be that will be achieved and the more earnest consideration people will give to the realities of the demographic situation in this country.

Lastly, I should just like to mention that we have no objection in respect of clauses 3 and 4. We are entirely at one with the Government in respect of these two clauses. However, we will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis of clauses 1 and 2.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think clauses 3 and 4 of this amendment Bill need any further discussion, because all the hon. members who spoke today were ad idem about these two clauses. I think the clauses which are causing problems are clauses 1 and 2.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that clause 1 also introduced a secrecy provision with regard to the activities of the commission into section 15 of the Black Affairs Act. However, I just want to point out to the hon. member that when one consults the Act one sees that this is an enabling measure. It authorizes the State President to make a regulation concerning this matter. But all activities are subject to what is contained in this regulation which has been made. After all, it is ridiculous to expect that all the business of the commission in hearing the evidence of an organization such as the South African Agricultural Union must necessarily be kept secret.

You missed my point entirely!

This is still an enabling regulation.

I now want to discuss the principle of secrecy. When the commission is conducting its business, after all, there is an interaction of ideas which the commission must consider in order to decide what recommendation to make to the Minister or how to advise him.

There is one matter of principle I want to clear up with hon. members of the Opposition, who disagree with this. Are they opposed to an exchange of ideas being kept secret? It is not always in the public interest to reveal the ideas that have been exchanged in order to come to a decision or to reach unanimity.

But who else but the members of the commission could leak this information?

Surely it is not only the commission that is involved in this. There are many other people who are also involved. Evidence is heard and letters and documents are circulated which could somehow fall into the hands of an irresponsible Press Organ. That Press Organ could then publish that information. Such information could fall into the hands of people who might use it in a thoughtless or irresponsible way, people like the official Opposition or certain Press groups which do not agree with the implementation of this policy of the Government, people who might try to use this to promote their political aims, to embarrass the Government and to injure its cause. This is why such a secrecy clause is essential. There is an exchange of ideas, which means that a decision has not yet been taken. If such ideas were to leak out or a malicious person were deliberately to create the impression that these were the ideas of the commission, it could have an adverse effect.

But surely the commission could deny it.

If the commission denied certain allegations and failed to deny a specific allegation, it could be ascertained what was true and what was not. I want to put a question to the hon. member to support my standpoint. Did the hon. members of the official Opposition have a dispute in their caucus this morning about the hon. members for Yeoville and Constantia?

You are a fine one to speak about differences in the caucus. You voted against your Prime Minister.

There are certain points which emerge, therefore, and these support my standpoint on this matter. I see that the hon. member who has been referred to is now sitting bolt upright. But only last week his leader dealt leniently with him by saying that he had only made a slight mistake. When one has to do with such a person, who only last week made statements of that nature in the Senate on a certain subject, it is all the more important that certain information should not be in their possession, because they can injure the cause.

Discussions on the commission are still in the process of being digested, and because the recommendations have not yet been submitted to the Cabinet and changes can still be made, it is important that it be kept secret at this stage. I can understand that the official Opposition and the NRP do not want to have secrecy, but one must take into consideration who governs this country. The NP governs and not the Opposition, and for this reason the Government must discuss and formulate proposals and clarify these matters for itself. It does not need the advice of the Opposition on every matter. The Government can inform the Opposition of its decisions at a later date, but only after decisions have been taken can we debate them in this House. On this basis I support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ventersdorp rightly said that we were now basically arguing about clauses 1 and 2. I therefore want to quote these clauses again, but I shall read the English text because it seems to me that the hon. members for Pretoria West and Ventersdorp find it difficult to understand Afrikaans. They have a problem, and even the hon. the Minister of Law and Order indicated a while ago that he had a problem in connection with the proceedings of this House. Clause 1 provides, inter alia—

If the business is not kept secret, it is after all quite impossible to allege that matters discussed by the commission can be kept secret. It simply does not make sense. This is therefore a commission that does its work in secret. That is how the public interprets it. This is a commission that does its work in secret; it is not done publicly.

A second aspect to which the hon. member for Pretoria West referred was that people should be protected so that they would feel free to give evidence before the commission, because the commission is supposed to need specialized background knowledge on delicate matters. Basically, such matters do not affect individuals, however. After all, the commission is not a pawnshop where people go to do business.