I move as an amendment—

Yesterday, the hon. the Minister indicated that he had relied on the provisions of the Electricity Act, an Act which dates back to 1922 but which stands on the Statute Book to-day as a consolidated measure passed in 1958. I also indicated that in moving such an amendment I would rely on a precedent established in 1951 and which will be found in Section 5bis of the Industrial Development Corporation Act. I move this amendment now in the hope that the hon. the Minister has given the matter reconsideration and that he will be disposed to accept it. I hope that the hon. the Minister, too, will rely on a model which does try and preserve to a degree the prerogatives of Parliament rather than a model which does not do so.

I naturally accept the hon. Minister’s statement that no commitments have as yet been made in regard to the matter. But, if legislation of this kind is to be passed, it follows that the need for a provision like this is presently being felt, and that the prospect of making use of such a provision must be in sight. I feel sure that a provision of this nature will not hinder the Government, but if anything, will strengthen its hands in trying to get overseas investments into South Africa. I think the hon. Minister indicated himself that State finance has become a complicated matter and is no longer the straightforward procedure that existed years ago. I have personal knowledge of the care with which foreign banking institutions look at the powers and the methods of control over state finance that are exercised in South Africa before they themselves make commitments here. The very fact that South Africa’s system of control over public finance has always been as good as it is, both on the parliamentary side and on the part of the Controller and Auditor-General, has always been a factor which has been beneficial to South Africa and which I feel therefore will facilitate the Government’s efforts in raising funds from abroad under the provisions of the legislation we are now discussing.

I should perhaps direct the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that a Bill which is under consideration in this House at present, namely the Coloured Development Corporation Bill, contains a provision which places limitations on borrowing powers and as such is a useful form of control which is contained therein. Up to a point my amendment follows that model, because rather than have a fixed amount which the Government can guarantee without parliamentary approval, I followed the model given in that Bill and place it at half the sum of the capital fund and the reserve fund of the bank. I submit that this proposal would still leave the hands of the Government entirely free to act in the best interests of South Africa and of agriculture in general, but it will on the other hand help to preserve those prerogatives of which we in this House are jealous. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment. It is not a new sort of device, but is something which the House has previously approved. In other words it is a form of control which the House has approved, and which, as far as I know, has operated successfully.

I wish to support the hon. member who has just sat down, very strongly on this. Yesterday we showed our goodwill and our keenness to let this Bill go through. We think it is a very sound Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has not asked for the creation of a new precedent, but to follow what has been the custom for a number of years here, and I think we should not break away from that, because it keeps the House au fait of what is going on, and the amounts that are borrowed. I do not want to go into the arguments the hon. member has used. He has stated our case fully. I only want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to meet us on this matter so that we can get the Bill through as speedily as possible.

I have given further consideration to the matter raised by the hon. member yesterday afternoon, and I have also had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Treasury. My task was facilitated to a certain extent by the fact that the hon. member had tabled an amendment which gives in a specific form what he suggested yesterday. But, Sir, in passing yesterday, and I want to return to that, I mentioned that the analogy that he gave, namely the Industrial Development Corporation, is not a true analogy. There are many respects in which that institution differs completely from that of the Land Bank. The I.D.C. is not a utility organization. The I.D.C. is a company which is empowered to make investments which naturally must carry an element of risk. They are entitled to invest as entrepreneurs in the establishment of new factories, they can invest in equities of subsidiary companies. So one sees at once that in every respect that I have mentioned the Land Bank is different. The provision to which the hon. member has referred is not a provision limiting the general borrowing powers of the I.D.C. If the hon. member reads the first paragraph, he will see that this provision is limited to loans raised by the I.D.C., guaranteed by the Government, in respect only of Sasol. It says “Any undertaking for the production of oil from coal”. And Sasol is the only existing organization of that kind. Hon. members will remember that the history of Sasol to a certain extent was entirely different from the history of the Land Bank for instance. In the case of Sasol there is a specific ceiling to what the I.D.C. could borrow in respect of Sasol. It did not affect the ordinary borrowing powers of the I.D.C., which the hon. member will find in the principal Act.

It was a commitment on the Consolidated Revenue Fund all the same.

We know the particular history of Sasol and the peculiar circumstances. There the actual costs were considerably higher than the estimated costs and there was a request for more money. Parliament was not willing to grant facilities for further expenditure there, unless a ceiling was provided. That is the reason for this particular clause which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) invokes as a precedent. Sir, this clause was inserted under special circumstances. I think, and I am confirmed in that view after my consultations with the Treasury, that Escom is much better and a much truer analogy. The hon. member will see that in the Electricity Act, as consolidated in 1958, this provision is made very clear, namely that in respect only of external loans certain restrictions will apply. As far as external loans are concerned, they are given the right to obtain external loans free from the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act, except as to paragraph (6). In other words, they can dispense with all the conditions—

And the proviso says—

that is the provisions generally in regard to the raising of loans—

I think that is a much truer analogy. After all, if one compares the two institutions there is a much greater similarity of purpose between the two of them than between the I.D.C. and the Land Bank. Both of these institutions are utility institutions and they provide services for the development of industry and agriculture respectively. In addition, I am as jealous as the hon. member of parliamentary controls but there is a very big difference between Escom and the Land Bank. In the case of Escom there is no auditing by the Controller and Auditor-General. In the case of the Land Bank, the accounts are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General and automatically come up and are subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. So there is no question about it that we shall be able to hide any loan, as the hon. member has suggested.

I did not suggest that.

All the accounts of the Land Bank will have to be placed before the Auditor-General and will in due course be scrutinized by the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, there is no question that there can be any of the hanky-panky tricks which the hon. member apparently anticipates. Because the analogy that he has given is completely untrue—he compares things which are not comparable at all—and because we have a precedent which is much more in line with the Land Bank, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Might I put another point of view to the Minister. As he knows all that we are trying to bring about here is proper parliamentary control of Government finances. He has refused the request made from this side of the House on the grounds that there are certain analogies in the examples we have quoted to back up the suggestions we have made in this matter. But surely, Sir, the overriding consideration should be to protect the rights and privileges of Parliament. As the Minister has said, we should be “jealous” to preserve the control by Parliament over public finances. He should sympathize with our attempts to bring this about. He knows that the main function of Parliament is to control public spending. It is as great as our legislative function. Indeed, it is the reason why Parliament achieved its power over the Executive. He knows also that the normal control we exercise through our Public Accounts Committee is a post mortem control. The control does not come too late to punish but too late to protect adequately …

This will also be a post mortem control.

Not if it has to come before Parliament as we suggest. There will be at least two years’ delay if it goes through the normal Public Accounts Committee system. Our way will shorten the period before correction if anything goes wrong. The hon. the Minister said, “nobody would be able to get up to any hanky-panky business because it would be discovered”. But what if that discovery comes too late? Very often the steed has already bolted before the stable door is closed. Our suggestion in this case could not clog the wheels of administration. It could not hamper the workings of this Act at all. For that reason and because the Minister says he is jealous of parliamentary control over these matters, I think he might have second thoughts on the matter. Everything that can give us greater control and which does not clog the wheels of administration is well worth instituting. And I think that the Minister will find that the amendment which we suggest fulfils all those functions.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

NOES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potmeter, D. J.; Potgieter. J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I wonder if the Minister could inform the House at whose request provision was made in the original Douglas Irrigation Areas Board Act of 1937 for the privilege of voting by proxy at the election of members to the board seeing that this is contrary to the procedure followed by any other irrigation board. I would also like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the request to introduce this amendment came from the majority of erf holders in the Douglas irrigation district.

I do not know who originally asked for the privilege of voting by proxy in 1937. But whoever asked for it, the majority are now no longer in favour of it. I was approached by the board to have this changed. I said to them that I could not just take the board’s word for it and that I first wanted to know whether the majority of the people were in favour of this change. The majority of the erf holders were in favour of the change and only then did I promise to bring about this alteration.

I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. I just wanted to be satisfied on that point. I so feared that perhaps the representations had come from the board and not from the majority of erf holders.

It came from the board but it was confirmed by the majority.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When the debate was adjourned last night I had said that this measure was the start of the creation of a third separate economy in South Africa. And I had said that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had forecast that some time ago. Lest there be any mistake I want to refer this House to his words. In 1959 the hon. member for Vereeniging said the following—

An hon. member interjected and asked—

The hon. member for Vereeniging replied—

In other words, the hon. member for Vereeniging foresaw three years ago that the economy of South Africa was to be broken up and that one economy would compete against the other. That is the multiple economy which has led to the situation which the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) envisaged, of economic colonialism or economic imperialism. That is exactly what this measure does. It is in fact a Colonial Development Corporation; an economic colony which is being created. The hon. member for Paarl, who is not in the House at the moment, was very concerned about this economic pressure, this economic imperialism. But, Sir, his own argument refutes the need for this measure in its present form. The hon. member for Paarl did not have a private development corporation to assist him to where he is to-day. Any group of people in this country who have risen to the top industrially and economically, did so because of their participation in the economic life of the country, because they were part of it, because they had the innate skills and the innate ability to bring them to positions of responsibility and so to the top. The member was quite right when he referred to the three pillars of the economy, capital, management and skills and labour. The Minister claims that this measure is going to achieve one of those three pillars namely to provide the capital required by the Coloured community. But what does it achieve, Sir? I noticed a strange reluctance, a hesitancy, in the support of the hon. member for the Minister’s measure. There was honeyed concern for the welfare of the Coloured community but behind it there was the memory of what they themselves had said not more than a few months ago. I can still hear the battle-cry echoing, Mr. Speaker: “We, the Nationalist Party, are the party that will protect the White man from economic competition. We are going to protect the White man from competition on the part of the non-Whites in the economic field.” And now, Sir, they want to create a separate economy in direct competition and in conflict with our existing economy. If they really want to help the Coloured community there are agencies which can be used. We have financial sources which can be made available, but they must be made available as part of one overall economy for the whole of South Africa. There are facilities and if this Government really wished to help, they could help not only the Coloured community but all small business men, all people seeking to establish small businesses. They could do so by making funds available to everyone as part of our over-all economic machine and picture. I say that this Bill does not achieve its aims. It is nothing, Mr. Speaker, but a propaganda stunt, a propaganda stunt, a bit of bait, as the hon. the Minister of Information would know, to try to get support for Government policy but it is setting a sprat to catch a mackerel. Because if we analyse this Bill what does it mean in hard cold reality? From 1945 to 1953 Prof. Sadie worked out that it cost R2,044 to put every labourer into employment. This measure, therefore, Mr. Speaker, will put 250 workers into employment. Those figures are based on a period when for four years the United Party was in power and money was money. It will cost much more to-day. Even on that basis R2,044 is required to put one labourer into industry. On that basis this measure will enable 250 people to be put into employment in industry. The hon. the Minister will remember—I drew it to his attention—the situation which arose in Durban when an area was declared Coloured. The White people found it difficult and at times impossible to dispose of their property. One of the problems was a trading store in this Coloured area. The Minister will know that his own Department could not find a purchaser to take over that trading store. Eventually a Coloured person with White support was found and that trading store was sold for R14,000 at a tremendous loss to the owner. But on that basis of one trading store in that Coloured area, this total amount proposed in this Bill for this Corporation, will set up 35 Coloured people in trade. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a sprat to catch a mackerel. What this Bill will achieve will be nothing more than to put a few chosen selected stooges or people chosen by the Government, for one or other reason, into trade or industry.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I say, Sir, that this Bill cannot create industry. I have shown from figures that the maximum will be 250 people—10 industries of, say, 50 workers each. And yet it is being held up as a Bill to start the Coloureds on the road to economic independence. Let us take the type of industry that one expects to be created. The Coloureds play a big part in the clothing industry. So one would assume that this Bill could be used to start a clothing factory for the Coloureds. Yet, Mr. Speaker, what will happen? Having started that clothing factory he will then find that he will have to employ Whites in his factory because job reservation will prevent the Coloureds from working in their own factory. So this measure in isolation is not a measure to advance the welfare of the Coloureds. There are many Coloureds working in industry. I was interested to note that there are over 1,500 Coloureds in managerial positions, as at the date of the 1951 census. There was a total of 125,000 in industry, 4,800 in the professions, 3,000 in mining, and 10,000 in transport. These are all Coloureds at present occupied in industry as employees or as managers.

How many were there in your time?

Under the United Party regime I will tell the hon. member that there were 268,730 Coloureds in gainful employment against 313,000 five years later, a difference of some 40,000 in five years. But this measure would only account for 250 of those 40,000 who came into industry. No, this Bill is not the way to approach the problem. It is not the small beginning the Minister spoke about. It is getting on to the wrong road at the start. We want to see the Coloured community helped, but if the Minister wishes to help them he must help them as part of the over-all economy, because if he is to divide the sources of production into White and Coloured industry, he must divide the markets, because you cannot divide the factories unless logically you divide the market. I hope the Minister will tell the House whether in terms of the industry and commerce he wishes to see established under this measure he also envisages the separation of the market into White and Coloured markets. In other words, does he envisage Coloured factories making goods to sell only to Coloureds? Or does he envisage them selling those goods on the common market to all races in South Africa? Because he is introducing that principle in the production side and he must carry it to its logical conclusion. What the Minister has before the House is just window-dressing. We want to see something real, which will not only help the Coloureds but South Africa and our over-all economy. We cannot be a party to this colonialism, this setting up of a separate economy for Whites. Bantu and Coloureds, which must ultimately lead to the destruction of the stability of our whole economic advancement. Therefore we ask the Government not to proceed on this road, but to amend the existing sources of finance so as to make them available to all races. Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, who wish to establish their own businesses, and not to come with this measure as the beginning of a new era for the Coloureds. We know perfectly well it will not be the beginning of a new era but merely the setting up of a small group whom the Government can control with even greater strength than they are controlling them to-day.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has, except for a few small things, said nothing which other members on his side have not already said, but towards the end of his speech he did come forward with some amazing wisdom in economics. He says that this Bill will cause production to be segregated, and if that is done then marketing must be segregated too. I do not know where on earth he learnt his economics but it was apparently in Natal of which her own poet, Roy Campbell, made the striking remark that it was in that beautiful province of Natal “where turnips to professors are promoted and pumpkins into Parliament are voted”, if I may be allowed to twist it slightly. Imagine, Sir, that if something is manufactured in Britain it must be marketed only in Britain, and the same applies to Japan, because he says that if a thing is manufactured by the Coloureds it must be marketed only amongst them.

That is your policy.

Where the hon. member gets the idea from that it is National Party policy I do not know. He must have learnt that too in one of those “pumpkin” universities, because really the idea that when you have separate production, or if you have racial groups producing certain things, they must be marketed only amongst them, is the biggest nonsense ever uttered in this House. I do not think I need go any further than this with the hon. member because his arguments are the same as those of former speakers. Their great objection to this Bill, as was evident from the speeches of the hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and Port Elizabeth (Mr. Plewman) and as was evident from the arguments of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), is that this Bill will now create a separate and isolated economy. The hon. member for Houghton has said that this is a milestone along the road to creating segregated economic units. The fact that there is to be a development corporation to assist Coloureds to start business and industries will supposedly bring about a new isolated economy in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the whole weight of the world’s economic development is against the formation of separate, segregated economic units. In spite of the fact that the development of national units is stimulated by their governments, the trend of world economy is not to bring about isolation but in fact to obtain greater unity. I have the map of Europe in front of me. Here we are not dealing with separate racial groups, but with separate states in one part of the world. In West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, the Government of every individual national unit goes out of its way to find means of advancing the development of industries and the economy of that country, but this does not create a separate economy. This led to the Common Market in Europe and those countries formed a greater economic unity in which the one helps the other. Then there are the countries of the Free Market. Britain, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, Switzerland and Austria, who also formed such a unit, in spite of the fact that they are separate economic units. If we help the Coloureds here to found their own businesses and industries, it does not mean that they, as the hon. member for Point stated, will form a separate economy in competition with White economy. It will mean further progress in South Africa which will be in the interests of the Coloureds and of the Whites.

But I should like to come more to the point and show how ridiculous the argument is that a separate economy will be created. They insist that there should be some body to assist everybody, White, Brown and Black. Why there cannot be different institutions to help the different groups they have not explained to us. That is exactly the virtue of a separate institution, namely that it can concentrate on the actual needs and circumstances of a particular group and in this way help them more effectively than a general body would. As to this argument that the Coloured Development Corporation will create a separate economy, why did those hon. members not use that argument when the Land Bank was called into being? The Land Bank was established to aid a special group, the White farmers. I never heard it said that meant that the farmers would form a separate economy. That is really a silly argument.

You do not do as much for the Coloureds as you do for the Bantu.

I can quite understand why the hon. member is trying to evade the argument, because he now realizes how ridiculous it is. I must admit that it was only the hon. member for Peninsula who used the argument advanced by the Opposition. We have an institution which was founded to help White industrialists, namely the Industrial Development Corporation. I never heard hon. members say that should not be so because it would lead to a separate economy which would cause a disruption of the country’s economy. The establishment of the Industrial Development Corporation led to further legislation which founded State-aided institutions such as Sasol and Foscor; and I never heard hon. members say that this was a milestone on the road to separate economies.

Is it limited to Whites?

Of course it is. If the hon. member alleges that it is not limited to Whites then he was pleading here for something which already exists because after all then we have a body for all. If he says the I.D.C. is not only there for Whites, I will concede that for argument’s sake, but then he is agitating for something which already exists. Why then does he try to alarm us with talk about separate development?

The old proposition is also true in this case. If you allow one group or race in a specific part of the world to deteriorate, economically or culturally, then they will also drag the other groups down with them. The converse is also true. If you help one race or a group in the same country towards progress, then you help all and they form a greater unity. That is what we can do at the moment with this Corporation. The Coloureds who are very backward can be helped in certain respects to increase their worth not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the whole nation, in the same way that the Land Bank and the I.D.C. helped certain sections of the community and there was no danger of disrupting the economy.

Mr. Speaker, what is actually the objection of hon. members? The words of the hon. member for Durban (Point) made this very clear and that is that these people must not be helped. That is why they raised no objection to the Land Bank and the I.D.C., but they do object to this. Why? Because with this legislation the Government will be in a position to help the backward groups towards progress, and overseas the effect of this will be that people will realize that it is the Government’s policy to help these people. And if the United Party have to do without overseas criticism it has no hope of ever again getting into power. The Opposition of the United Party to this is mere opportunist propaganda. They do not want these people to be helped, in the same way in which they objected to the Bantu Corporation because it will create satisfaction among the Bantu and the Coloureds, and satisfaction among those sections would kill the United Party. For that reason they wish to avoid it and that is really why they oppose it.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on this legislation. It is a small beginning, but it is not isolated from the other help which the Coloureds are receiving as a group; it is additional. They still receive all the other assistance from the Government in increasing measure. This Corporation will only provide additional assistance to help them further, and I hope that we shall see the day when this Corporation will develop into one of the greatest blessings for the Coloureds of our country.

In following the last speaker, who endeavoured to break down the arguments used by this side of the House against this Bill, I want to draw attention to one point only. He used the argument that the Common Market in Europe would bring into effect the same results that this Bill would bring in South Africa. I would like to point out to him that the general idea of the Common Market in Europe is the coming together as one economy, of course with political reasons at the back of it, whereas we are trying to point out not that we are against what this Bill purports to do, but what will actually do. It is no use saying there is no substance in our arguments about fragmentation. I hope to convince the hon. member that he is wrong and I think he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. This Bill has very wide horizons. There is, in Clause 3, the statement that the object of the Corporation shall be the encouragement of the Coloureds in the field of industry, trade and finance, i.e. in every economic sphere. Well, either this Bill intends that eventually that will be the position for the Coloureds, or it is providing a small sum of money to sweeten certain people who have been referred to already by hon. members on this side as “stooges”. I am very loth to regard it as that, but I must admit, following one or two of the speeches made from the other side, that I am beginning to be somewhat suspicious. It is very difficult to talk against a Bill such as this which on the face of it is intended to help our fellow countrymen, but really is a choice of two objectives. Either it is just window-dressing, or it is intended to become a very material part of this country’s economy. It can only mean one of the two, and I can only assume that it is intended to become a very material portion of the country’s economy. If it is the intention to expand and later to furnish more funds for development, this Bill will lead to certain difficulties which we on this side have tried to stress in all honesty. We want to help the Coloureds to the limit of the country’s ability. In the United States and in Britain funds are being made available to help small business men. There is no doubt that this is a very sound practice in modern conditions, but as I pointed out before, this Bill takes powers which are to all intents and purposes unlimited. Starting off with the idea of helping the small man, it goes on to unlimited horizons, with one restriction, that the assistance to be given by the Government is to be limited to one section of our people. I know the Industrial Development Corporation has been mentioned before and I hope you, Sir, will not pull me up for mentioning it again, but I want to say that on the wording of this Bill, and if the country progresses as we hope it will, the time will arise when this Corporation could really be a rival to the I.D.C., and the bigger the thoughts behind it the greater is the likelihood of this happening. The Minister mentioned that he was arranging his co-ordination through the Natural Resources Board. When it comes to co-ordination, when you deal with the economy of the country, you have to be very careful how you go about it. The Prime Minister found that when he was bringing up some of his pet subjects here, he was hitting hard economic facts, with the result that he formed the National Economic and Advisory Council to advise him and to help to co-ordinate the schemes of the various Departments. The fact remains that this Council was formed to co-ordinate the various efforts. Now this Minister has said that he will not use it. We are only asking for the I.D.C. to be used in place of this proposal, because we think it will give the correct co-ordination to the country’s efforts to help the total economy. We simply say that this Bill and its proposals are not the correct channel to use to assist the Coloureds. The obvious channel, I repeat, is the I.D.C. Co-ordination will automatically flow from it and we will not have this fragmentation of the economy. I am pleading with the Minister to accept our arguments. There is no question about it that in years to come we will create difficulties for ourselves in the way of co-ordinating the country’s efforts to advance itself economically, and it is not wise. We should use the I.D.C., even if it means opening a special department, but at least the co-ordination of effort in the same direction will remain under one roof. I hope the Minister will accept our arguments as an honest endeavour to help our Coloureds to the limit of the country’s ability.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has already indicated the stand which the Coloured Representatives intend to take on this Bill. I want to say that it is in conformity with the statement we made to this House in 1958, and to the Coloured people, that if legislation is introduced in this House which in our opinion will be to the benefit of the Coloureds, we will support it. In spite of certain aspects of this legislation to which I will refer, we believe that this Bill will assist the Coloureds, and for that reason we intend to support it. But I am not unmindful of certain facts and factors which exist with regard to the Coloured people, and I do not think it will do any harm to remind the Minister and the House about those factors. I do not believe that the argument that there might be created a dual economy should be so lightly rejected by the Government. There is that possibility, but the Minister has said that it is not the intention to create such a situation. We can merely put the Government and the Minister to the test that this is not intended. It may have a snowballing effect in undermining our economy. I am not unmindful of that danger, because I think it would be a danger, but the Minister has said it is not the intention and I think we must accept that.

I want to take the opportunity to tell the hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), Parow (Mr. Kotze) and Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) that I and the Coloured people are not impressed with the crocodile tears they shed for them. You see, Sir, the impression must not be gained, either in this House or in the country, that there are not a large number of Coloured people who, despite adversity which they had to encounter, and despite trials and tribulations over the last 13 years, have succeeded, and some of them very materially, in the industrial and business world; and I would like to remind hon. members of the large number of Coloured people who, on their own initiative and despite their difficulties, have made good. I would refer to a very excellent article which appeared in the Cape Times on 22 April 1961, which deals with the 48,000 income tax payers, and goes on to say that 11 non-Whites earned more than Dr. Verwoerd. In this article it is quite apparent that many Coloureds in industry and commerce have succeeded in making good, but we know, as representatives of the Coloureds, that there are a considerable number, running into thousands, who could succeed in making good in business and industry if they but had the initial capital so to do. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) mentioned the appeals made to us and to other members of this House by the Coloured people asking where they can get capital to start a business. They say: “We have the opportunity, but we have no capital.” It is quite impossible, of course, for us as Members of Parliament to supply that and therefore I think that this Bill should be welcomed to assist those people. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will watch, and watch very carefully, to see that this measure helps not only people who have been sympathetic to the Government. Nor must this Bill be used to create monopolies in areas. If the Government is going to assist a man in Area A, they must not adopt the attitude that because one man has been helped there, they are not going to help a second man, because that would create a monopoly and lead to dissatisfaction; nor must businesses be established in opposition to people already well established. Of course, I realize that it is a good thing to have competition. Sir, I have been told—and although it may not be strictly in accordance with the wording of the Bill, I think it is germaine to the argument—that in some municipalities which are represented here by Government members, conditions have been imposed with regard to contracts for building that no Coloured builder’s tender will be accepted.

Order! That is quite outside the scope of this Bill.

With respect, Sir, this Bill deals with the establishment of industrial and commercial undertakings by Coloured men.

That is really far-fetched.

It is not so far away from the provisions of the Bill really, it is quite close by. Sir, if you will just bear with me for a moment. I want to say that there are certain Coloured people who will come to the Government for assistance under this Act, once this Bill has been passed, to set up business as building contractors. There are some of them who are naturally inclined that way. But if a public body which can engage Coloured contractors, is going to lay down the condition that they will not accept tenders from Coloureds for building work within the White area and that they will only accept their tenders for buildings within the Coloured area, then I think that would be unfair, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will make sure that the Coloured people will be able to earn a living, because it would be quite impossible for them to do so if they were restricted to building operations within a Coloured area.

Sir, I think it is necessary to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who. I am sorry, is not here, and who said that the Government rather than spend money in the direction in which this Bill points, should establish a technical school for Coloured people to teach them trades and callings. But she forgets—and she should be corrected—that as the result of representations made by the Coloured Representatives in this House to the Government—I think it was mainly the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux)—there is being established at Athlone a technical school for Coloureds. That was one other case where we felt that we should support the Government, and the hon. member for Houghton should be made aware of the fact that we brought the need for such a school to the notice of the Government and now, after many years, what she wants to be established is in fact being established. We felt that it was necessary for the Coloured children to learn a trade; that it should not be necessary first to be convicted of crime to be sent to one of the schools. I hope that this explanation will be brought to the notice of the hon. member for Houghton who I think misjudged the whole issue before the House.

I think I should also take this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot in pursuance of this Act help Coloured people to establish certain businesses in White areas. I refer, for instance, to the City of Cape Town. After many years of attempts a permit for one man, a White man, to open a café for Coloured people in Cape Town has been granted. I believe it is being run somewhere near the top of the Wellington Fruit Growers building. But it is run by a White man for Coloured people. But it should be run by a Coloured man for the Coloured people if that is the Government’s policy.

Order! What has that to do with this Bill?

It has this to do with the Bill, that if a man comes to the Minister and asks permission to open a café, the Minister will say, “I can only help you if it is somewhere in the Coloured area”.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Does the Minister want me to understand that if a man came to him and said, “I want to start a café so that Coloured people working in the city can come there for their meals,” it will not be refused? In other words, there must not be a strict interpretation placed on the provisions of the Group Areas Act in relation to the centre of big cities like Cape Town.

Order! The hon. member is wandering too far away from the provisions of the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I shall not proceed with that line. I just wanted to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Well, the hon. member has made his appeal now.

Sir, I have not had an answer yet. At any rate, we are not unmindful of the arguments used by members of the United Party. We are not unmindful of the pitfalls but we hope and we trust that this Bill will bring assistance to the very many Coloured people whom we know require it, and we are going to support it in the hope, I repeat, that the many people who have come to us will be assisted by the hon. the Minister in their venture in commerce and industry.

The title of this Bill reads, “To encourage and promote the advancement of the Coloured population in the Republic in the field of industry, trade and finance,” but if one reads this Bill against the statement of the Minister responsible for introducing it in this House and if one reads it against the whole background of the Government’s policy as far as the Coloured people are concerned, it becomes clear that this Bill is but a further step in applying apartheid, in applying separate economic development to the Coloured people in this country, and it is for that reason, not because we resist the attempt to uplift any underprivileged section of the community, that we oppose this Bill. It is because we say that this Bill is simply a further step, a further brick, in the whole structure of apartheid. We say that separate economic development as far as the Coloured people are concerned is absolute nonsense. It was shown to be an impossibility. It was shown clearly by the speech of the Minister himself. The Minister himself clearly indicated that there are a million and a half Coloured people in this country living almost entirely in White areas. His own speech indicated that you can never separate the Coloured people economically from the White people in this country. Sir. what he could have mentioned too is that here you have a population group that is increasing nearly as rapidly as the Whites, and the disparity in numbers between the Whites and the Coloureds is slowly closing, and it is only a question of time before we will have a higher and higher percentage of Coloured people in the White areas. Sir, in that context to speak of the separate economic development of a group which is geographically and economically bound to the economy of South Africa as a whole, is nonsense. All it boils down to in practice is discrimination. That is all it can boil down to because it is physically and economically impossible to separate them. All you can do is to discriminate against them. It is true that this particular Bill before us appears to discriminate in favour of the Coloured people, but that does not destroy our objection to this Bill. If this Bill means what it says, then no other group at this stage, at any rate, will be treated as liberally as far as credit terms are concerned, as the Coloured community, but it is still discrimination; you are now introducing a new discrimination in one economy. You are discriminating as far as credit is concerned, between one population group and another, purely on the basis of colour. Sir, people who support this Bill must realize that it is part and parcel of the whole structure of apartheid as far as the Coloured people are concerned, including job reservation as far as they are concerned. Here you have this new concept. To indicate what I mean, we have this new concept of a Coloured company being introduced in this Bill. What does this mean? What are the full implications of this? Apparently the purpose of this Bill is to compel certain people through the way in which you assist them to obtain credit to form companies in which only Coloureds will hold shares. What are the logical consequences of this? Is the next step going to be that we are going to have Indian companies in this country? I shall show more fully later on what the implications of this are for South Africa. Sir, anyone who takes the bait of this Bill will be swallowing the whole hook of apartheid. People who think that they can get away by just taking this nice little tit-bit of easy credit terms for the Coloured population, forget that in effect they are swallowing the whole hook of apartheid as far as the Coloured people are concerned.

Sir, it is for the reason not only that this Bill introduces more discrimination in the economic field between Coloured people and White people that we are opposed to it. It is the very fact that you are trying to discriminate between different racial groups in the same economic community and the same economic system, and that of necessity brings about more control, more bureaucracy. That is a necessary consequence of discrimination in one economy purely on the basis of colour. The Government also claims that it stands for free enterprise, but every new apartheid measure of this type means greater bureaucracy. It introduces further controls into our whole economic structure. In order to introduce discrimination of this type, you have to introduce more control, you have to duplicate. Already, as so many speakers have pointed out, we have an organization which is well qualified, which has the staff and which has the necessary experience to investigate what are economic propositions in the field of commerce and industry. We have the Industrial Development Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation, and now, purely on the basis of colour, we are going to introduce a new organization. It means more bureaucrats as far as this country is concerned and duplication of the same functions. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) mentioned the Land Bank and the I.D.C. Does he not realize that they perform quite different functions? It is not a duplication of functions. Does he not realize that there was never any question of discrimination as far as races are concerned in those two organizations? But here you are establishing an organization with the same functions as existing organizations, which simply means that we are swelling the percentage of people who are non-productively employed in this country. If we go on at this rate, I think it will only be a question of time before the whole White population of this country will be bureaucrats running the other population groups. Apart from increased bureaucracy, this Bill also brings about other interferences in our private economy. I would like to refer to Section 4 (a) which reads—

Sir, what that means is that here you are establishing a Government Corporation with Government money, which can now establish new industries; in other words a form of state capitalism or state socialism that you are now introducing into your private enterprise system. What is the purpose of that section, of using taxpayers’ money which presumably they could use just as well as the Government, and giving it to a Corporation and allowing that Corporation to establish new industrial and commercial undertakings to compete with the industrial and commercial undertakings of the taxpayers who originally paid the taxes. That is the sort of impossible situation, the sort of impossible bureaucracy and impossible sort of interference that this type of legislation introduces into our economy. This also introduces different interest rates into the same economy. Here we now have a type of Corporation that will apparently not adhere to the normal interest rates which are established in the market as such but will depend on the arbitrary decision of the directors to finance commercial and industrial undertakings which will operate in the same economy as the rest of your so-called free enterprise and compete with them with the taxpayers’ money. The more one analyses this Corporation, the more one sees how it introduces new interferences and new controls into our so-called private enterprise economy and all that has to be paid for by the taxpayer who still genuinely tries to produce and to develop this country on a basis of free enterprise. It is not only that you are now introducing into your economy different interest rates based on the colour of the skin of the person—because that is what it really amounts to in your economy—but judging by what the Minister has said we are also going to have different industrial areas. In the so-called White areas we are going to have White industrial areas and Coloured industrial areas, and I suppose it is only a question of time before we will have Indian industrial areas. What are the implications of this? If this is going to be different, with equal treatment for all the races, it is going to mean a fantastic duplication, a fantastic increase in costs. Wherever you now have a White industrial area you will have to see that there is at least the potential of a Coloured industrial area or an Indian industrial area. If you do not do that you can be accused of economic discrimination against the other two race groups. So the Minister can take his choice; this policy of his will either mean a fantastic duplication or discrimination against certain racial groups who will for all time in the so-called White areas but who because of the colour of their skin will not have the same industrial and commercial opportunities as the White people of this country. Sir. I wonder if the Minister has ever considered what it will lead to if this policy of his is developed to its logical conclusion? I have no doubt that it will be the queerest economy that the world has ever seen. Let us just analyse the different types of industries that we will have. We will have so-called White industries in the heartland of the White country, which presumably will operate more and more on White labour. As against that, in the same White areas, we will have so-called Coloured factories. It has been suggested, although I cannot believe that could be the policy of the Government, that job reservation would apply to such Coloured factories. As I say, I cannot believe that the normal job reservation would apply to a Coloured factory. Surely if a Coloured man establishes a Coloured factory in a Coloured area, you cannot apply job reservation to him and say, “You must take such and such a percentage of White workers before you can take any Coloured workers.” You will have to give him a free opportunity to use as much Coloured labour as he wants. You will therefore have two types of factories in the same area, one operating on White labour and the other operating on Coloured labour, and then you will have a third factory. As this policy develops to its stupid logical conclusion you will have a third type of factory; you will have Indian factories, presumably operating just with Indian labour. What is going to happen to the White factories which have to compete with factories, presumably in the same area, operated with only Coloured labour or with Indian labour only—people who at this stage of their cultural development can afford to live on a much lower standard of living than the Whites. On top of all this, you will still have another type of factory; you will have your border industry factory, your border areas factory, where presumably the great bulk of your labour will be Black with only White skilled labour and where presumably, if it has to make any sense, job reservation cannot be applied in the same way as it will to the White factories in the White areas. So there again you will have another type of industrial factory in the same industry. Take an industry like cotton spinning or weaving. You can have these four types of factories all operating under different credit conditions, under different labour conditions and under different wage rates. That is the type of economy we are building up. Sir, to make confusion worse confounded, if the Government carries out their policy of Bantustan development, you will get a new type of industry where, because anyone who has any knowledge of Africa realizes fully that if the Bantustan areas are to develop industrially, it will not take place on the basis of private enterprise in the next couple of generations. You only have to look and see what is happening in other parts of Africa. It will be through state enterprise; it will be state capitalism or socialism, and that will also have to be paid for by the White taxpayer. You will develop a new type of industry so you will have five types of textile industry, all producing the same type of product. You will have your Indian industry, your Coloured industry, your White industry in the White areas, your border area industry and your nationalized African industry in the Bantustans. Sir, this is the queer type of economy that we are building up. That is the logic of the policy of the Government, as apartheid affects the economy. How can they still go on and talk about the private enterprise system if this is the end conclusion? Of course, sir, we need not worry unduly. This situation can never arise. It is so absurd that it must collapse under its own absurdity before it ever reaches the end goal postulated by this Government. Sir, the only good principle in this Bill is that it is an effort to assist the small business man. In every economic community the small business man who wants to develop finds that he is at the back-end of the credit queue, and many countries have established special organizations to assist the small business man, to give him an opportunity to develop, and if we want to safeguard our system of capitalism and private enterprise in this country, then we are one of the countries in the world which should encourage the development of the small business man, but not only in the case of Coloured or White people but also in the case of Indians and the Bantu. The only way in which we can stabilize this type of society which we have at present, would be to encourage the emergence of small business men, small capitalists, small industrialists, amongst all sections of the population. It should not be confined only to the Coloured people. The most sensible way of doing that is not to establish a new clumsy Corporation like this, but to develop your existing corporations like the Industrial Development Corporation. The I.D.C. at present is simply not equipped for it, it has not got the staff; there is nothing in law to preclude it from doing so, but at the present moment it is simply not equipped to advance this type of credit for the small business man who must be lent money, because the Corporation would have to take credit risks which are far greater than would be the case in respect of bigger and established industries. Surely that is the logical development. If the Minister sincerely believes in developing the small Coloured business man and all the other small business men of all the different races, then he should withdraw this Bill and rather introduce a Bill which can achieve exactly the same purpose, by strengthening and by putting special funds at the disposal of an organization like the I.D.C. and by specially charging that Corporation with the task of assisting the emergence of a small class of business man, not only amongst the Coloured people but also amongst all the other racial groups in this country.

If there has been any doubt until now about the Opposition’s motive for opposing this measure, it is clear to us now that it is a propaganda motive. The hon. member who has just sat down has called this measure “discriminating apartheid” and that, of course, is how it is represented to the Coloureds who do not co-operate with the Department of Coloured Affairs. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and other hon. members have intimated once again what the other line of propaganda is going to be when they address a White audience. It will then be represented as something which is being given to Coloureds only and that the Whites are being treated unjustly. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat described this as a discriminating measure, as apartheid legislation, as discrimination. I want to put it to him, however, that there are other ways of discriminating, apart from bringing about a positive separation. One can also discriminate by promising people everything under the sun and by representing the position to them as though they are sharing everything equally with you but then seeing to it that, because they are economically weak, they remain the underdogs. It is significant that the hon. members in this House who represent the Coloureds, although I could see this afternoon that some of them like the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) for example, find themselves in a very awkward situation, spoke openly in favour of this measure, for, whatever their political convictions may be—of which we had the merest hint when the hon. member for Boland addressed the House—the fact remains that their representation of the Coloureds necessitates their visiting the Coloureds and learning to know circumstances. I think that it is because of their knowledge of the Coloured people’s circumstances that they are prepared to support this measure.

What are the circumstances in which the Coloured community finds itself? What are the circumstances which necessitate a measure such as this and which resulted in the Coloureds asking for such a measure themselves through their National Coloured Council? Those circumstances are firstly that the Coloureds constitute a separate population group, a group distinct from the White section of the population. Those circumstances are further that, as a result of the strong competition from the White entrepreneur, the White businessman, and the White industrialist, the Coloureds have remained a poor section of the population which has had very few opportunities for advancement after all, it is a fact that economic prosperity forms the basis of the development of your population. We have a Coloured population of 1,500,000, and they are also people with a right to share in the prosperity of this country. Hon. members on the other side say that if we give the Coloured an opportunity to get a bigger share in the prosperity of the country, it will disrupt our economy, that it will bring the Coloureds’ economy into competition with the Bantu’s and the White man’s. But has it occurred to these hon. members that the Coloureds constitute part and parcel of our population, a section with a very much older civilization than that of the Bantu, a section which is very close to the White part of the population, and that in spite of these things he has such a small share in the commerce and industry of this country? We on this side of the House, however—and here I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) said yesterday—can appreciate the circumstances of the Coloured. I reject with contempt what the hon. member for Boland has said, that is, that he does not believe that we are sincere when we say that we wish to help the Coloureds. We appreciate the circumstances of the Coloureds because, after all, the Afrikaners went through the same stage and experienced the same circumstances in South Africa. We experienced these circumstances when we too had a small share in the commerce and industry of this country, and we had to extricate ourselves from that situation. The Opposition’s recipe for the Coloureds to get out of this situation is that all separation measures should be abolished, that the Coloureds should be given the vote on an equal basis and that group areas should be abolished. Then they believe that the Coloureds will get to the top. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) associated herself with that opinion and stated that the Coloureds were in this critical position as a result of the group areas, job reservation and similar measures enacted by this Government. But let us see what the economic position of the Coloured population was and what progress they made before these measures were passed by this Government. We find that before the introduction of these measures the Coloureds were ousted by the Whites with their greater capital and were in many cases dispossessed of their land. With very few exceptions they could not stand up against the competition of the White industrialist and the White traders and could not acquire a share in commerce and industry. I want to say here to-day that because of the very fact that they have their own residential areas and their own rural areas, which came into being in terms of measures passed by this Government, that the Coloured were given new opportunities, that new employment opportunities were created for them. It is these very measures which created the desire on the part of the Coloureds to enter that sphere from which they had practically been excluded in the past, that is, the sphere of commerce and industry.

The Opposition base their objection to this measure on the fact that it will allegedly disrupt our economy. I want to come back to the point that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population also went through such a stage, and I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether the economic awakening of the Afrikaans-speaking section during the years 1938-9 and the efforts made by the Afrikaners towards capital formation, through the Reddingsdaad movement, etc., led to a separate economy, a disrupt economy in our country. On the contrary, the deliberate attempt on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking people to form capital, to invest, to become entrepreneurs, resulted in the Afrikaners’ obtaining a greater share in this country’s economy and it contributed to this country’s progress in the economic sphere and resulted in an enormous increase in our national income within the space of a few years.

Now I want to come to certain statements made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He made certain statements here which make it perfectly clear that the Opposition’s whole attitude here is designed to bring the Whites outside this House under the impression that this is a measure which discriminates against the Whites, because look what the Government does for the Coloureds! But at the same time, when one goes into this matter more deeply, one begins to wonder whether this opposition is not a clever attempt to prevent the Coloured who is the under-dog to-day from being given an opportunity to make headway also, and whether it is not an attempt to keep the trader and the industrialist who is already at the top in that position to the exclusion of others. I say that this argument about a disrupted economy is insincere. The participation of the Coloureds in the field of commerce and industry, which will be stimulated by an investment corporation of their own must be welcomed and not feared, because in the long run it will benefit our entire national economy. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about a “clumsy little corporation”. Naturally the beginning will be small. Other people outside who are hostile will possibly also condemn it because to begin with it will be small. But we know, in the light of other examples, that it is a beginning from which much that is good can be born. It stands to reason that this corporation will start on a small scale and to begin with it will not be able to assist all who wish to be assisted, but I am convinced that it will serve as a stimulant, through the example that it sets, through the establishment of other undertakings; that it will serve as an incentive to save, a quality which is lacking to such a great extent amongst our Coloured population, that it will serve as an incentive to form their own capital, through the example that it sets, because the Coloured will be able to see what he can achieve if he forms his own capital. The establishment of companies will also be an incentive towards encouraging the spirit of enterprise amongst our Coloured population in this sphere. In the earlier days when there was no opportunity for the Coloured in these fields which are now being opened for him, his position caused friction between Whites and non-Whites; it led to frustration amongst the Coloureds under the policy of integration that was followed in former days. But if an attempt is made in this way to give the Coloureds an opportunity to enter these new spheres in a modest but purposeful way, I believe that we as the House of Assembly, by passing this measure, will make our contribution towards helping the Coloured to help himself, so that he will be less dependent upon economic injections and that as a group, hand in hand with the Whites, he will be able to build up a higher standard of living.

I do not intend going into the argument advanced by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) when he said that there were probably political motives behind the Opposition’s opposition to this legislation. I personally am very sorry that there has been opposition to this legislation, and I fined myself in the position where, in order to state my attitude clearly, I must, in the first instance, consider what is in the interests of the people whom I represent here, in the light of the practical problems which I know exist in an area comprising 1,000 miles of the Cape Province. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the voters whom I represent here and the 250,000 odd Coloured people in the Outeniqua area when I say that the Coloured national group, politically and economically, forms part of the White group and that the members of that national group as such will have to assume their rightful place as full-fledged citizens of South Africa at some time or other in the near future. I want to put it this way that when the Prime Minister announced that the Transkei was to become independent and when he expressed the belief that the Bantu in that area should get sovereign citizenship, he said something which can also be said of the Coloureds, namely that they must be given sovereign citizenship in their own area, that is, in the rest of South Africa.

It is quite clear, however, that due to the circumstances which have not only prevailed over the past 14 years, but which have prevailed ever since the arrival of the White man in South Africa and ever since the birth of the Coloured nation, the Coloureds have been in a position which has not always applied to the White group or the other national groups. I shall come back to that at a later stage. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) once again hurled political recriminations across the floor of the House and accused the Opposition of wanting to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll, whereas the Coloureds did not wish for the return of the old order. I want to appeal to hon. members, however, not to try to justify the political mistakes of the past with this legislation or to quote political arguments used in the past to justify those mistakes. I want to confine myself to the practical circumstances in which my constituents find themselves. The hon. member also said that there were not enough Coloured people capable of rendering essential services. There I want to differ from him. Indeed, I regard this legislation as a measure by means of which capital will be made available to those people who do have the ability to render those services and to undertake those businesses in respect of which this legislation can be of assistance to them. I regard this measure as necessary particularly in view of two sets of circumstances. The first is the legislation which is already on the Statute Book, mainly the Group Areas Act, and the second set of circumstances to which I want to refer is the weak economic position in which the Coloured community finds itself. Nobody can tell me that the weak economic position of the Coloured community has been brought about by the happenings of the past decade. The weak economic position of the Coloured people has received the attention of one government after another over very many years, even during the time of the old Cape Parliament; it has been referred from one commission of inquiry to the other, which has done very little in the various respects. You have in them a national group which is closely linked with the White group, and we find that they have never gone so far as to offer real resistance or to resort to rebellion although they have always been left in the shade. The Coloureds find themselves in a very critical position and because of that I cannot help but support the legislation which is before us at the moment. In the past legislation has been placed on the Statute Book, which had it been called differently, would not have carried the stigma and would not have had the psychological effect which it has had. We find that lately the names of those Acts have been changed. “Group Areas” has been changed to “Community Development”. As a result of the names of those laws and their injudicious application people are hesitant to take to anything that becomes necessary as a result of that legislation. The argument is advanced that it is another aspect of apartheid. There are many reasons, however, why it is necessary in many cases to have special measures as far as the Coloured community is concerned, either to protect them or to provide in their needs and here I want to give you an actual example, Sir, of something which happened during the past 24 hours. I mention this because I feel it is necessary that special measures should be introduced to protect these people and I want to justify my position in this sense that this is not a question of more apartheid that I have to justify, but actual facts that I have to consider. Last night a resolution was adopted by the Municipality of Riversdale according to which a contractor who is doing some work in that town, is allowed to bring 150 Natives from Mossel Bay or elsewhere to Riversdale to work there seeing that there are no unemployed Natives in Riversdale.

You are wrong. That is not right.

The hon. member knows nothing about it. I am talking about the Coloureds at the moment.

Order! The hon. member should not wander so far away from the Bill.

With due respect, Mr. Speaker, the argument has been used here that this is another branch of the apartheid measures and I merely want to explain that such measures are sometimes necessary as a result of existing circumstances or existing legislation. It is not a question of my wandering away from the Bill but a question of my being interrupted fairly rudely.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “rude” (ongeskik).

I withdraw it, Sir, but I should be pleased if I could have some quiet from the other side of the House.

The hon. member may continue.

I alone, Mr. Speaker, or the other hon. members as well?

Yes, but that is a reflection on the Chair.

In the case to which I have just referred it may perhaps be necessary, in that specific town, to give protection to the people whom I represent because by bringing people of another racial group into that town, the position of the Coloureds is being prejudiced. The whole secret, of course, is that those people who are being imported are prepared to work for less and the person who benefits is the contractor who provides the work. Here you have a case where you could perhaps say there is discrimination, or where other groups are being excluded in the provision that has been made, but it is clear that in certain circumstances it is necessary to introduce measures to protect the Coloureds in South Africa.

Various speakers have advanced the argument that this Coloured corporation is another form of apartheid. I do not for one moment deny that to a great extent it is necessary to establish such a corporation in order to supply the needs of people who lack capital and who find it difficult economically, to start businesses in those areas in which they have to live mainly as a result of the Group Areas Act. That is really the case. But if I oppose this Bill on the ground that it is a form of apartheid, I should consistently oppose every amendment to the Group Areas Act that is introduced in this House—I do not want to call that Act by the name by which some people call it, because that will not be allowed—I should under present conditions oppose every amendment which I regard as an improvement, and I cannot do that. In the past I have supported amendments to the Group Areas Act on various occasions, not because I approved of the legislation in principle, but because they brought relief as far as the application of the Act was concerned.

That is why I support this Bill and I do so for the same reason as I supported the amendment to the Separate Amenities Act. for example, three years ago. The argument has been advanced that this legislation will lead to fragmentation, to the dismemberment of our country’s economy. I trust that the hon. the Minister will stick to his guns, because the hon. Minister has denied that is the case. The country’s economy cannot be sound if that happened. If that is what the Government has in mind, I cannot see how it can build up an economy for a national group which does not live in any specific area but which live throughout the whole country, a group whose members you find in every town or city in smaller or greater numbers, and in same cases in greater numbers than the Whites in that particular area. It is as impossible to create a separate economy for the Coloureds, as it is to have a state within a state.

Order! The hon. member is again wandering a little too far from the Bill.

We as the representatives of the Coloured people come up against many practical difficulties every day, and one of the greatest problems is that these people are not strong, economically, and do not have enough capital to start businesses. As a result of legislation which is on the Statute Book their position has become more critical, in that they are even hampered in acquiring property. I know of cases where people have approached private investors and where they have had to pay up to 12 per cent and 15 per cent interest in order to get money to buy a house or to start a business. I know of two such cases. In order to meet this need for capital, I think the assistance which is proposed is necessary. Every Coloured Representative can testify as to the number of occasions on which he has been called upon to give assistance or to give advice as to how they could obtain a few hundred pounds to start a business at a place where they could serve their own people, either in a Coloured town or in a Coloured area. I want to give one example. Yesterday morning I received a letter from somebody in East London. I mention this because this will illustrate to you, Sir, in what a critical position I would find myself if I adopted a different attitude. This person wants to start a business on a stand in a Coloured town and I personally have had dealings with municipalities to get them to make such business rights available. I wrote and told him that he should exercise a little patience in view of the fact that there was legislation before Parliament that would make that capital available. He is a person whom I do not hesitate to recommend but it will be ridiculous for him to receive my letter to-morrow morning and to read in to-morrow morning’s newspaper that I had opposed that legislation in the House of Assembly and that I had made an attempt to prevent him from obtaining that capital. As a result of the circumstances which I have mentioned I am obliged to give this legislation my support and to appeal to the Minister to stick to his guns and to ensure that it does not lead to the dismemberment of South Africa’s economy.

I was especially struck by one particular argument used by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and to which the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) did not react, to the effect that the attitude of those of us who are on this side of the House can be ascribed to the fact that we do not want the Coloureds in South Africa to develop economically. I should have thought that with this legislation to assist the Coloureds in South Africa and to expedite their economic progress, we would now have reached the stage where we are going to steer clear of that kind of politicking of which we had so much 10 or 12 years ago. Politically it was then almost dangerous for a man to plead for anything for the Coloureds. We regarded the Coloured as a sort of political leper.

The hon. member must now return to the terms of the Bill and not deviate so much.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to express the hope that hon. members opposite will not question our good motives in regard to the amendment which we have moved, so that we too shall not question their good motives towards this legislation.

It is important that the Coloured man in South Africa should no longer be regarded as the Cinderella of the community. I can understand that the Government must take steps to improve the social-economic position of the Coloureds. It is their declared policy; it seems to me that we no longer differ as to what must be done for the Coloureds. We are in agreement as to the fact that something must be done, but we merely differ as to how and when and where it must be done. The Government thought that with a Bantu Development Corporation as precedent (this legislation is practically identical to the Bantu legislation of 1959) they could simply do exactly the same thing for the Coloureds of South Africa. But have we not said, as hon. members opposite also did, that we adopt a policy of differentiation between the Coloureds and the Bantu in South Africa? Why must they be accorded the same treatment? Every day the Coloured is reminded of the fact that his position differs from that of the Bantu, and the Coloured will perhaps view this Development Corporation in the light that the Government is treating him in the same way as the Bantu.

I must ask the hon. member to return to the Bill.

It is a very difficult task, Mr. Speaker. So many arguments have been advanced that I must have a little time in which to build up my case, Sir. I cannot advance all my arguments at once. Hon. members opposite have alleged that the Coloured is the one who has had the least chance to develop, that he has a tremendous backlog to make up, and that this legislation is the means of making up the backlog. I disagree with them. In regard to business and certain undertakings the Coloureds have made much more progress than the Bantu in South Africa. Hon. members opposite all know about successful Coloured business men, building contractors, small but successful businesses started by Coloureds. Already they are entrepreneurs—people who had experience as workers and then started in business for themselves. I can see no reason why we must now push the Coloured away from the White man. In the sphere of economics the Coloured has taken his place alongside the White man, and this the hon. the Minister knows. In many places on the platteland we have Coloured shopkeepers, Coloured cafe owners, shoemakers and so forth. It is not necessary to separate the Coloured economically, because his comings and goings and his future and his weal and woe have always been next to the White man. He has occupied that position in the past. Why must we now remove him from our midst and force him by means of legislation to work only for his own people.

You have read the wrong Bill.

No, I know the circumstances in which the Coloureds and the Whites have lived together in South Africa. Economically the Coloureds have kept abreast with the White man. What do you want to do with this legislation now? Now the Coloured must be told: “Look, you can go and do something only for your own people.” In other words, we want to curtail his field of operation. But we on this side of the House say: “No, leave the Coloured’s field of operation as it is and let it grow. The Coloured industrialists must sell their products to 1,500,000 people, whereas if the Whites are included, only in the Cape Province, for example, it will mean that there will be 2,000,000 or 3,000,000.

Where in the Bill do you find that?

Clause 4 says: “To establish or assist in establishing Coloured companies for industrial, business or financial purposes.” That is, for Coloureds. [Laughter.] That is for the Coloureds and the hon. Minister also said so.

Where is it stipulated that they may sell to the Coloureds only?

What will be the practical effect of that? And, Mr. Speaker, if that is not the object, why not continue with the position as we have always known it? I maintain that there can never be any question of a division between White and Coloured. It is impossible. That is why we on this side of the House say that the financial institutions of this country, which provide the White man with credit, could just as well provide the Coloured with it. That which to the Bantu perhaps still seems possible is a mere daydream for the Coloured. He can never have his own territory. In his work “Die Eerste Steen”, a Coloured lecturer at the University College of the Cape, Adam Small, says exactly the same thing. It is impossible to provide separate areas for those people. Why cannot the ambitious Coloured be assisted through the same channels as the ambitious White man? I indeed believe that there are some financial institutions which always question the creditworthiness of the Coloured, but they must only be helped and be made to understand and encouraged not always to query the creditworthiness of the Coloured. They must not always question the Coloured’s chances of success.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Cape Province have a particular problem in regard to these people. Take for example the Coloured shopkeeper who is at present in a mixed or in a White area. If he goes to the hon. the Minister and asks for additional capital assistance, will he get it? Or will the hon. Minister say to him: “No, you can only get that assistance if you do something to further the interests of your own people.” And now the hon. the Minister says in his speech: “If the Coloureds cannot develop they become frustrated.” I agree with him. But if a ceiling is put over the Coloureds in this way, will they not become more frustrated? Why must we as White people, for the very reason that we have certain protective measures which already preserve our position, be afraid of competition from these people? Why must they only go and work and have industrial and business promotion only amongst their own people? For the good of our own leadership as White people it is a good thing that the Coloured will always be there as a healthy form of competition. But with this legislation we are ousting him.

That argument has already been used often. The hon. member himself has mentioned it probably ten times.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that you have pointed that out to me again and I just want to tell you again that I think it is dangerous for us if we carry on with the attitude that we can rest on our laurels. To us the Coloured is important. The purpose of this legislation is good, but in his over-anxiousness to do good to the Coloured, the hon. the Minister is grasping at measures which must make the Coloured realize more and more that his opportunities will sooner or later once again be limited. I think that this legislation of the hon. the Minister has not been carefully considered and therefore I want to conclude with a few lines of verse written by Adam Small in this book of verse of his “Kitaar, my Kruis”—

There is not much to reply to. Actually we have here an Opposition which had to decide for itself whether or not it was going to oppose this bill and all of us know how much trouble they had in their caucus meetings about the attitude they should adopt. The hon. member who has just spoken will probably know more about this matter then I and amongst other things what his own attitude is towards his party’s standpoint.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the United Party has more and more become the proverbial one unicellular animalcule of Lagenhoven’s which multiplies by dividing. Because every attitude which that party takes up causes further fragmentation. Last year the party still enjoyed the wholehearted support of the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland). He sat in their caucus. This year he is out of their caucus. This year, already, he is voting against their unwillingness to do for South Africa what should be done.

I wish to begin with the hon. member for Constantia who never deals with any matter in this House on its merits but who also always take up a certain attitude because he is embittered. I do not blame the hon. member, but he should disassociate himself from this bitterness when he talks about matters of this nature. The hon. members says “here is another apartheid measure”. But while he is saying this, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) seeks to help the hon. member for Constantia in the fight. Now the hon. member for Constantia says, “it is a fragmentation of our economy” as a result of this apartheid attitude. The hon. member for Durban (Point) says that this measure will only assist a few Government stooges. How can one divide the economy of South Africa into two with a few stooges. They decided to use a lot of arguments to put up a sham fight. Because they must prevent the Coloureds from accepting the positive advantages and realizing that the Government’s policy is providing him with more and more benefits. They must dam this stream of the ever-growing Coloured communities which come to the Department of Coloured Affairs and to the Government and say “we are prepared to work with you and to put out our hands to accept the positive fruits of your policy”. They must prevent this at all costs. They are where they are because they have already lost so much of their support among the Whites. Up to now they have been able to convince the Coloured that they were their friends. They are fast losing his confidence also. Hence the bitterness; hence the sort of nonsensical talk where we find two members of that party getting up. The one says “it will lead to the fragmentation of the economy” and the other says that it is intended for a few stooges. Must we really take notice of arguments like this?

Mr. Speaker, when the Afrikaner in this country awakened economically, and created organizations specifically for the purpose of assisting him in commerce and in other spheres of our economic life, did we not hear the same story? Did we not hear the story of two economies which would clash and which would divide the country into two? Of course we heard it. And did all this happen? On the contrary, to-day there is the heartiest cooperation between Afrikaner institutions and others of this kind which were established and became mature.

But did the Government help?

I do not talk about that hon. member. He is still living in the pre-Victorian era. The hon. member for Constantia said further that if the United Party comes to power, they will do away with the Ministry of Coloured Affairs. I assume that he also means by that they will do away with the Department of Coloured Affairs. I assume further, if the hon. member wants to be consistent and logical, that he takes up the attitude that the services which the Department of Coloured Affairs renders, specifically for those areas which had in the past been reserved for Coloureds, will be stopped.

That has often been said.

Yes, but one does not get it into your heads. We can say it a dozen times and the hon. member will still not understand it. Because, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in that one economy of the hon. member for Constantia, those areas which were reserved for the Coloured in the past, showed no signs of economic progress. That is a fact. No businesses were established; the Coloured’s thrift was not developed; his capital was not mobilized. Now we have to take measures to make this possible, and now we have to face certain facts, and that is that we are concerned with towns, in the first place in the rural areas of the Coloureds. All who live there, cannot make a living from farming. But it is also desirable that there should be viable towns in these areas and to do this one must have the means to enable the people to set up those things that belong to a town. Now, how can this be done by another means than taking special measures such as we are doing if it is not possible and did not happen under the system of the hon. member of Constantia? Secondly, Coloured towns are being established whether as a result of the Group Areas Legislation or not. They are being established, and now I wish to ask this question of the hon. member for Constantia. I hope that he will give a straight answer to this question. Is he in favour of the creation of those towns and cities or against it? Because his Leader says they are in favour of the principles of the Group Areas Act. In other words, the United Party is in favour of the creation of separate towns and cities for the Coloureds, and if you are in principle in favour of the creation of separate towns and cities, then you must provide the means for those towns and cities; to develop the characteristics of towns and cities. If you want to do this, vital activities must be made possible so that institutions can arise which will make life possible in these towns. If the hon. member wishes merely to create residential areas without vital economic activities for those people, he must say so. But then he must not come here and plead for the Coloureds because he is doing them an injustice. [Interjections.] But this is the purpose of the Bill. But the hon. member does not understand it, and won’t understand it even next year and will still not understand it when the Bill has already achieved its purpose. Mr. Speaker, it is important that the hon. member for Constantia should tell us in what other way he will make possible those characteristics in those towns. Because I accept that he is in favour of separate residential areas. I have never thought otherwise than that he is in favour of it. I accept that he is in favour of a Bellville South, and an Athlone and a Duinefontein and similar places arising. If they do arise in what other way does he wish to create vital economic activities by which these people can give character to those towns?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Constantia both asserted—and by so doing the hon. member again suddenly launched an attack in conjunction with the Progressive Party.

They are brothers in spirit.

They made the point that this corporation will be able to “by-pass the provisions of the Group Areas Act; the Coloureds will now be able to acquire properties where it is actually in conflict with the Group Areas Act. They allege that the Development Corporation will be able to do this. Where does the hon. member get that from? I tried to deny it immediately, but both hon. members did not listen to what I said. I shall read to them what I said—

This principle was introduced in last year’s legislation. Such declaration will exempt the Corporation, insofar as its own activities are concerned … as a statutory body—

This is in order that it may carry on with its activities. We made this provision especially so that statutory bodies can operate in group areas in order to do their work; not in respect of that population group. In other words it will be able to operate where it is necessary for it to do its work and that is why I mentioned this point. But the hon. member for Constantia fastens onto it and is eagerly followed by the hon. member for Houghton, who is, of course, always prepared to fasten onto anything. The two of them say that we are bypassing the principles of the Group Areas Act. What nonsense! One would not expect this from a man of the calibre of the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. member for Houghton then adopted a new approach. She said that this Bill was unnecessary because why have the Coloureds not progressed? She asked “Why are the Coloureds incapable of development?” and she answered, “because of the restrictive measures imposed by this Government.” But this Government has been in power for 13 years, why then, for more than 100 years, did they not develop? What are the reasons? She then proceeded to mention one, the Job Reservation Act. Let me ask her this: Mention one occupation in which job reservation has been applied and where Coloureds have lost their jobs as the result of it. On the contrary, I can tell her that in most occupations in which it has been applied, their members have increased by a considerable percentage.

But I thought the purpose was to safeguard White civilization.

That is the kind of nonsense that is being broadcast to the world. The hon. member then sat down and was followed by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). He said he was very disappointed in the kind of argument that was being used and he set out to infuse a little life into the proceedings. That was at a late hour yesterday afternoon when nobody wanted to listen to the Opposition any more. He then posed a number of questions. At first I kept count but later gave up counting because he had a whole series of questions to ask. There must have been 50 or 60 of them. One of his questions was: “Whose view will prevail, the view of Coloured Affairs or the view of the Minister of Economic Affairs?” But the hon. member should not ask such a nonsensical question. This sort of thing is not finally decided by the Minister on his own. There is a Government ruling in this country and there are Ministers who confer. If there is a difference of opinion or a difference in approach then the Government makes known its attitude which then becomes the policy which is to be carried out. Why does the hon. member ask such nonsensical questions? Then in the midst of all this he introduces the Fishing Corporation and asks how it is going to affect the position. The hon. member must listen now. We are helping Coloureds who deserve to be helped in Coloured areas, rural and urban, and in the field of industry. The Fishing Corporation has to do with fish. This Corporation will only come into the picture in that sphere, after negotiation, as a supplementary body. The Fishing Corporation deals with specified matters. I have here its Memorandum of Association from which I wish to cite certain clauses. In other words, the hon. member is visualizing imaginary difficulties. The Fishing Corporation was set up for a specific purpose …

A red herring.

It is possible that the hon. member had hold of a red herring, yes, but by the tail, not by the head.

It is not my intention to answer all the questions of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I can also stand here and ask a multitude of questions and then ask what the answers to them are. Many of these questions will have to be answered by the board of directors. I wish to give the hon. member the assurance that this board of directors will consist of experts of high standing in the business world; they will be men of integrity.

Will there be Coloureds?

I shall come to that question when dealing with another hon. member. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that there is another reason why I cannot answer all his questions. I want to ask him to read Proverbs 26, verse 4, to-night and then tomorrow we can discuss matters again.

Then I wish to express my appreciation to the Coloureds’ representatives. I think the Coloureds’ representatives are adopting this attitude not because they like the Government at all but I think they are adopting this attitude because they know what the feelings of the Coloureds are. If any proof is required that this measure is welcomed by the members of the Coloured population, it is the attitude of the Coloureds’ representatives. They would not have adopted that attitude out of love for the Government. They have adopted it because they are forced by the Coloureds to adopt it. I am very thankful for that; I welcome it. I want to express my appreciation to them for at least being in touch with the feeling among the Coloureds. I cannot say the same of the United Party. They are out of touch with the Whites; they are out of touch with the Bantu, they are out of touch with the Coloureds; they only keep in touch with each other so as to be able to hold together what they still have. In the second place I wish to say that the Coloureds’ representatives would do well to have less contact with the official Opposition. In that respect they would also be rendering the Coloureds a service.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and the hon. member for Boland (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) put certain questions to me and asked me to give the assurance that it was not the intention to create two economies. All that I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I have never thought of it in that way and that the Government does not think of it in that way. Strangely enough, the experts whom we consulted in connection with the drawing up of this Bill, people like Prof. Schumann and Dr. M. S. Louw, have never had any doubt that was not the intention. They have never seen any dangers such as those visualized by my hon. friends on the other side. Let me say this to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje): I would sooner be guided by Prof. Schumann and Dr. M. S. Louw than by him. I am prepared to allow those persons to tell me if there are any dangers on the road. I am not an economist. I only know that all the experts whom I mentioned here yesterday and who were consulted about the principles of this Bill, did not see those spooks. On the contrary, they enthusiastically co-operated to help to meet this need. That is my assurance to the hon. member for Peninsula. But he asked a second question and that was whether there would be Coloureds on this directorate. My answer is “No”, unambiguously “No”. To this directorate will be appointed Whites who have the necessary experience, the necessary business knowledge and the necessary acumen to bring this Corporation into being on a sound foundation and to guide it. If Coloureds are to go on to directorates then other institutions will have to be established under the guidance of this Corporation, financial institutions and other undertakings in which they will serve. But I am not going to allow pressure to be exerted upon me right from the beginning. If you put Coloureds on the directorate merely for the sake of giving representation to the Coloureds you will create a situation in which pressure can be exerted upon this directorate, something which would be absolutely unhealthy. All that is necessary is sound judgment, business acumen and men who can say “No” if any undertaking takes a wrong course. That is why my reply is an unambiguous “No”. If Coloureds are to be appointed to the directorate they will have to be appointed to bodies which will be established under the guidance of this Corporation. That is my answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with the most important objections raised here. I just want to ask the Opposition whether they do not think it is time they got away from this sort of petty politics in matters of this kind? They cannot gain a single Coloured vote with that attitude; they will not gain one White vote with it. They are only disturbing good relationships. They are sowing distrust, they are creating suspicion at a time when it should be swept aside so that we can have the necessary co-operation. I hope that in the future they will be guided by a greater sense of responsibility.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Barnett, C.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha. P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet. C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler. M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog. A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Holland. M. W.; Jonker. A. H.; Jurgens. J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J, F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

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

NOES—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.