I move as an amendment—

This amendment only relates to the portion which appears in brackets in the clause, as the Bill came from the Senate. This is the portion of the clause about which the Senate could not make any decision because of its financial implications.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In connection with this clause I put certain questions to the hon. the Minister during the second reading debate, to some of which he did not reply, and I shall be glad if he will reply to them now. He was good enough to give us the number and the names of the members of the Archives Commission. But I went on to ask why the clause refers to “at least seven members”. If there are 19 members on the Archives Commission at the moment, why does this clause provide for “at least seven” and not for eight, nine or ten?

That is the actual number. There cannot be fewer than seven. The hon. member will notice that in terms of Clause 4 (8) the persons who are members to-day are deemed to have been appointed in terms of this Bill. In other words, there will certainly be no departure from this and the idea is not to have a smaller commission, but, after all, provision must be made for a minimum number. No maximum is laid down. We can appoint as many as we need therefore. I do not think it matters much whether the number is seven or eight or nine, as long as the maximum number is not limited, because the membership of such a commission must depend upon our needs. At the moment there are 19 people who, it is felt, show very great interest in this matter. I do not think there is any difficulty in that regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister and all those responsible for the insertion of (d) in this clause. It provides for the establishment of depots other than those specified in this Bill. I should be pleased if the Minister would tell us what his policy is to be in regard to the establishment of additional depots. We all know how essential these are. We live in an atomic age and one bomb could destroy our Archives in Cape Town, and I understand that other countries do have intermediate depots which assure the preservation of historic material. I would be pleased if the Minister would give us some information in regard to his policy and the likelihood of his influencing the Minister of Finance in allowing the establishment of additional depots.

I should also like the Minister to tell us how he will operate intermediate depots which only seem to be storage places. Will there be caretakers in charge, or will it just be a building, and will the material in the intermediate depots be properly guarded and protected? Perhaps the Minister will tell us what his policy is in regard to operating these intermediate depots.

I am afraid that if we have to build bomb-proof buildings they will all be underground shelters and I don’t think that even that will withstand an atomic bomb. But our building standard is very high, as the hon. member knows. As regards the depots, I explained in my second reading speech that we do not intend altering any of the standards necessary for any archive building, and I can assure the hon. member that we will have attendants there, suitable people, and there is no possibility that these buildings will develop into shacks.

Yesterday in the second reading the Minister was at great pains to indicate that the control of the archives would be entirely under his Department, under one Minister, whereas before the authority was spread over several departments. I should like to ask the Minister now why it is included in this provision that any intermediate depots can only be established with the approval of the Minister of Finance. If the Minister accepts responsibility for the archives and the Director considers that it is essential that an intermediate depot be established, e.g. in Grahams-town, surely in the interests of the archives itself it is necessary, and why should the Minister of Finance have to decide whether or not it is necessary? Because the Minister, in terms of this clause, is completely powerless if the Minister of Finance says no. The wording of this clause makes it clear. It is important in this respect, because the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) knows that the Archives Commission wished to have an intermediate depot established in Grahamstown, but it was turned down, and now the archives coming from the Eastern Cape have all to be lodged in a building which is already jam-packed to the doors and the material will have to be stacked on the floors. I should like to know what is going to be the policy in respect of the establishment of these intermediate depots.

As I have already told the hon. member, it is a question of money. Where finance is involved, it is necessary to have the co-operation of the Minister of Finance and, as we have to do in all other cases, we have to assure him of the necessity for it, and I think that can be left to the Minister in charge of the archives. But they found it necessary to include this provision in the Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move as an amendment—

and to add the following sub-section at the end of the clause:

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

When the debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I do not propose to deal with the reminiscences of the hon. member for Vereeniging, interesting and apparently amusing though they were, but I do wish to join issue with the Minister in regard to some of the quotations he made from the leading constitutional authorities to attack the nature of the Executive Committees. He invoked the support of such eminent constitutional lawyers as Kennedy and Schlosberg, Verloren van Themaat, and Hahlo and Ellison Kahn. He used these authorities which used such expressions as that this was “a foreign innovation”, “a hybrid conglomeration”, “an unclassified monstrosity”, etc. to attack the Provincial Executives, but in all fairness those authorities were referring not to the Executive Committees but to the provincial system as a whole. Kennedy and Schlosberg talk about the “constitution” of the provinces, and Hahlo and Kahn speak of the provincial “structure”.

The hon. the Minister also referred rather sneeringly to the Executive Committees as being bodies which he likened unto boards of directors of companies. Indeed, this was the observation made by that great constitutional lawyer, Dicey, when he was referring to the Swiss federal executive system, but what the Minister did not do was to add what Dicey added, namely that there is no more reason for altering its composition if it is doing its work efficiently in the general interest than there is to alter the membership of such a board of directors under similar circumstances. Sir, these Executive Committees are, after all, performing an administrative function. What one must appreciate about the Executive Committees, a point not appreciated by the Minister, nor by the hon. member for Vereeniging, when they spoke about these bodies being responsible, is that these bodies are unique in the constitutions of the world, in as much as they are completely and absolutely independent of any authority whatever. The body which elects them cannot dismiss them. The Administrator cannot dismiss them, nor the Central Government. They are responsible to no one at all and can be removed only by an Act of Parliament. In that regard they are unique, and also in another respect, and that is that they have achieved something for 50 years, which is quite a remarkable achievement, the achievement of maintaining in an administrative body the rights of minorities to representation on such a body. We consider that this is a very laudable achievement. It is very laudable that this principle has been maintained for over 50 years and we think that this principle should remain, unless the Government proposes to change the very basis of our provincial system, but that it does not want to do.

The Minister, in referring to the article in the Pretoria News, spoke about these bodies now being responsible. If in fact these bodies were made responsible to the Provincial Council, then this Bill might make some sense, but that is not the proposal of the Minister, and unless the basis of provincial government is changed in this Bill, the principle is not what the Minister says it is, namely to make the Executive Committees look something like the Cabinet, or as the hon. member for Vereeniging stressed, to make them work more easily because there will be only one party involved, but the principle then becomes precisely the principle which was involved in the Senate Act of 1955, the principle of the winner taking all, a principle whereby the minority group is refused all representation of any kind whatever, the sort of situation which occurred in 1955 with the passing of the Senate Act, where half at least of the people of the Transvaal and the Cape were deprived of all representation in one of the Houses of Parliament. That is precisely what this Bill does. It removes from half the people in the Transvaal and the Cape the right to have representation on this particular body.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member has made his speech and I have no time to answer questions. The representation of the minorities is completely abolished. The Minister spoke about the “immorality” of the present system. Is there anything more immoral than this, to remove the representation of the minorities in such a body as this, which then becomes completely independent of anyone and any authority which exists in this country?

What about Natal?

I will deal with Natal in time.

Will you give them minority representation there?

What the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) does not appreciate is that there is a certain minimum one must have before one can give representation. [Interjections.] If these bodies in fact looked like ordinary executive bodies responsible to the Legislature, the Bill would have a completely different complex, but the only justification that there was in our constitution for the existence of such a body as this, completely independent of the Legislature and of the people who elected it, was that this body was representative of the people. What the Minister proposes to do now is to take that representation away, to take away the morality which there was in our provincial system, to take away the one thing which justified this body being as independent as it was. And what in the result he has done is to create a completely new body in our constitution, something unknown in our constitution and, indeed, unknown in any constitution in the Western world.

What about America?

One wonders exactly what it is that the Minister intends by introducing this Bill. It is something new and different. The body is now completely cut off from anyone at all, and completely cut off from the people. Does the Minister appreciate that these members of the Executive Committee need not be members of the Provincial Council? What he is proposing to do here is to allow the majority party in the Provincial Council to elect people, not even members of the Provincial Council and not responsible to the Provincial Council, and completely unrepresentative of the people in the province, to carry on the affairs of the province. [Interjections.] If that is not undemocratic and immoral, perhaps the Minister will explain what is.

They could even elect you to the Executive Committee.

It is quite obvious that immorality has already occurred in this regard. The principle of an Executive Committee which is representative is enshrined in this very chapter on Provincial Government, and the Minister proposes to alter just one part of it. I wonder whether the Minister has looked at Section 79 (1) of the Constitution Act? It says that the Executive Committee shall carry on the administration on behalf of the Provincial Council. It is very significant that those words have been put in. You do not find those words in the relative portion of the Constitution Act which deals with the Executive of which the Minister is a member, because they are carrying on the administration of the country—Period—not on behalf of anyone. But these words are specifically placed in it, and if the Minister is going to allow those words to remain, as he apparently is, in the Bill dealing with only one section, then the Bill does not reflect what the provincial set-up is. How on earth can a body which is elected by the majority, representative only of the majority in the Provincial Council, carry out something on behalf of the Provincial Council? The wording of the Act is not “on behalf of the majority party”, not “on behalf of the Government”, not “on behalf of South Africa”, and not “on behalf of the Province”, but “on behalf of the Provincial Council”. I want to say that those words are deliberately put there, and they are deliberately omitted in regard to another Executive such as the Cabinet, for the reason that it was intended to carry out the administration on behalf of the Government.

The half-baked measure before us to-day will become a mutilated document of half-digested constitutional nonsense. If the Minister is not prepared honestly and squarely to face up to provincial government and the effect this will have upon the whole structure of provincial government, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister, and the Minister owes this House an explanation, as to why this Bill has been brought before this House at this early stage of the Session. I am entitled to ask that question, because Clause 2 of the Bill provides that this Bill shall not come into operation until after the first general election of Provincial Councillors after the date of promulgation of this Act, and that date is 1964, and there is nothing and no one in this world to change that date except Parliament. I think we are entitled to know from the Minister whether, as the result of this, it is his intention to bring a Bill before this House later this Session calling for an early general election for Provincial Councils? Otherwise it seems remarkable that the Minister would come with a half-baked measure like this two years before it is due to come into effect, without proper consultation and without considering the effects it will have, and without considering whether it will be beneficial to South Africa as a whole or not. It is the existence of that clause and the undue haste of the Minister which prompts the thought that perhaps when the Prime Minister said he did not want a general election in 1963, for the same reasons he does not want a provincial election in 1964.

Mr. Speaker, the Administrator of the province has a very difficult job to perform in certain circumstances, but he was at least put in the picture. He was able to represent the province, which was one of his functions, apart from representing the Government, because he was in touch with the province through the Executive Committee, whose advice he was obliged to accept. This Bill removes the Administrator far from the people whom he is supposed to represent.

In what way?

Because the Administrator is obliged to act on the advice of his Executive, and if he does not have that advice and does not know what the views are of the other half of the population, he cannot properley represent the people of that province.

The other half? Are you talking about Natal now?

Talking of Administrators, look at the situation which has now developed in Natal. We do not want a Nationalist on the Executive Committee in Natal, but this Bill, if passed, could result in the situation that in our life-time you would never see a Nationalist on the Executive Committee of Natal, but that is no reason for us or anyone else to support this Bill.

What about the other half in Natal?

An extraordinary situation is being created here. In Natal we have a Nationalist Administrator.

We had one before, too.

Well, perhaps I should say that to-day we have a known Nationalist in Natal as Administrator. The situation which is postulated by this Bill, unless the Minister is going to make the responsibility of the Executive a feature of provincial government, is to make the position in Natal completely nonsensical.

I would like to end by asking the hon. the Minister exactly how genuine they are and what exactly he and his Government mean when they say that they want to have co-operation (“samewerking”) with the English-speaking people? Sir, of all the organs of Government that there are, here is the finest example of “samewerking” between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, between the White people of this country, working together in an organ like that, doing something together for the good of that province, and the hon. the Minister now proposes to change that as well. One wonders exactly how genuine these people are when they bring this Bill. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to answer the queries which have been raised, especially the query which the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) raised as to what his hurry is in bringing in this Bill. We believe that if there is going to be no premature provincial general election, then this Bill can stand over for 6 months, and we support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member.

We have this peculiar position in South Africa to-day where an Opposition party is frightened of an election. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) already sees in this Bill a possibility that the Provincial Council elections will be antedated and he asks us in Heaven’s name not to do so. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine to what extent a party must have deteriorated if it is as frightened as that of an election? They throw fits when they merely hear the word ‘election’, because they have lost contact with the people and with the electorate. Having come forward with this new policy of self-government for the Bantu areas you would have thought that those hon. members would have welcomed an election and would have said to the Minister: “We are pleased that you have introduced the Bill; please introduce another one soon so that we can have a Provincial Council election in order to test the feelings of the electorate”. But instead of that the hon. member is evincing a terrible fear.

They are afraid they will be exterminated.

Yes, they do not want to be exterminated. I do not think the hon. member expects me to react to all his arguments. He said, for example, that because of this Bill the Administrator will be further removed than he is to-day from the Provincial Council and from the representatives because at the moment the Administrator can deliberate with and consult the minority group in the Executive Committee. Which minority group does the Administrator of Natal consult? They did not even want to accept that Administrator; they did not even want him to represent the minority group there. Then the hon. member tried to compare the members of the Provincial Council Executive Committee with a Board of Directors, a Board of Directors whose members can be dismissed from year to year if they do not do their work properly. I admit that the members of the Executive Committee cannot be dismissed by the Administrator or by the Union Government or by the people who elected them. I am not going to reply any further to the hon. member’s argument. As far as I am concerned, the day when this Bill was introduced was a happy day. This is a happy day to me because I think of the days in 1950-1 when I asked a question in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. My question was: Who governs the Transvaal? That question was based on one thing and one thing only namely that they had an Executive Committee which was constituted on a pró rata basis and because it was constituted like that the members were not responsible to the Provincial Council. Because if an Executive Committee is constituted by the governing party alone, it is obvious that, as a result of your party machinery and your caucus, that Executive Committee together with the entire party can be held responsible for every ordinance and for the administration of every ordinance that is passed. Our experience in the Transvaal was that the Provincial Secretary and the senior officials acted in a bureaucratic fashion because the Executive Committee was constituted on this old basis and did not accept responsibility. Yes, those people even went so far as to make themselves guilty of the unforgivable and deliberate act of robbing and strangling a town like Wakkerstroom. I think of the days when the Administrator had to reply to a series of questions that were put in the Provincial Council. The Administrator of the day had a wonderful sense of humour and in replying to a series of questions that I had put to him he said in the Provincial Council: “Look here, I want you to understand this very clearly that these replies are the replies of the Provincial Secretary, they have merely been ‘nickel-plated.’ Because you had this divided control as a result of the way in which the Provincial Council was constituted, the only legislative authority, the only way in which you could act, was through the bottle-neck of a Provincial Secretary, because the Executive Committe had to act jointly and did act jointly and only accepted responsibility when they met in Executive Committee but the moment they entered the Provincial Council Chamber they no longer assumed that responsibility. I ask myself this question: Where does this idea of a Provincial Council and of this unrepresentative Executive Committee come from? I want to give some interesting data to the House to-day. I came across an Act which was drafted in Britain on South Africa “The South Africa Act 1877 At that time the British Government had already decided on Provincial Councils for the Union of South Africa. That was before the republics had been annexed. That Act which the British Government laid on the Table clearly defined Provincial Councils and laid down how the Executive Committees should be constituted. As the clauses are arranged they mention in the first instance—

Then they come to—

They prepared themselves in this Act for the annexation of the Transvaal. They prepared themselves in this Act to place South Africa under one flag with the British Government. I find it interesting to note that they did not talk about Administrators as being the heads of the provinces but about Presidents. That was probably a bulff to get those little republics under their control. That Act makes provision for the delegated powers of the proposed provincial legislative bodies. That Act mentioned 38 facets of domestic government which the provinces would control. I want to mention a few in this connection. They mention the following amongst these 38 facets in respect of which the Provincial Councils would have delegated power—

Provision was already made at that time for the entrenchment of the Native vote in the Provincial Council. Then it goes on—

So it goes on and it enumerates 38 facets of domestic government which would fall under the Provincial Council, and then it deals with the composition of the Executive Committee in the Provincial Council. It is interesting to note that this Act which was drafted for South Africa, for every province, was thrown into the waste-paper basket after the battle of Majuba in 1881. After that we never heard of this Act again. I discovered this copy by accident on a loft in Wakkerstroom where they had left it when they left the Transvaal.

What has that got to do with the matter?

I shall tell the hon. member what it has to do with it. When we analyse the present South Africa Act under which the Provincial Councils are constituted and under which the Executive Committees are constituted, we find that some portions coincide word for word with the Act which Britain drafted for this country, South Africa, at that time. That is what it has to do with the matter. We should analyse why our National Convention, and why those persons who drafted the provincial constitutions and delegated certain powers to the Provincial Councils and who constituted the Executive Committees, constituted them on this very basis and not on a basis that you would expect in any democratic country, namely that your Cabinet or your Executive Committee is appointed by the governing party. That is what it has to do with this matter. When you analyse the 1910 Act you find that many clauses are practically word for word the same as the Act that was drafted in 1877. Time does not permit me, and I think the Standing Rules will not permit me either, to analyse and to make a comparison of all the interesting facets of this interesting arrangement. Let me, for example, compare Section 85 (De machten van de Provinsiale Raad” (The powers of the Provincial Council) with the present Section 13. I want to ask this question: Is this Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced essential? Let me put it this way: When we compare the budget of the Union in 1910 with the budget of any of the provinces to-day, we find that the budgets of the provinces, even that of Natal, far exceed the budget of the Union in 1910. The framers of this country’s constitution considered it necessary in 1910 at the National Convention to draft a constitution for the Union in terms of which there would be 10 Cabinet members elected by the governing party or parties; in other words, members who would be responsible to the governing party, who could be called to account by the governing party, on a budget which was smaller than any of the provincial budgets to-day. They considered it necessary at that time for the Union Government to have a full-time Cabinet, a Cabinet with responsibility. If they considered it necessary, is it not also necessary to-day to give the necessary protection to the provinces? They should be called to account by the Council, the people, the electorate; that is the only form of democracy. How do hon. members who pose as the champions of democracy, who always tell us that democracy should not be touched, reconcile their consciences with the Executive Committee that they advocate, an Executive Committee constituted on a pro rata basis, an Executive Committee that meets, prepares a budget and accepts responsibility for that budget but the moment that budget is introduced in the Provincial Council, members of that same Executive Committee get up and move that the Budget should not be accepted unless this or that ordinance is repealed or unless the mother tongue education Act is repealed. At that stage they are no longer responsible for the Budget which they themselves had helped to draft; then they wash their hands of all responsibility and they seek their excuse in the fact that they are part of an Opposition party and because a Provincial Council passes its Ordinances on a party political basis. I want to know from hon. members opposite how they reconcile it with their democratic consciences, that the members of that Executive Committee gather with the Administrator one minute, assume full responsibility, and the next minute when they are in the Provincial Council Chamber, they not only shed that responsibility, but they even sabotage that Budget and oppose it in every possible way. No, the time is long overdue that we effect the necessary adaptations and amendments. I repeat that when this constitution was drafted the Budgets of the Provincial Administrations were minimal and the legislation was minimal. As far back as 1951 I myself pointed that out in the Provincial Council. In 1950 the Admiinstrator of the Transvaal made a speech in connection with certain adjustments in the system of government and he said this—

He went on to say—

I repeat “in respect of Union State Departments”. In other words the Administrator of the Transvaal found it necessary in 1950 to say to the Provincial Council: “We must amend the out-moded system and we should adapt it in such a way that it is the same as the system followed by the Departments of the Union Government.” But you have a Minister for every Department in the Union Government who can be called to account, a Minister who is vested with supreme executive power and legislative power as far as that Department is concerned, a Minister who can also be called to account in the House if the Auditor-General reports that funds have been illegally or wrongly appropriated. That is not the position in the Provincial Administrations. The suggestion was made that the accounting system in the Provincial Administration should be modernized, that a Department of Finance should be established, but not one of those Executive Council members can individually be called to account, because according to its constitution the Committee is composed of members from all parties on a pro rata basis, except, of course, in Natal where they do not give any representation to the other party.

What about the Free State?

There is no longer one United Party supporter in the Free State. That is why they no longer require representation. The position in Natal is totally different. The Executive Committee cannot be called to account as in the case of members of the Cabinet. That gives rise to bureaucracy which is wrong and it should be put right. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what the position would have been had the Union Government been constituted in 1910 as the Executive Committee of any of the provinces is constituted? What would the position have been had we constituted it in such a way that members of the Cabinet only met from time to time to attend to the affairs of State? What would have happened had the Cabinet been constituted like the Executive Committees without responsibility to the House? It would have given rise to the most chaotic situation imaginable.

More so than now.

I want to cite as an example the experience we have in the Transvaal where a Budget is drafted but the members of the Executive Committee do not assume responsibility for it. Surely that is wrong. Within a few years the Union will be governed by officials, and next to a dictatorship, bureaucracy is the worse form of government imaginable. Government by officials who are not responsible to the electorate, clashes with all principles of democracy and where you have a system of Executive Committees which are constituted on that irresponsible pro rata basis, that will be the logical consequence and that is already happening. As I have already said, when I was in the Provincial Council I asked a series of questions. I wanted to know what powers were being delegated to officials. Here I have a list of the powers which the Executive Committee have delegated to various officials. The Executive Committee delegate those powers jointly; the members of the Executive Committee are only jointly responsible when they do that, but they are not responsible to the Provincial Council; and the officials to whom these powers are delegated are even less responsible to the Provincial Council. Let us see which powers are delegated. Nineteen powers were delegated to the Administrator. The Provincial Council cannot call him to account, only the Union Government. Thirty-two powers were delegated to the Provincial Secretary, 22 to the two Assistant Provincial Secretaries—that was the position in the Transvaal in 1950—17 powers to the Chief Clerk (Administration), four to the Curator of Fauna and Flora; five to the Chief Clerk (Buildings and Property); four to the First Clerk (Buildings and Property). So I can go on to show how these powers have been delegated to officials. Some of these delegated powers are very important. I want to mention two only. You find that the following powers have been delegated under the Entertainment Tax Ordinance: exemption from taxation; refund of taxation; all functions except those relating to policy. Those are the powers which vest in the Provincial Secretary and he cannot be called to account because the Executive Committee is irresponsible under this system. I want to give another example under the Flora, Game and Fish Protection Ordinance: permits to holders of hunting rights. That power has been delegated to the Provincial Secretary and he cannot be called to account. Then you have the Horse Racing and Betting Ordinance in respect of which the following powers have been delegated: Approval of Tattersall’s; Tattersall’s budgets; Donations by Tattersall Clubs. These powers are in the hands of the Provincial Secretary only and he cannot be called to account because the Executive Committee, composed as it is. cannot be called to account. I want to mention another Act. the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act. The Minister of Transport is not in the House at the moment. but we shall shortly be faced with a Bill which will illustrate how important this question of advertising on roads is, so important that the Union Government eventually has to intervene, but in the case of the provinces this power is delegated to the Provincial Secretary. The functions that have to be performed under subsection so and so are delegated to him; contraventions of the provisions of section so and so; repeals or amendments; permission to build nearer than 150 Cape feet from the centre line. These powers are delegated to the road engineer. He is the only person who gives approval. The Executive Committee cannot be called to account in this respect because of its composition, simply as a result of this constitutional position. That being so, I maintain that the time is long overdue that we end a situation where, with the stroke of a pen, the main artery of any place can be severed. This can be done under the bureaucratic system to which this system of Executive Committees lends itself.

Let us look how a Provincial Council governs in practice. Because neither the Administrator nor the Executive Committee is responsible to the Provincial Council, the powers of the Provincial Council are negative only. In the first place they can reject legislation introduced by this body. Secondly, as a result of its composition the Provincial Council is purely a rubber stamp to approve any action. Thirdly the Council can initiate legislation that has no financial implications and amend ordinances prepared by the Executive Committee, but that is the only function which the Provincial Council performs. That is the position in spite of the fact that the activities of the provinces have become so much more. Do you want to paralyse your Provincial Councils, because of the present composition of their Executive Committees? The Provincial Constitution can only partly be compared with the Constitution of the United States of America or of Switzerland in that there is total separation between the authority of the Executive Committee and the legislative authority; the two are completely separate. But it differs completely from the constitutions of the Australian States and the Canadian provinces. Here the Executive Committee is responsible to the legislative authority. You sometimes wonder, Sir, why the Executive Committees of Canada and Australia are responsible to the legislative authorities. Is it because they are republics that do not have to be conquered; is it because they have homogeneous populations; is it because the people who have settled there are British settlers? Are those perhaps the reasons? Why should Britain have drafted legislation for the Union of South Africa which differed from that of Canada and that of Australia? It is interesting to note that when Mr. Bailey Bekker was Chairman of the United Party in the Transvaal, he, as a frustrated and discontented member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal, drew attention to this danger. What did he say? He said this, and he said it as a United Party supporter, with the blessing of the entire United Party—

Then he goes on to say—

Then he has this to say about the composition of the Executive Committee—

Have we not had a “mixture” of everything long enough? Have we not been mixing things long enough? The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said that the hon. the Minister had quoted Kennedy and Schlosberg and I make no apology for quoting them myself. What do they say? In “Law and Custom of the South African Constitution” they say this—

That is true. Because they are not composed by the governing party and cannot be called to account by the party caucus of the governing party, this finding of Kennedy and Schlosberg is quite true. What do they say further? Having analysed the position they say this—

That is an actual fact. The Executive Committee cannot exercise that control. They go on to say this—

That is a defect in the Constitution that we cannot allow to remain. They say this—

Was it not our experience in more than one Provincial Council that the Executive Committee says: “Here is our Budget” and then a member of the Executive Committee gets up and says: “We refuse to accept this Budget.” That is ridiculous! What did Dr. Manfred Nathan says as far back as 1919?—

Why does he say that? He says—

Then he goes on to say that in all their ordinances the Executive Committee has to deal with the political factor and because that is the position you cannot have a member on the Executive Committee who has divided loyalty. Where does that take you? That is not democracy. That is ridiculous. Having drawn attention to the incongruity of the position where all responsibility is lacking, he goes on and says this—

Can anything be clearer and more significant? It shows very clearly how impossible the position is. However. I return to Kennedy and Schlosberg who say the following—

Is that the position with the present Executive Committees composed as they are? No, because they are composed on a pro rata basis, because they are composed in such a way that the other party must always be given representation, although no responsibility can be forced on to them. He goes on to say this—

I have never heard more condemnatory evidence and we get that from people who have made a study of constitutions. And if that is the case, it is because our Executive Committees of to-day are incorrectly constituted. The same writers look for reasons for these defects and what reasons do they find—

After the writer had considered in what way the Constitution could be amended they came to the following conclusion, and that is the conclusion to which we come to-day—

I have already told you, Sir, what the member of the Executive Committee, Mr. Bailey Bekker, said as Chairman of the United Party in the Transvaal about this matter. I wonder whether the United Party is running away from the decision that they took at that time in the Transvaal when Mr. Bailey Bekker pleaded for it in 1944 and also subsequently. Mr. Bailey Bekker said this—

The United Party is to-day opposing this legislation. Is the United Party going back on the pleas that they made at that time?

When did Mr. Bailey Bekker say that?

When he was leader of the United Party in the Transvaal and a member of the Executive Committee.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very grateful that this legislation has been introduced because ever since 1950 I have been asking for it on every possible occasion, and I want to congratulate the Minister on having introduced it.

I must say at once that this Bill saddens me extremely much. And I believe that the attitude of this side of the House is, though in anger, more in sadness that we see it here before us. I would say further that we hope that it may yet be withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, in addition it saddens me to hear the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) saying what a happy day this is for him and it saddens me to hear the hon. the Minister saying that it was a great pleasure to introduce this Bill. I shall attempt to justify the approach that I make to it. But, before I do so, I should like to deal with certain of the points that have been advanced in support of this Bill. I think I can do no better than to start with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom who complained that the minority of the people of Natal had no representation in the Provincial Council Executive of Natal. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution provides that if the Nationalist Party in Natal gets a certain representation in the Provincial Council, they will have a representative on the Executive. They have not attained that, and I hope they never will, and consequently they very properly have no such right there. But, Sir, this is the whole point: This side of the House has representation in two provinces of such a nature that it entitles them under the existing legislation, indeed under the Act of Union, to have representatives upon the Executives of both those provinces. Now it is the intention of the other side to do away with this, and I say that this is a serious deprivation of rights, and one that greatly saddens me.

In support of this Bill, the various speakers on the Government side have made certain points. They say it is unclassifiable constitutionally. Admittedly this was an attempt to meet a particular situation here in South Africa. It was hoped that as far as possible party politics would be kept out of the provincial councils; and as a result it was to Switzerland that the Constitution-makers particularly looked for an appropriate model for an executive. I suggest that the complete answer to all hard criticism of the present executive which we have had from the hon. member for Wakkerstroom and other members on the other side of the House, is that this system has worked for 50 years and more. We have not had pointed out to us any single serious, unsurmountable difficulty which has arisen, any difficulty which has not been overcome in the past, either long ago or more recently. Indeed, we had it from the hon. the Minister that the people on the Executive Committee have throughout worked in active support of the Committees as a whole and that they have not sabotaged the work. I was therefore particularly sorry to hear after that remark that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom was able to say that there had been sabotage. I wish he had referred to the incident, so we then could have had it investigated.

Do you know what happened last year in the Cape Provincial Executive?

The second argument advanced was that there was this dual loyalty and that was quite intolerable. Well, for 50 years good men, and perhaps women, have been serving on executive committees—as good men and women as the parties in this country could find and put into those positions. They have not found it irreconciliable with their consciences to serve on executive committees in this way. Moreover I suggest that there are many people in this country who are put in a similar position. You have civil servants who may be carrying out a policy with which they entirely disagree. You have soldiers who may be carrying out a line with which perhaps they entirely disagree.

But the members of the Executive Committee are all politicians.

You have many town councils which are compelled to carry out policies with which they completely disagree, and nobody finds this an intolerable position. Their position is well known and understood, and nobody is thought to be any less honourable because he attempts to make such a body work. So I say that this point that this is such an intolerable position really does not cut any ice.

We have further the argument from the hon. the Minister that he pitied the position of the Opposition members of an executive, how they were apt to have minor jobs. Well, that certainly is not the case in this province.

That was not the reason that I gave.

I think it was a reason the Minister gave; “minderwaardige werkies” I think that is what he actually said. I don’t see any need for that. There are members of the Executive in this province who are performing tasks which are being performed perhaps in other provinces by other parties and they are doing it, as far as I know, with great distinction.

What happened last year in the Cape Executive Committee?

I was there and I will tell the hon. member what happened. Of course the hon. member says that the system should be changed, but so has the congress of the National Party said it for years.

Tell us what happened.

The hon. Minister asked that we should not bring in party politics, but it cannot be denied that we are aware that for many years this change has been pleaded at congresses of the party opposite.

Tell us what happened last year.

All that happened there was that the member for Pinelands in the Provincial Council moved an amendment or a motion in opposition to the policy of the Administration, and no harm was done at all. Sir, these motions have been moved time and again. I remember the member for Stellenbosch of the party opposite, in the Provincial Council doing exactly the same. This has been done all down the years, and it has created no difficulty.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not so that the member of the Cape Executive Committee, I think Mr. Murray, moved an amendment to an ordinance to which he had agreed in the Executive Committee?

He may have, and he might conceivably also move an amendment to a Budget. But what of it? That is a position that is well understood. It never caused any difficulty. Mr. Murray said that he was moving this particularly in the interest of his own municipality of Pinelands, which is a separate municipality and which was particularly hit by the ordinance. A great hurroosh was made about it, but I suggest quite unjustifiably.

Is this the revenge for that?

So, Mr. Speaker, we come on to this question of party politics and the assertion that because provincial councils are no longer free of politics, this right that the minority parties have had for all these years, should be done away with. Admittedly, at the time of Union, it was hoped that the provincial councils would be reasonably free of party politics; but I do not believe that people who were themselves politicians believed that they would be entirely free of party politics. Indeed we know that before Union the responsible governments of that time were divided on party lines, and there was every prospect that they would continue to be divided on party lines. So I suggest that it is quite inaccurate to say that this is a sufficient reason for doing away with it. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, nobody I believe on the other side of the House doubts that it is a most laudable aim that there should not be party politics in the provincial councils or as little as possible, and I suggest that it cannot be denied that the presence of representatives of both parties on those executive committees advances that aim and reduces the amount of party politics which is present there.

I suggest, Sir, that to a large extent the support that has been forthcoming from speakers on the other side may possibly in certain cases be due to a temporary overlooking of the fact that so many of the functions of a provincial executive are of an administrative character. It may perhaps in view of the experience of the hon. member for Vereeniging on an executive committee and in view of the hon. Minister’s own statement—startling to say this—but the fact remains that I believe that they will bear me out that the executive committees are there to carry out the principles of the Government and the principles laid down by the provincial councils. They are an executive to do those things and no more. Therefore, I suggest once you make the approach that it is an administrative matter, there is much less validity in the suggestion that the whole thing is so hopeless. And, as I have said, the fact is that it has worked; you have had fine men in those positions for years, and it has worked.

I am now dealing with the point that there has crept into the provincial councils more politics than was expected, but I say that is no reason for taking this step. Because I suggest that this step will increase very greatly not only the party politics involved, but it will widen very much the gulf which does exist between the peoples in this country. Because, rightly or wrongly, people who are in Opposition to-day, believe that time and again they do not get a square deal. But to-day in regard to matters covered by provincial councils they feel much less that is so, because they have their people there, and those people watch their interests. Indeed the hon. member for Vereeniging made a point in that regard. He said that when he sat on the Executive Committee, he used to pity the Administrator because the two sides were fighting over certain appointments—I think he referred to hospitals or hospital boards. That is just the whole point. I do not doubt that the Administrator of that time, sitting wisely like Solomon, made fair decisions and sometimes the appointments went to the one side and sometimes to the other side. But what are we going to have now? There will be no fighting. It will be all over bar the shouting. And they will all go to one side and you will get dissatisfaction and frustration and unhappiness creeping in. And there are so many matters where you get bitterness and frustration of this kind. It must be remembered that the Executive administer in regard to hospital matters, in regard to educational matters, in regard to roads, and in regard to local government. They appoint people to these services. They hear appeals from local authorities in regard to rezoning, compensation, expropriations, the siting of roads, schools, hospitals, etc., and they deal with matters of tenders. All these are cases where somebody is going to get a benefit, somebody is going to come out best and somebody worse, and I do not doubt that it will be believed by people who are unsuccessful that party politics have crept into those appointments, and in connection with tenders, and that this will bedevil further the situation.

I touched upon the fact that if this measure goes through, people of the Opposition will feel left out in the cold in a greater degree. And I am sorry that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is not here now, because he was telling us so much about what a United Party member of the Executive Committee in the Transvaal said many years ago. But I would like to remind hon. members opposite of the attitude that they took up in this House when they were in Opposition. A motion was moved by an hon. predecessor of mine, Capt. du Toit. in 1946 that something along these lines should be done, and the attitude then of hon. members opposite was stated by Mr. J. N. le Roux, the member for Ladybrand at that time, and this is what he said—

Lower down he goes on—

Tell us what Capt. du Toit said?

Capt. du Toit moved a motion which would have an effect, similar to the present Bill but the Government of the day, our party, rejected it and upheld the right of minorities. Mr. Speaker, not only will this remove a further safeguard and a further soothing effect in the country outside, but in the provincial councils themselves there will be a change. Although my experience there was extremely limited, I was able to see what a beneficial effect the presence of a member of the Executive can have in a party caucus. Very often when there were suspicions or doubts about a Government measure, and when very possibly there would have been opposition to some measure, one of our members of the Executive would explain the position and tell us what the intention was behind the measure and this would have an immediate calming effect. That will be removed, and so I feel, Mr. Speaker, that when you balance the advantages and disadvantages of this measure, one can see that there is definitely less to be said in favour of this Bill than against it.

I think there is one further aspect which, to my mind, tips the scale completely against this measure and which leads me to a position of sadness in this matter. It is this—that I think it makes an absolute mockery of appeals from the Government side for co-operation from this side. What is the affect of this measure? It is going to deprive the people of the Opposition of this right that they have had for 50 years and more. It is going to take 50 per cent of the say that this party has had on the Executive Committee of the Cape away and place it in the hands of that party. That will mean that people who were previously represented as to 50 per cent in the Cape Provincial Council Executive will no longer have that say. And as far as the Transvaal is concerned, it is 25 per cent.

It all depends on what happens at the next election.

Yes, but the probability is that more people will be deprived of that say.

We want you to have some representation on the Provincial Council after the next election.

I have seen it stated in Government newspapers very closely associated with the Government side, that we should talk less about unity and do things together. This is something that we have been doing together for over 50 years and now we are suddenly to have it undone. I suggest that this is very much the wrong time to do anything of that kind. I think in assessing the Government’s whole approach to this measure, one must consider the situation in which they have decided to do this. I have said that there is a widespread belief amongst people of the Opposition—I will not go into the rights and wrongs of that belief now—that they do not get a square deal in this country. If the Government want to know how the people of the Opposition feel, they should cast their minds back to before May 1948 when they came into power, when they had a certain belief as to how they felt in this country. I seem to remember that Dr. Malan said that they felt as strangers in this country. I want to tell hon. members that people on this side, largely by the actions of this Government, are made to feel that they are in a similar position.

You also have the situation that the hon. member for Springs mentioned that the ink is hardly dry on this Constitution when it is being changed. Then hon. member for Wakkerstroom told us how since 1950 he had held these violent views which he expounded here to-day. I only wish he had expounded them as violently and as eloquently in his caucus when the whole question of the Constitution was being debated. If there are other members on that side of the House who have held these views for a long time I should be glad if they would tell me why they did not expound them before their caucus or, if they did, I should be glad if they would tell me something about the response to those views. This is also being done at a time when almost daily we get appeals from the Government and from the Ministers opposite for co-operation. The Minister of the Interior has appealed for cooperation; earlier on the Minister of Finance has appealed for co-operation and all we get are daily appeals for co-operation. Indeed in this morning’s Burger we have a very interesting appeal for co-operation which I would like to read. It appears in the leading article and it says this—

I want to know how the words and the spirit of this article can at all be reconciled with the attitude of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. It makes one wonder very much, Mr. Speaker, whether there are two standards in this whole question of co-operation; one standard that we must comply with and another standard that the other side must comply with. I suggest that co-operation is a matter of give and take. I want to say that it seems to me—it is a bit early to be definite about this—that the Government is all for taking and giving very little.

This measure grabs an important right, a right that has been guarded jealously and nurtered and wanted by this side, without any more ado. And we actually find that it gives the hon. the Minister pleasure to do so. That is what saddens me very much. I am not prepared yet to believe that this Government is taking this step as an affront to the people of the Opposition. All I can say is that if I am correct in this, they are blind to the effect that it will have upon there people. It saddens one all the more when they keep telling us in what impregnable position they are, and when they ask us for co-operation in matters such as these. We have had many words but we want to see some deeds.

I very much hope that while the hon. the Minister was able to make something of a case upon legal grounds, he will consider and realize that this has an aspect far wider than the legal aspect. I hope he will see, and that hon. members opposite will see, that the path of statesmanship definitely requires the withdrawal of this Bill at this stage. I think that it can be said that there is one commodity in South Africa which is in particular short supply and that is confidence. I remember in the Provincial Council how they used to say that we on this side had no confidence in their actions and in their motives. It is measures of this type that shatter such confidence as we have.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) engendered quite a lot of political heat, but political heat has one disadvantage—it does not shed much light. I shall try to come back to the problem before us, but before doing so I should like to reply to a few of the things said by the hon. member for Pinelands. He stated that the system we have to-day is one with which one can reconcile one’s conscience, and in saying that he associates himself with the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). Now I just want to put the matter to him in this way, that when a member of the Executive Committee who belongs to Party A has agreed to a certain measure—as was put to him by way of a question by the hon member for Vereenging (Mr. B. Coetzee) —and he later says, “No, I can now no longer support it ”, whilst he has helped to evolve the matter, then such a person reminds me of the candidate who said: “Sir, those are my principles, but if that does not suit you I still have others.” If he thinks that is on the highest moral level, then I leave that thought with him. But we on this side believe that the highest morality is to keep one’s given word. I can give him the assurance that if his idea is that a promise need not be kept, then that is a completely new idea, at least to this House and to this side of it. It is something as old as the hills that if one has given one’s word one keeps it. The analogy he seeks between officials who have to perform their duty and often have to do things with which they themselves do not agree, exists. An official joins the Public Service and it is his duty to do the work of the State on the instructions of persons who have the privilege or the duty of handling the authority of the State and ensuring that the work gets done.

And then, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this allegation to pass that the English-speaking people or the Opposition do not, as he says, receive a square deal.

I said that is what they felt.

It may be that is what they feel; they may even be entitled to feel that way, but I believe that they have no grounds for feeling that way. I just want to ask the hon. member this: Show me the Lords Charles Somerset in our ranks; show me the Lords Milner in our ranks; show me a single person on our side who has ever tried to suppress the Opposition, or did not grant it its views or its existence. There is not a single one. What is more, I can show him a hundred respects in which we went out of our way to meet those who thought differently from us and to grant them the right to think differently. That is the position. The hon. member does not know his own political history.

Finally, I must come to this allegation, that the minority opinion is not entitled to find expression in the Executive Committee. I agree with him: it is not entitled to express itself there. The place where it should be expressed is in the Council Chamber in a debate. The hon. member does not yet realize what the role of the Opposition is. But I do not blame him for it, because I think there are few people opposite who really understand the role of an opposition. One English-speaking joker once referred to the opposition and said: “It is His Majesty’s Opposition”. They have a duty, just as the Government has, to help to rule the country, and they must do so by means of constructive criticism. The hon. member has been here only a few days and the schooling he has received was not really in constructive criticism. He is already making the same mistakes which that party makes. But I foresee the possibility that we will have a situation where in the Council chambers of the country the political parties will agree in regard to the cardinal problem of colour, and that the Opposition will fulfil its function in the way it should, namely by throwing the searchlight of criticism on the actions of the Government and not talking about ideological matters. This searchlight can be thrown on maize prices, or milk prices, or roads, or education, and such things. Then the Opposition will fulfil its function. But the Opposition, Sir, goes around with a grievance because they are not ruling the country. That is a misplaced grievance. It is destined by fate that they are entitled to go to the country to try to gain disciples or followers in order to reduce the numbers of the majority group and to change their minority group into a majority. If they think they cannot do so at all I can understand the Opposition to this measure. But why should they not be able to do so? If they analyse their facts and get clarity as to what they should really do, they will come to the conclusion that the success of the National Party in this country is due to the fact that on the cardinal question of our continued existence it can find greater support for its policy than the United Party can get with their appeals. And as soon as they discover that truth, we will have an Opposition which is worth while, and then the so-called minority opinion will find expression, and very effectively also.

The hon. member for Pinelands says he feels very sad about this position. I am not concerned because he feels sad, because I think the reason for his sadness is unfounded.

The hon. member for Durban (North) says that we will now get something completely new here. I would like to join issue on that point. In the final result the Executive Committee is elected by the Provincial Council. It is still elected by the Provincial Council. Therefore it derives its authority from the Constitution and from the Provincial Council, and that remains the same and it is nothing new. It is not even new that they should belong to the same party. I am sorry the hon. member is not here, but I want to say this, and I shall come back to it later, that the founders of our Constitution in 1910 put the Administrator and the Provincial Council in precisely the same position as the Governor-General and Parliament vis-à-vis their respective powers. Furthermore, they place the Administrator vis-à-vis the Governor-General in the same position as the Governor-General vis-à-vis the King. But they did not follow it to its logical conclusion. The King appointed the Governor-General. The instruction to the Governor-General was to choose the Ministers from the strongest party, and he did so in a certain way. That constitutional convention is as old as the hills. It dates from 1820 when Lord Elgin praised it as being the solution for the furore there was in Canada between the French and the English. That plan worked well. Therefore it was also the pattern that was followed in all the other British colonies. But when the Constitution for Union was framed there were those who did not want a Union. My own province, Transvaal, did not want to accept Union because the attitude was that the Transvaal would have to pay the accounts of the other three. Natal did not want it either, because we know that Natal is always different from other people. They held a referendum. They were the first people in South African history to do so. And in order to satisfy them certain federal elements slipped into our Constitution, one of them being that the Executive Committees would be appointed from both parties. But for the rest, the pattern was that of the constitutional law of the Union. And therefore— the hon. member for Vereeniging said so yesterday—it became inevitable that the federal element could not rightly come into its own because the unitary idea continually conflicted with it, and there was conflict right from the beginning because the Senate was elected by members of Parliament and Provincial Councillors, which in itself brought in politics.

Therefore, if we now analyse the matter, we come to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said, the constitution as it is to-day, and then we are faced with the situation—and I shall say so without any heat, Mr. Speaker, nor will I quote from books because this is a simple constitutional matter we are dealing with here—I say we are faced with a situation where we have come to the conclusion that the idea which the founders of our constitution has not worked properly, partly because it subjects to immorality members of the Opposition who happen to sit in the Executive Committee, and partly because it undermines their responsibility.

It undermines the responsibility of the members of the Executive Committee, because the members belonging to the Opposition always have this mental reservation that they are not responsible for the measures proposed by the Executive Committee. They did not agree with it, or it did not suit their party. Because they have this mental reservation, that refusal to accept the possibility, it introduces a weakness in the administration. I quite agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) that when we discuss constitutional matters we should try to have a greater measure of agreement. Unfortunately he is not here now, but he will be surprised to see how much agreement there is in regard to this matter. The first matter on which we can agree is that it was the stated aim of the founders of our Constitution in 1910 to keep politics out of the Provincial Council. We can agree that they were wise men and that they acted according to their true convictions when they adopted this particular measure. We can agree on that also. We can also agree that although they were wise they could make mistakes. They defeated their own object by the provision, as the hon. member for Vereeniging pointed out so strikingly, that the Senate must be elected by members of the House of Assembly and the Provincial Councillors. They also made another mistake, and that was a faulty judgment because they were not prophets—and on that we can agree also—namely, that they could not foresee that the political parties would hold diametrically opposite views on matters like education and also in regard to other matters like hospitalization or even road-building. They did not foresee that. But it was an error of judgment for which we can forgive them, but with which we are landed. Therefore we can also accept as a fact that they made a mistake and that they did not attain their object. We can also accept as a fact that as the result of these plans certain members of the Executive Committee were compelled to live a Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde existence. That, I think, is an immorality and nobody will deny it. Now, Sir, when we have that position, the question arises: Should we now remedy it, and if so. how?

I asked the hon. member for Germiston (District) to give us the alternative, but everybody who sat here must have noted that he gave no alternative. He just mentioned certain things for one consideration, which I shall deal with in a moment. But there are alternatives We can go back to 1910 and scrap the power of the provincial councillors to elect Senators. Then they will not be so intimately concerned with the election of the legislative body of the Republic. But I do not think it would be wise to go back to that position, because it will have greater repercussions and it will probably also create dissatisfaction in the promises amongst all the people, including our own. Therefore we cannot accept that alternative.

What other alternative is there? The other alternative is to follow to the end what was started by the founders of our constitution, viz. to make the parallel of the Provincial Administration vis-à-vis the Central Government of the Union (now the Republic) precisely the same as the Government of the Union was vis-à-vis the United Kingdom; i.e. to put the Provincial Administration into the same position vis-à-vis the Governor-General (or the State President-in-Council) as that in which Parliament and the Governor-General and the Cabinet were vis-à-vis the King and the British Parliament and the British Cabinet. What is that alternative? That alternative is that the Administrator should choose his Cabinet. In other words, the Administrator will appoint his Ministers, or the members of his Executive Committee. That would complete the parallel. But it has this defect, that the Administrator himself is an official of the Central Government on whom the final responsibility rests in a different way from the way it rests with the King. Therefore it is impracticable. That is why in terms of the Constitution the Provincial Councils have to elect the Executive Committee. That is also the only alternative which remains over to us, and that is to have the Executive Committee elected by the Provincial Council in the ordinary manner.

But if we do that there are two other considerations which we should consider very seriously. The one has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston (District). I shall try to take over his argument, and he will forgive me if I try to put it more simply than he did. When the Provincial Council has the power to appoint the Executive Committee in the ordinary way. it ought also to have the power, unless the law provides otherwise, also to dismiss them. That would have been the position in the Constitution at the present moment if it did not provide that the members of the Executive Committee should always be elected at the first meeting held after the general election. From that it appears that there is a prohibition against their removal. There is no reason for such a prohibition. But I want to say this, that if the hon. the Minister does not make this amendment, then sooner or later it will become urgently necessary for this Parliament also to amend Section 79 of the Constitution. Because if you have the power to appoint, you must also have the power to dismiss.

Mr. Speaker, the second matter we should consider is whether we are not now making the Provincial Council too strong, i.e. if all the members of the Executive Committee belong to one party. That is the only argument against the Minister’s proposal. But the hon. members of the Opposition have not yet used this argument. I doubt whether they have realized it. Now that we choose all the members of the Executive Committee from the strongest party in the Provincial Council, it also means that they can immediately show a united front to the Central Government—i.e. the State President and the Executive. That means as against the Cabinet. It is obvious that in such a conflict the one who carries the money-bags will always win, but before that victory is achieved quite a lot of undesirable political heat will have been engendered, and all kinds of tensions will have to be dispelled. The question then arises whether it is worth while. One can dispel the tension in two ways. One can dispel it within the party which is in power, because the Cabinet and the Executive Committee have more or less the same objectives, or else one can fight it out to the end.

Personally I think the first course will cause least tension. But there can be a further consequence of such a measure. It is that the Provincial Council can stiffen its back (if you will forgive me the expression) against the central body in respect of certain items. That is already happening to-day in the present setup. I am thinking, e.g., of education. I am thinking of one particular province in regard to education. The result is that the central authority which in the final result bears the responsibility of financing the whole State, and which must bear the responsibility for the taxation it levies to finance these services, will begin to undermine the powers of the provinces. The only guarantee against that is that we should have people belonging to the same party in the Provincial Administration which shares that responsibility with the Central Government. To me that is the final basis on which this measure introduced by the Minister should be supported. We will make our Provincial Councils stronger, if they should jib, but at the same time we will also be able more easily to dispel the tensions which may arise.

I should like to have clarity. I understand the hon. member to say that the members of the Executive Committee should be persons who agree with the Government of the day. But that, of course, is not the position in terms of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is this: When the provincial authority differs from the Central Government, that difference of opinion results in undermining the provincial authority, and the Central Government is compelled to undermine it because it bears the final responsibility for the Government of the whole country, and also that of the provinces. When such tensions arise it is easier to dispel them if the members of the Executive Committee hold more or less the same convictions as the Central Government, because then one does not find this tension between the different constitutional bodies. That is the point I am making and it is a very important point. I go further. It makes no difference to me that in Natal there is a United Party Executive Committee. That Executive Committee will oppose either the Administrator or the Central Government if the Central Government wants them to do something which is contrary to their policy. Then they must ask themselves: Is it wiser to submit, or to provoke this undermining of the powers of the province? It should remember that in the long run the central authority bears that responsibility, and the central authority will win because it holds the money-bags.

In this country we have had a constitutional crisis in which the one organ quarrelled with the other. In my mind there was not the slightest doubt as to which of the two would eventually win. The one which holds the money-bags, the one which imposes the taxation, always wins. That happened in Britain also. The House of Commons won a similar battle. The British kings who opposed to the House of Commons lost their heads, literally and figuratively. Edward II was beheaded, Richard III was beheaded and James II fled, after having thrown the Great Seal into the Thames, and he was dethroned. He just could not stand up against them.

Therefore, because we should not have such tensions, I welcome this measure introduced by the Minister. I am surprised that the people of Natal and the United Party are opposed to it. The people in Natal ought to welcome it because it strengthens their position. They say they are so strong that they do not need it, but they should not think that they will always be so strong. They will discover one of these days that more Nationalists sit in the Natal Provincial Council, which will entitle them to appoint a member of the Executive Committee. In those circumstances it will not really be the best thing for Natal.

I should like to put this idea of the hon. member for Germiston (District) to the hon. the Minister for his serious consideration, whether he will not consider amending Section 76 also. If authorized to do so, I should like to move an amendment in co-operation with the hon. member for Germiston (District). He can move it, because it is his idea, and I will second it if the Minister approves of it. I want to tell the Minister, with all due respect to his advisers, that if he does not do so to-day the time will come when the country will again demand that it be done. If in this case he has said A, he will also have to say B.

Mr. Speaker, I only hope I have succeeded in bringing the debate nearer to the actualities, away from the political heat and all the clever things we have heard here in regard to constitutional law. I think that if we can succeed in discussing the matter in this manner, we will all feel much happier.

I can well understand the sadness of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) when he contemplates the motion before the House; but what puzzled me, yesterday and again to-day, was the sadness apparently felt by certain members on the Government side. For example, yesterday the hon. the Minister told us of his bitter grief about the embarrassment of certain persons who in the past and, for that matter, at the present time were in the position of being in a minority on the Executive Committee of a Provincial Administration and therefore had to play a sort of dual role in regard to their responsibility to the Executive Committee on the one hand, and to the caucus of their party on the other. He told us at great length of the real embarrassment of the so-called lone member of the Executive Committee, and I must say that I for one, was impressed by the argument that in fact there was a high degree of personal embarrassment for anyone who found himself in such a position.

Then the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) practically shed tears over his own embarrassment at the time when he was a member of the Executive Committee in the Transvaal. But, of course, this concern for the loneliness of one individual was really started last week by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), when he referred to the loneliness he felt while on his tour of the U.S.A. In fact, there has been so much talk about loneliness and its effect on human beings that this House threatens to become the headquarters of the Lonely Hearts Club.

One is not concerned, I must say at the outset, with the position in which the individual finds himself in regard to this legislation, but rather with the position in which the electorate and the public representatives of portion of the electorate will find themselves as the result of the passing of this measure. I would therefore commend to the hon. member for Vereeniging that he should consider that point of view rather than his own past embarrassment in the particular position which he described yesterday. In passing, I must say that the hon. member for Vereeniging and I have known each other for many years. I hope he will not consider me presumptuous when I say that we have been friends, and I believe we still are. He nods his head in assent, and I am very glad of it.

But do not make it impossible now.

I am going to make it really impossible. I remember the time when the hon. member occupied this very embarrassing position in the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Was he then not perhaps hiding his grief behind a façade, when he gave men and other colleagues the impression that he was not only a very active, but a very happy man? How did he manage to conceal his grief at the embarrassing position he occupied when he was driving about the countryside in a very luxurious Buick?

That is what hurt my conscience.

Yes, and I admit that in his position I would have a conscience too, because at that time he had reached a position of great public importance through the indulgence of the party of which I am still a member. In fact, he had one of the plums of political representation in the country when he represented a constituency which is contiguous to that which is to-day regarded by some as the “political backveld” of South Africa. He represented Parktown, which is right next door to the “political backveld” of Houghton. If he could suffer that grief as he did at the time—and he has shown the House that he is a very sensitive man—why should he be so concerned about this terrible position in which other people may find themselves?

Because I have a sympathetic heart.

Then he should in the first place consult the person who finds himself in this allegedly embarrassing position of being the “lone voice” and in the minority. I can think of one to whom I am sure the position has not been put at all. If we are considering this matter purely in order to relieve some persons now or in future of possible embarrassment, I think this position should have been put to those people who at present suffer this alleged embarrassment. I can think of at least one known to both the hon. member for Vereeniging and myself who, if he were consulted about his embarrassment, would immediately dismiss it as not being a valid reason even for mooting this matter, let alone discussing it seriously in this House. Because since the time the hon. member for Vereeniging served on the Executive, things have changed, and embarrassing though they may be for the lone member in the minority, they have changed for the better in regard to certain matters such as the fact that the salary to-day is about R7,200 p.a. It was not so large at the time the hon. member suffered his embarrassment. To-day the motor-car has become bigger and there is a chauffeur with it, and there is an official residence and a few other perks which can go a long way towards making a man feel less embarrassed. That is an important point. I began to wonder yesterday whether in fact the grief of the hon. member for Vereeniging was not at least in part due to the fact that he had left those green pastures at an inappropriate time.

Now, in all seriousness if the hon. member for Vereeniging feels that perhaps he did the wrong thing at the wrong time, his grief may be offset by contemplating the fact that in the near future, he will have, practically as one of his constituents, Frank Sinatra, and that should make him happy again. The point I wish to make is that all this argument about the difficulty of a member of the Executive Committee—and his difficulty is a very real one when he is in a minority of one—completely ignores the fact that he has a great opportunitty to serve, not the political party he happens to belong to, but that part of the electorate which returned him and the minority in the Provincial Council in order to serve their interests. Now which is more important—the personal embarrassment of an individual and the difficulty he may have in making that long and unpleasant walk from the conference room to his caucus room and then having to say something different, or the fact that he has this opportunity of serving a large part of the electorate? I make bold to say that even the Minister would agree that if he were to ask any person to-day who is in this position whether he will resign in order to save himself that pain and suffering, or will continue indefinitely to serve in that capacity despite the difficulties, I say the Minister knows that every one of those people will say: Do not tamper with the position under any circumstances. Every one of them, and I say it to their credit, would say: Leave the position as it is and let me bear my cross as a minority member of the Executive, because I believe it fulfils an important and useful function. On that ground I would like to argue that there is a great deal to be said for the obverse side of this argument about the conflict between a man’s party loyalty and his oath of secrecy, to which the hon. member referred. I am sure there is that conflict, but just as that hon. member was able to resolve it in his day, so other people in that position have been able to resolve it, too, and they will continue to resolve it if left alone to do so. Therefore that is not a sound argument for abolishing the present basis.

Another point which has been dealt with very extensively is the so-called immorality of the individual who, having taken an oath of secrecy as a member of the Executive, is then faced with the temptation, or may even succumb to the pressure of his own party or caucus, to let slip a piece of information he gained as a member of the Executive and which under his oath he is bound to keep to himself. All this talk of immorality, in my humble submission, does not carry the argument any further. It is hardly a matter which now has to be considered within the scope of the Immorality Act. Why has it not been immoral for 50 years? Why have we suddenly discovered this immorality in being a minority? Because if that is so it is fair to say that all of us on this side are immoral. We all belong to a minority, but we owe allegiance to this Parliament, and I for one refuse to accept the charge of immorality. [Interjection.] I want to support strongly the plea made by the hon. member for Pinelands for this unity which is so much talked about. I was very struck by the fact that yesterday, before he concluded his address on the Archives Bill, the Minister referred to the co-operation which had been displayed by members on this side. I think he ended up by saying that the debate had proved, and the co-operation from this side had proved, that when it came to a matter of national interest, we in this House could still stand together, regardless of political party differences. So it seems that when it comes to the question of storing a lot of papers, however valuable they may be, national unity is readily available, but when it comes to preserving the little that is left of the representation of a political minority in this country, then apparently we no longer need national unity, let alone desire to find it. Then we must realize that we are in the minority and make up our minds, that we will have no voice in these spheres of influence we have had ever since Union. I must respectfully say to the Minister that the argument about national unity is one which, if it impressed him yesterday, should impress him no less to-day. Surely the passage of one day does not alter the need for us to stand together on matters of national interest, and I submit that the matter of the preservation of archives is not a matter of greater national interest than the preservation of the rights of a very considerable minority in all the Provinces of South Africa.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) said in effect that the United Party are afraid of elections; you only have to mention elections to strike fear and consternation into our hearts. Well, as far as I am aware, the United Party appears never to have shirked an election, and I would assume that if it is faced with another election it would certainly fight that election as it has done all the others. So that is a completely irrelevant argument, but when it comes to the budget of South Africa in 1910 he says, compare it with the budget of even the smallest province, Natal, to-day and then you see the need for this change the Minister is introducing. Sir, if the magnitude of spending is in fact the yardstick, I could say that a lot of other things should be changed on that very argument and I would like to advocate only one. In Johannesburg there has been an agitation for many years on the lines that since it is the largest city in South Africa and has a budget greater than that of Natal— I do not say that in any disparagement—that city, similarly to other cities in the world, should be given a charter under which it will to some extent enjoy a greater measure of autonomy than it has done up to now; because the argument is that in the nature of things you cannot legislate in exactly the same way for Johannesburg, with its enormous budget of over R70,000,000 p.a., as you do for the village management committee of Groot Spelonken. But what have we been told? We have been told—and this has been hurled back at us by the Transvaal Provincial Administration—that the budget has nothing to do with the case, that the importance and size of the city have nothing to do with it, and that therefore we will under no circumstances be given this autonomy which we ask in the interest of greater efficiency and the better management of the city. Why then does the hon. member say that because of the change in the ratio in the budget of the Union in 1910 to that of a province such as Natal, now is the time to put the control of the province into the hands of one political party? With the best will in the world I fail to see the link between Argument A and Argument B. He then went on to say that he wants an answer to this question: How can you support something in the Executive Committee, you being in the minority, and then you oppose it in the Council itself, and he asks whether that is democracy? But he himself said earlier that the majority must rule, and surely that is his own answer. In other words, if I am on a body in which I happen to be in the minority at a certain stage when a decision is made, then I am bound by that decision. The fact that I may be a member of more than one body does not in any way compel me to take exactly the same point of view in both bodies in consideration of the same matter. Therefore the attitude of the lone member of the Executive clearly has been that whereas he has argued against a certain measure on the Executive, the fact that a decision has been taken means that he will then support it on behalf of the Executive, but what he does as a member of the Provincial Council as such, and as a member of the caucus of a particular party, is a personal matter entirely, and regardless of any possible embarrassment, it has little or nothing to do with the question of democracy.

There was a lot said about the delegation of authorities to officials, and one was asked to draw the inference that under the proposed change the delegation of authority to officials would no longer be necessary. Well, the Minister has been a member of an Executive Committee and I doubt whether he would say that if the Bill passes this House, the change it will have brought about will be such that it will do away with the necessity to delegate authority to officials. I hope he will deal with that point when he replies. In any case, it is common cause that the delegation of authority is at the pleasure of the person delegating it; it is not irrevocable, as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom made it out to be, and he is well aware of the procedure, at least in the Transvaal Provincial Council. He asks whether we want to paralyse the Council in spite of the tremendous expansion in the Transvaal? Of course not; but I can remember a brochure produced in 1960 by the Transvaal Provincial Administration which traced in clearly defined terms in over 30 pages the tremendous expansion of the province and of the activities of the Provincial Administration during the last 50 years. Now, if all the things we have been told about the present system were even partly true, that expansion would not have been possible. But in that brochure no reference was made to the fact that this expansion came about despite the present system of Executive Committee appointments. It came about for all sorts of reasons which are completely unrelated to the question before the House to-day. It seems to me that one should approach this matter in a different way. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom says that a good constitution would provide the people with the opportunity to get rid of a Government if it so desires. May I say that I agree with that completely; but why did he not go on to point out that it has happened, and not long ago— and I am taking his definition of people as being the majority of people—it has happened that the majority of the people voted for the United Party and yet the minority vote recorded for the National Party has put it into power. What kind of democracy does he prefer, the one which works in favour of that political party only? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this again is something which I ask the Minister to disregard in weighing up the arguments.

Another point which I think should be dealt with is this question raised by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom about what Mr. Bailey Bekker wanted in 1944, when he proposed the election of the Executive Committee by a straight majority, and not by the system of proportional representation. Sir, every one in this House knows that regardless of the desire of the individual, in this case Mr. Bekker, to persuade the then governing party, in that case the United Party, to adopt the system, it was completely rejected. Therefore it is totally irrelevant to say that a member of the United Party advocated this very principle before the House to-day, because—I say this with the utmost deference—the United Party had the good sense to reject that proposal, and it remains to be seen whether this House will do the same thing.

Finally, there is such a thing—I think it is well known to students of logic—as the extension of the argument. I want to extend the argument underlying this measure to its logical conclusion. The thesis of the whole proposition is that you cannot have divided responsibility, that you must have control by the majority and only the majority, and that you cannot or should not hear the voice of the minority in a body which has that control. That, I think, sums up the sentiment underlying this Bill. I want to carry it a little further. If that is the position, the next stage is to say that not only can you not have a member of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Administration unless he is at the same time a member of the majority party, but that you cannot even have a Provincial Councillor sitting in that Council unless he is a member of the majority party, because there is a certain divided responsibility. The majority and the minority share in the responsibility of the Provincial Administration. And to take it to its final conclusion, if we are asked to accept that argument, I say that we on this side of the House should not be here at all because we cannot always agree with the Government side; there is a responsibility laid on this House as a whole, and we therefore bedevil the situation by embarrassing the majority, because they will do what they want to do anyway and all we can do is to delay them. Thus the argument is: do away with all opposition because that undermines a principle of democracy! I hope the Minister will explain, at least for my benefit, why it is necessary for the proper working of a democratic system to do away with the representation of the minority on the Executive Committee of the Provincial Administration, and why it may not thereafter become necessary to do away entirely with the representation of any minority, because you have to take the thing logically from one step to another—and I prefer to look one step ahead and to see what the consequences of such a theme or policy may be for other statutory bodies.

Having said that, I want to say in conclusion that I sincerely hope that since we are ostensibly considering this measure in order to improve the administration of the Provinces, the Minister will pause to think again about it. I believe that anyone who has been in the Provincial Council of any province will realize that regardless of the difficulty—and it may be entirely a personal difficulty—of the individual who is in the minority on the Executive, it has never been of such public importance as to prevent the majority on that Executive from carrying out the policy to which it has committed itself. But, on the other hand, they have always had the opportunity of having the advice based on the views of the minority party or group in that Council, and that advice must have been of invaluable assistance to the majority on the Executive. Regardless of what decisions they had to make, it has always been of some assistance to have the view of the minority expressed by a member of the Executive, because the alternative is that the Executive Committee, being entirely composed of members of the majority party, would never know or need to know what the minority felt or thought. And I think they would deprive themselves of something which has been for many years of great value, and put nothing in its place, except the opportunity to make all the appointments of members of the majority party on the principle of “winner take all”. I think that in weighing the two considerations the Minister may well come to the conclusion that the Opposition has rendered a service in moving the amendment which I fully support, that this Bill be deferred for six months.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. members who spoke before me about personal experience in the Provincial Council and on the Executive Committee. I just want to touch on a few matters which were dealt with by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshell). We have heard a great deal of generalization in this House in connection with this matter. The hon. member has also told us that the system which we have in the Executive Committees of the various provinces to-day serves a very good purpose, but I have not yet heard from a single member on the other side exactly what that good purpose is. As a matter of fact the hon. member who has just sat down, and who also said that, only replied to the objections raised to the present system without setting aside what he alleges are the good features of that system. Reference has been made here by the hon. member who spoke before me and by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) to unity. I think that my attitude towards unity will become clearer later in the course of my speech, but I think it is completely unnecessary and inappropriate to read into a measure of this kind a motive on the part of the Government or on the part of members on this side to harm unity in this country. Insofar as this measure may perhaps have harmful party political consequences, that applies just as much to this side of the House as it does to the other side. The hon. member for Hospital mentioned an example here which is completely incomprehensible to me, and that is that if this Bill is passed and the Executive Committee members represent only one party, then we might just as well say that the members of the Provincial Council should represent one party only. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on that. The purpose of the members of the Provincial Council is totally different from that of the members of the Executive Committees. The Executive Committees, as their name indicates, have executive powers. They are charged with the administration of the provinces, while the Provincial Council only has legislative powers. There is a world of difference between them and I do not think they are analogous at all. It has become clear to me that hon. members on the other side are very concerned about this legislation viewed from a party political angle, and I should like to console them by saying to them that I am just as concerned as they are, and that is because I am aware of the fact that it has the same potential repercussions for another party in the future that it has for them to-day.

That is an absolute certainty.

If they have any confidence in their own party, then they must visualize the prospect that the disadvantages which may flow from this, may also hit this party in the future.

But that is also wrong.

But evidently they do not envisage that. Apparently they do not envisage that the disadvantages which they are going to experience as a result of this measure, may also be experienced by members on this side of the House at some future date. But I should like to pause here for a few moments to deal with all the possible consequences. It may happen in fact that after all the members of, let us say, the Provincial Council of the Cape have been appointed by the governing party, the National Party, a change may come about and the United Party may obtain a majority, in which case they could appoint all the members of the Executive Committee. That is the possible disadvantage which this measure may have for this side of the House. And the position could be much worse. We may find that while there is an Administrator appointed by the National Government, the Executive Committee may consist entirely of members of the opposite party, as is the case in Natal to-day, and that it may make the implementation of the policy of the National Government very difficult. It is for this reason that I say that the potential repercussions are much more serious for the governing party than the actual repercussions for that side of the House, and in view of the fact that from a party political point of view it may be just as harmful to the one party as it may to the other I want to ask that we should look at this measure not from a party political point of view but rather discuss the measure on its merits and ask ourselves which system, from a practical point of view, will work best in the best interests of the provinces and thus in the best interests of the country. I am convinced that hon. members will agree with me that if we did not look at this matter from a party political point of view, three-quarters of the speeches made here would not be necessary. But I want to say here that in my objective approach to this matter, I do not want to examine this measure from the point of view of advantages that will accrue to my party. I also want to face the disadvantages which this measure may possibly entail, and I first want to mention the disadvantages that I see. The hon. the Minister will forgive me for mentioning the disadvantages as well. I think it is my duty and I think this is the way in which I should approach a measure of this nature. The disadvantage which I see is that it amounts to a removal of our unitary system. As I see it, it affects the foundations of our unitary system. If we are to regard that as the decisive factor and base our judgment on that alone, then I would say that we should not bring about a change. But that is not the only factor I am going to take into consideration. I say that it affects the foundations of our unitary system because in the first instance the Executive Committees were constituted, as has been mentioned by many hon. members here, on the assumption that politics would be kept out of the Executive Committees. It was desirable to do this for various reasons, because our unitary system is really unique, in the sense that the provinces are given certain legislative powers while the Central Government can always overrule the powers exercised by them. When ordinances are passed by the Provincial Councils and they come into conflict with a law of this Parliament, it is the law of this Parliament which is decisive, and it is for that reason, precisely because of our unitary system, that it has not involved a great danger; otherwise it would have involved a much greater danger. Our system, as has already been said, differs from the federal system in the sense that while the federal system has fixed, specific powers for every subordinate province, that is not so in our case; the powers of the provinces can be overruled by the Central Government. It is because of this consideration I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has given his assurance that this legislation should not be regarded as a movement in the direction of federation, because we here in South Africa would like the borders of the provinces to be shown as lightly as possible on our map. We should like provincialism to disappear, and any movement in the direction of federalism will make those borders between our provinces more distinct than they are to-day and more distinct than we should like them to be.

What about the Transkei?

The other aspect of the matter is far more important, and I want to mention a few of the reasons why I am in favour of this legislation. The most important is that the present system as it is applied to the Provincial Council, in the carrying out of its duties by the Executive Committee, has in many respects a ridiculous appearance. I might just mention that when I first came to the Provincial Council I could not help observing the ridiculous way in which this system was being applied in the Provincial Council. I had just arrived there when I noticed that one of the Executive Committee members of the Opposition party got up and proposed the second reading of an ordinance; he explained the ordinance and made use of brilliant arguments to show why the ordinance should be passed and he moved the second reading. The ordinance was discussed; an amendment came from his party on the other side, and when we came to the division, he walked over and voted against the ordinance which he had introduced and in favour of which he had spoken.

What difference did it make?

When we have to put our constitution and our system in order, then the question we must ask ourselves is not what difference it makes; the question is what is sound and what is in the best interests of our system. That is the question that we have to ask ourselves and I say that it is not in the best interests of our system to create such a ridiculous position in our Provincial Councils. It happens frequently, or rather it has happened in the past, and I disapprove of it. The example which I mentioned a moment ago is not so reprehensible, because possibly that particular member, when the matter was discussed in the Executive Committee, was not in favour of that ordinance, but in the performance of his duty he had to move it in the Provincial Council, where he sided with his party again. But one even finds that a member of the Executive Committee agrees with legislation in the Executive Committee, after deliberation and after discussion of the matter, and notwithstanding the fact that he agreed with it, he votes against that legislation when it comes before the Provincial Council.

But there is another matter which is even more important than that, and that is that the present system of constituting our Executive Committee is tantamount to an absolute waste of manpower; it is tantamount to a misuse of the available manpower for this reason that one cannot make proper use of the services of those Executive Committee members, and in spite of the fact, as the hon. member for Pinelands has said here, that they are honourable men and that they have always performed their duties in the past, he knows as well as I do that one cannot do it. If he served on the Executive Committee as a member of the majority party and a supporter of the Central Government, he would not entrust responsible duties to a member of the Executive Committee who holds different views and whose policy differs from that of his party, and he would certainly not do so in connection with matters where he knows that member may misuse the powers entrusted to him. I do not say that any member of the Executive Committee has done this; I do not intend to introduce personalities here, but those powers may be so misused. I just want to ask hon. members on that side what their attitude would be. If there are members on that side who were in the Provincial Council when the United Party was in power, they will know that is the position; that Opposition members of the Executive Committee are entrusted with the administration of cemeteries and museums, and that the responsible work cannot be entrusted to them. It is for that reason that the procedure which being followed to-day in the Cape Executive Committee is the following: Where a case has to be submitted to the Executive Committee, it is set out by the officials; all the facts are set out and then finally a recommendation is made to the Executive Committee. Each of those cases, no matter how unimportant it may be, must be dealt with by the whole of the Executive Committee. The reason for that is a very simple one, and that is that the Administrator cannot entrust certain matters to a member of the Executive Committee, to whom he is prepared to entrust the implementation of the Government’s policy, and then refuse to entrust similar matters to the other man. The result is that any matter which is placed before the Executive Committee in the Cape Town is dealt with by the whole of Executive Committee, whereas if a system such as this were followed, under which all four members of the Executive Committee are chosen by the majority party in the Provincial Council, then every member of the Executive Committee could be given his particular portfolio and could dispose of a large portion of the work, and only in the most important cases the whole of the Executive Committee would have to meet and discuss those matters. That would facilitate the work of the Executive Committee. It would lighten the burden of the Administrator and it would not create the problems that we have had in the past. That is the position particularly in the Cape where the Administrator is so overloaded with various duties that he is simply unable to carry them out.

Unity between the executive and the legislative authority, that is to say, the Cabinet and Parliament, is a feature of English constitutional law, and it is the basis of our parliamentary system in this country, and experience has taught us that is the best system. It has also been followed in many other countries of the world, and in the light of our experience it is only logical and understandable that it must also be the right system with reference to the Executive Committee.

I should also like to say just a word or two with reference to the suggestion made to the House by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Tucker). I feel that is a suggestion to which the hon. the Minister should give some consideration. I think that the hon. member put forward a very constructive suggestion. We accept the principle to-day that the majority party in the Provincial Council must choose all the Executive Committee members. It stands to reason that if that is our firm principle, then the Executive Committee ought not to consist of members who do not represent the majority in the House. That would appear to be self-evident in the light of my first proposition, but, as the hon. member himself has stated here, it is possible that there may be a few by-elections between one general election and another, and it is possible that the majority party with which the Council started after the general election may no longer be the majority party after a while, and that another party obtains the majority in the Provincial Council. I think this is in consonance with the principle that the majority party should choose the members of the Executive Committee. It is consistent with the principle that when there is a change in the majority, there should also be a change in the membership of the Executive Committee. I think that is a principle, and I think it is a principle that should perhaps receive serious consideration.

A good deal has already been quoted here from books and I should also like to quote a fairly lengthy extract from a book that was written by Gey van Pittius in 1926. First of all, I should like to say, Sir, that if you listened to the arguments advanced in this House you will have realized that the opinions that Gey van Pittius expressed in 1926 are precisely the same as the opinions which are still held to-day with reference to this matter. Let me quote what he wrote. After considering the provincial system and the Executive Committee, he says—

I should like hon. members to pay particular attention to the short sentence which I am about to quote and to ask themselves whether this is not the truth and, if it is the truth, then they should vote in favour of this Bill—

Do hon. members on that side want to tell me that is not the position?

That has not always been the case in Natal.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the difficulties that were caused when the Free State had an Administrator who was appointed by the United Party Government? If that is so, is the hon. member prepared to go further and advocate that the Council should also elect their Administrator?

No. I would advocate, or rather at this stage I am not going to advocate it but I consider it desirable that all the Executive Committees should represent the governing party in the country. That is the only way. We have the provincial system to-day which we are not anxious to abandon, and that is the only way in which the policy of the Central Government can be carried out properly. [Interjections.] If hon. members come along with that proposal, I may perhaps agree with them, but we are aware of the fact that the Central Government has a policy and that it is being thwarted by certain provinces and certain Executive Committees in the implementation of their policy, and not only by Executive Committees but also by certain city councils, as the Cape Town City Council has already done on various occasions. Let me quote further—

And I should like hon. members to listen now if they are interested in this—

In what year was that written?

In 1926. To-day, 36 years later, we are still of the same opinion, and after consideration of this matter and bearing in mind the fact that the same opinion has been held over that long period, I think the time has come when we can confidently bring about that change.

I do not think that there are many good arguments that can be advanced against the contents and the intention of this Bill, and I want to say at once that in principle I personally am entirely in favour of the proposition that the Executive Committees of our Provincial Councils should be chosen on the basis of an ordinary majority vote. Whatever fine expectations may have been cherished by the framers of our Constitution in 1910 when they inserted the system of proportional representation for our Executive Committees into the Constitution, we are faced with the simple fact that Provincial Council elections are conducted on a purely party political basis, that like Parliament the Provincial Councils too have become party political institutions and that the Provincial Councils deal with very few matters of importance which do not form part of the programme of the various political parties for the welfare of the nation. As a matter of fact, social welfare in its broader connotation is the essence of politics, with the result that with the best will in the world even matters like education and health cannot be dealt with without having regard to the plans and programmes of our various political parties. It is quite logical therefore, and certainly the best course, that provincial government should be placed on the same basis and fashioned on the same pattern as the Central Government. I believe that the majority party in every province should take upon itself the full responsibility for the government of their province and, like Parliament, it ought to allow its policy and administration to be tested at the polling booth at least every five years. In my opinion therefore the principle and the object of this Bill are sound and fully in consonance with the spirit of our political and parliamentary system of government.

But I have two serious objections to the second reading of this Bill—three really. My first objection is that here again we have an outstanding example of how the Government spoils a good case by handling it in the wrong way. However desirable it may be to change the existing system—I have said that I am in favour of a change—it is a fact there here we are dealing with something which has stood in the constitution of our country for 52 years and which has therefore become a constitutional tradition. One government after another has realized that the system of proportional representation does not work well, and yet they have been hesitant to change it. This Government has realized the defects of the present system for 14 years, yet it has hesitated for 14 years to take the step which is now being taken. I know that South West Africa has made representations to the Government over and over again that the Act should be changed in such a way that the Executive Committee of South West Africa can be chosen on the basis of a majority vote, because with the greater powers that the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa has, a two-party system would simply not work in their Executive Committee, and fortunately it so happens that position has never existed there. Nevertheless the Government, even in spite of serious representations on the part of South West Africa that it should change the law, has continued to hesitate to bring about this legal change because the Government itself has realized that here we are dealing with an established constitutional right. I say again therefore that I have no objection to this matter being tackled. It must be done by some government or other, and the sooner it is done the better. But when dealing with old-established constitutional matters and important changes in the constitution are contemplated, I think it is the duty of the Government, if it believes in a stable democratic system of government, not to tackle it in Parliament on a unilateral political party basis. When important constitutional changes are brought about it is the duty of any government to have proper consultations in advance with the Opposition, in other words, with the whole of the parliamentary machinery. If the Opposition then refuse to co-operate in the interests of a good cause, then the Government of the day has at least done the right thing. The suspicion should not be allowed to develop that the Government of the day, whichever party may be in power, will use its ordinary majority in Parliament, unexpectedly and without prior notice, to bring about important changes in the Constitution, however desirable such changes may be in the opinion of the Government. It is time we established a tradition in Parliament, that in dealing with legislative changes which affect the Constitution, the governing party should not act without warning and unilaterally, as has been done again in this case, but that such measure should be introduced into the House after timeous notice to the public, so that interested bodies can discuss them, and after proper consultations in advance between the Government and the Opposition. It is only by establishing such a practice that the suspicion will disappear that the Government may again come along unexpectedly to-morrow or the next day with a step which interferes with another right under the Constitution. It is only by establishing such a practice that we will have a feeling of stability in respect of our democratic system of government. I repeat that it is unfortunate that the Government has not followed this course as a matter of sound procedure.

My second objection to the second reading is that this Bill is incomplete and that it has not been carried to its logical conclusion. I say again that I subscribe to the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister to indicate the impossible position in which the Administrator of a province finds himself in an Executive Committee consisting of two parties. But the same good arguments which could be advanced to show why this system does not work, are doubly true in the case of an Administrator who is an outspoken and active supporter of a government party and who is placed at the head of an Executive Committee which consists entirely of members of an opposition party, which is actually the case in Natal at the moment. Provincial government by the majority party is a perfectly sound principle and I fully accept it, but then the Minister must not stop there; he must not stop where he wants to stop with this Bill. He should go further and also bring about this logical change in respect of the most important part of the Executive Committee, namely the position of the Administrator. Because if in the case of the Administrator he adheres to the old system then he clashes with his own arguments. If the principle of majority government in the Provincial Councils—which is a sound principle—is to be honestly accepted, then this Bill should also bring the position of the Administrator into conformity with the spirit of this Bill. Because it is quite indefensible to plead that the majority party in a province should accept full responsibility for the government of a province and then to continue to allow the Central Government to undermine the whole position by appointing as Adminstrator somebody whose views are in direct conflict with the political composition and responsibilities of the Executive Committee. I am not asking that the Central Government should no longer be allowed to appoint Administrators. That principle can be retained here, but in that case there should be some provision in the Act, or some means should be devised, which will make the appointment of an Administrator subject to the confidence of the Executive Committee and of the Provincial Council of the province concerned. It is only when the Government knows that its action is subject to the confidence of the existing Provincial Council or Executive Committee that we will get appointments that will not be in sharp conflict with the views of the majority party in the Provincial Council.

I say therefore that as the Bill now reads it is incomplete and unsatisfactory. I know that the hon. the Minister has tried very hard to check what he fears will be a federal trend if he goes further in this Bill, But we must remember that we have never had a pure Union in South Africa. We have a Union which is full of federal elements. Our Constitution is full of federal aspects. We are not a pure Union. For example the right which the Free State has to keep out certain citizens of Natal, citizens of Indian origin, is a federal element in our constitutional composition. I should like to know from the Minister, if he is so entirely opposed to any idea of federalism, whether he wants to delete this provision and ensure that it will be a pure Union where the provincial boundaries will be as vague as possible? Would he like to wipe out the provincial boundaries? The fact that the Coloureds have the vote in the Cape Province, and previously had it in Natal, is another important federal element. The fact that South West Africa has representation here is a federalistic inroad of significance. We have various laws, Sunday laws for example, which differ from province to province. These are all elements of federalism in our constitution. There are various others. I cannot see therefore what reason there is to fear the introduction of other important federal aspects. Federalism does not affect the unity of a State; it does not affect the unity of sentiment. America is a federation. There is a great variety of administrative units in the country which differ in character and composition from State to State. But if there is one country which has a variety of separate units but which patriotically is absolutely united and has absolute unity it is the United States of America. The National Party itself is based on a federal organization and administration. But does that affect its unity? Not at all, because federalism is concerned with administration; it does not affect the feeling of unity in a country in the least. As long as a State is not thrown together federalistically in an artificial way, federal elements need not detract in the least from the basic unity of the country. As the hon. the Minister himself admitted, arguments which were valid in 1910 when the Constitution was framed, are no longer valid to-day, and the more complex our modern state control becomes, the more we will have to develop in the direction of a greater devolution, a greater decentralization of the powers of local authorities such as provincial councils, where that is possible and desirable in the interests of the sound administration of the State. And I do not think that we should be dogmatic and oppose a good thing merely because it shows federal characteristics.

I am surprised at the statement made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) who has expressed the opinion that all the executive committee must be composed according to the governing party in the Central Parliament, whichever party has the majority in the Provincial Council, If that idea is to be carried to its logical conclusion, then the same should apply to city councils. Then one might as well abolish the whole Opposition after every election and say: “We have won the election; this party is in power now and it is going to take over everything; the Opposition can be abolished.” That in essence is what the hon. member for Ceres says he advocates. I should like to hear from the Minister whether that is the Government’s new line of thought. I object therefore, not to the limited contents of this Bill—I approve the principle of it—but I object to the second reading on the ground that this Bill is not complete and that it is not being carried to its logical conclusion so that we will really have responsible administration by the majority party in every province. Secondly I object, as I have already said, to the fact that the Government is bringing about constitutional changes in a unilaterial way and without any attempt to consult with the Opposition in advance. A third objection is the excellent point mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston District (Mr. Tucker) and that is that there is no provision in this Bill to make possible a change in the Executive Committee when as the result of by-elections, there is a change of political control in a Provincial Council. I am afraid therefore that this whole Bill is half-baked and incomplete and therefore unsatisfactory and I feel therefore that it should not be read a second time now but that the Government should withdraw it and later on, after consultation with the rest of Parliament, introduce a better and more complete and more satisfactory Bill.

I will make a few remarks later in regard to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In general I just want to say that it is a pity that we again had from hon. members opposite to-day such far-fetcher ideas about concepts like political morality, national unity, and goodness knows what else. What that has to do with this debate I do not know, because actually to every person who has made a study of this Bill the fact that the Minister introduces the Bill at this stage, is only a matter of sound common-sense. It is true that the provincial system which is probably one of the most outstanding characteristics of our South African constitutional institutions since their inception in 1910, has often been subjected to very serious criticism. From time to time objections have been voiced to the working of the whole system. If we analyse the objections raised throughout the years, one can reduce them to three basic objections.

The first of the objections which have been voiced for years to the general operation of the provincial system in our country was in regard to the financial arrangements between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations, this formula which from time to time fell into desuetude, and which gave rise to criticism of the whole operation of the system as such. The second basic objection raised to the system from time to time was the lack of homogeneity in the Executive Committee. One can look it up. Every time objection was raised, this was one of the main objections to the operation of the system. Another objection raised from time to time was the duality introduced by this system in our domestic affairs. The fact, for example, that we have provincial roads and national roads, that we have a provincial health service and a Union health service, that we have a provincial taxation system and a Union taxation system. This dualism brought about by this system was used in order to criticize the whole operation of the system. If we analyse it further, we see that one of the periods in which the most serious objections were raised against the whole operation of the provincial system was in the years 1931 and 1932, and in that period various party leaders, not only leaders on this side of the House but also on the other side, as I shall show later, expressed serious doubts about the operation of the whole system. The first one I want to mention is the late Dr. Malan, who was Minister of the Interior at the time and who said this on 19 August 1931—

If one reads the history of this period it will be found that one of the main reasons why this idea was expressed by prominent party leaders of the time was the lack of homogeneity in the working of the Executive Committee. General Hertzog attended the congress of the National Party in Pretoria on 15 September 1931, and there made the important announcement that the Government had decided to abolish the Provincial Councils. He further announced that a Commission would be appointed under the chairmanship of the late Dr. A. J. Stals. If one studies the history and the arguments used at that time, it will be clear that one of the reasons was the lack of homogeneity in the Executive Committees.

But the other witness I want to call is the late Minister, Jan Hofmeyr, and I want to deal with this at greater length because I think it will be of value to hon. members opposite. At the coming of age of Union in 1931, he wrote probably one of the best analytical articles about the operation of the whole provincial system. The late Mr. Hofmeyr was a person who was highly regarded by hon. members opposite and I want to ask them to listen to what his opinion was on the matter. He wrote as follows—

I may just say that he first proved clearly that the three objections he had to the system were the three I have mentioned. Then he deals firstly with the financial formula applicable between the Central Government and the Provincial Councils, and then he secondly comes to this point of the lack of homogeneity as it affects the work of the Executive Committee, and he says—

Now listen to this—

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) asked a minute ago: What about it? Here the late Mr. Hofmeyr mentions it as one of the main objections he has to the system—

So he goes on and then he seeks the reason why at the time of the National Convention this system was decided on, and then he says the following—

Then he analyses the system further and comes to the following conclusion—

What he says here and puts very clearly is that unless a change comes about in order to provide greater homogeneity in regard to the working of the Executive Committee, he predicts that the whole system will always remain suspect in future.

In regard to the other two points I mentioned, the criticism raised from time to time of the working of this system, it is a fact that the formula regulating the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations was obsolete. Scarcely three years after Union, in 1913, this formula was changed for the first time. If this had not been done, the operation of the whole system would have become seriously suspect. There were changes in 1922, in 1924 and another seven or eight times thereafter the formula was changed in order to put the system of votes above suspicion. If I remember correctly, there is at the moment a Committee investigating for the umpteenth time the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provinces. I do not know whether they have reported yet. But also because of the criticism of the operation of this system in general, this Committee was appointed for the umpteenth time to change the formula in order to make the system work better. Changes were also made from time to time in regard to the limits of our domestic economy in order to make the system work better, and also in this respect it seems to me that this legislation is only intended to reduce the criticism which has been expressed on this point ever since 1910 and to make the operation of the system more effective. In fact, I want to go further. If in 1931 already we had listened, and even before that, when criticism was expressed, and then already had made a change in order to get greater homogeneity in the working of the Executive Committees, the general operation of the Provincial Councils would perhaps to-day not have been criticized so much.

I have listened attentively to my member here in Parliament, the hon. member for Moorreesburg. The last time he stood I did not vote against him, but after his speech to-day I am not at all sure that I am not going to vote against him at the next election, because in the first place he tried to justify a weak case. If he had spoken well his speech would still have meant something, but he spoke badly too. The late Mr. Hofmeyr is quoted by the hon. member as though in criticizing the Provincial Councils he also condemned the composition of the Executive Committee. That criticism was not based, of course, on the composition of the Executive Committee. We all know what criticism Mr. Hofmeyr levelled at the Provincial Councils. I agreed with him then and I still agree with him now. What Mr. Hofmeyr said and advocated was “regional development councils” as he called them, organizations in which there would be no politics, which would look after the welfare of a particular area on a more local basis. But that is about as far as he went. I never heard him criticizing the composition of the Provincial Councils.

I read it out to you.

Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you where I heard such criticism. I too criticized it together with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) when we sat together as members of the majority party in the Cape Provincial Council in the year 1943. We continually said to one another, “Look, we too are poor; why can’t the Government pass a law and kick the two Nationalists members out, because then we will stand a good chance of getting their jobs and a good salary.” We said it to each other. And what is more, on at least one occasion the two of us were supported by our then leader in the Provincial Council and when he spoke we all said “hear, hear”. That was Mr. George Barrel. I am surprised that he has not been quoted here to-day. He said in the Cape Provincial Council that he thought the time had arrived when the Executive Committee should consist of members of the majority group only. He said that the position was made intolerable by the way in which a member of the Executive Committee voted on that occasion. He did what the Minister and various members have described here. He supported an ordinance in the Executive Committee and in open council voted against it. Mr. Barrel then suggested that the time had arrived when the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council should consist of the members of one party only and that they should be treated as members of the Cabinet.

And you then agreed with him.

I readily agreed with him because the hon. member for Vereeniging and I were anxious for those positions. But this thing did not work. Why not? In the first place, because the most serious criticism against it was levelled by the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council, the late Senator Hayward. And if I remember correctly—the hon. member for Vereeniging can perhaps refresh my memory—the second speaker who attacked that proposition, was none other than the present Administrator of the Cape, Mr. Malan.

You ought to make sure of that.

I can easily make sure. Mr. Speaker, I do not hold it against him because I would have done the same thing in his position. Mr. Speaker, this agitation which you are hearing to-day, is nothing new. Any party which listens to its political organizers, brings forward such legislation because it means additional posts for those who want them. The hon. the Minister can correct me, but I want to ask him: How many times has this question been raised at Nationalist Party congresses in the Cape and the Transvaal? We know that the Transvaal has accepted it.

What about it?

Nothing, except that in the Cape the Nationalist Party was more gentlemanly and did not accept it, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance.

They did accept it.

No, they did not accept it. The Minister of Finance then tried to control the wild emotions of people from other parts. He succeeded until the year before last …

Order! The hon. member has strayed very far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting evidence.

Yes, but we are now dealing with a measure which is before the House.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, just as the hon. member on the other side has quoted Mr. Hofmeyr to prove his case because he says that Mr. Hofmeyr was on his side at the time—which he was not—I am now quoting the hon. the Minister of Finance and saying that he agreed with me. I say once again that I do not hold it against the Government because all Governments like to do it for the reasons I have given. What troubles me is that in introducing the Bill the Minister said it was morally right. He disapproved of the immorality of the present set-up.

You were not listening properly.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that I heard wrongly and that he does not defend the Bill on moral grounds.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am glad that I understood the hon. the Minister incorrectly and that he is not introducing this Bill on moral grounds. Because it seemed to me that it was a case of his saying: “Here are our moral principles and if you don’t like them, we have others.” We have the position that this request originated in the Transvaal that the Government should eliminate all opposition and should retain those posts for its own people who are in the majority—except in Natal, where they have no members in any case. This agitation has grown and become stronger and stronger, and now the pressure has become so great that the Government has come forward with this Bill.

Order! The hon. member must come to the provisions of the Bill now. ¹

But I am dealing with the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

I am dealing with the Bill. I can only say that I am against it, but I am giving the history of the matter to show why this Bill has been introduced, and I think that is in order. Is that not in order, Mr. Speaker?

No. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to rule me out of order because I mentioned the reasons why this Bill has been introduced, then I would rather leave the Chamber.

Then the hon. member might as well leave the Chamber if he does not want to return to the Bill.

On a point of order and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is giving us the historical background of the Bill.

I have listened very carefully to the hon. member and I want him to come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, may I have your ruling? Am I in order if I mention the historical reasons and the motive behind those reasons?

The hon. member has already done that. He may proceed, but he must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that the history of this Bill is that an agitation began in the Transvaal which has culminated in this measure which is before the House to-day. The motive behind it is the old policy of the Nationalist Party that it must be a one-party government.

The hon. member must come nearer to the provisions of the Bill.

I do not know how I can get any nearer …

On a point of order, the hon. member is now discussing the history of the Nationalist Party’s attitude in connection with Provincial Councils and with particular reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). It is obvious that what he is going to do is to reply to the hon. member for Ceres.

I do not know what he is obviously going to do. What he has not done so far is to deal with the Bill. He must now come back to the Bill.

I wanted to mention —you say I may not do so—the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. I wanted to give the history of the Bill. I trust that you will allow me to mention a few cases in connection what the hon. member for Ceres said here in answer to a question from me. The hon. member said he too thought that the time would have to come when not only the members of the Executive Committee would have to belong to one party but that it would also be in South Africa’s interests if the whole of the Executive Committee in all the provinces held the same political views as the ruling party of the country.

They would very much like to see that in Natal.

Yes, but I want to say that to my mind the statement of the hon. member for Ceres is more shocking than the Bill itself. A good case can be made out for saying that you will sometimes find that two members of the Executive Committee do not agree with the Administrator and with the other two members of the Committee and that when they come into the Provincial Council, they will stand up and say: “We want to criticize this particular ordinance: we did not agree with the Executive Committee.” I appreciate that would embarrass an Administrator. But, after all, that is nothing new. When I asked the hon. member for Ceres whether that same position could not exist where you have an Administrator appointed by the Government and where the Executive Committee holds views which differ from those of the Administrator, he said “yes” and he would like to go further and see the whole Committee appointed by the Government. I want to hear from the hon. the Minister now whether this is just the first step in that direction and whether, to be logical and consistent, he is going to stand up and say that Executive Committee will in future be regarded as a Cabinet and that their Administrator or Prime Minister will be appointed by the Provincial Council, so that the logical consequence will be that there will be unity between the Administrator on the one hand and his four members of the Executive Committee on the other. If the hon. the Minister wants to be logical, he must say that he will introduce such an amendment. It is one of two things: either he is correct in his arguments or he is wrong. If he is correct in his arguments, he must go the whole way and say that the Administrator of Natal must be appointed by the United Party Provincial Council in Natal. He cannot have it both ways unless he agrees with the hon. member for Ceres and says that this is just the first step towards realizing what the hon. member for Ceres advocated here to-day, that is, a one-party government throughout, from this Parliament down to the mayors, who were also mentioned at one time by the party of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais). [Interjections.] There you see that it is the same pattern. The pattern that you see here is that the Government which rules the country must rule the country from Parliament down to the local boards. the municipalities and the Divisional Councils.

Order! The hon. member must now come to the Bill.

I say once again that all of us who have served on Provincial Councils have seen the difficulties for ourselves. I also want to mention the point that the Administrator often clashes with the whole Provincial Council and with his Executive Committee and I give the hon. the Minister a typical example of what happened in the Cape Provincial Council. There we introduced an education ordinance. That education ordinance was accepted by the whole Cape Provincial Council.

It made provision for parental choice from Standard V onwards, in other words, in the secondary standards. That was as far as the language medium was concerned. And what happened?

What has that to do with the Bill?

I shall tell you what it has to do with the Bill. What happened then? The Minister of the Interior in this Government, when he had to approve the Ordinance after it had been accepted by the Provincial Council, listened to the Administrator and deleted from the ordinance those clauses which provided for parental choice from Standard V. He deleted that part and promulgated the remainder of the Ordinance.

That is not correct.

There we have a typical instance of the difficulties which the hon. member says the Administrator sometimes has. On the Executive Committee he sometimes has, the same difficulty that the whole Council may have with the Administrator. I hope that this Minister, when he stands up, will explain a few things to us. I hope that in the first place he will tell us whether he is going to carry this matter through to its logical conclusion and also make the Administrators belong to the same group as the majority in the Provincial Council and if not, why not? Secondly, is he going to make the new Cabinet which is going to be Seated, subject to a motion of no confidence in the Provincial Council, so that they will have to resign or so that one of them will have to resign? The Minister should also tell us whether it is his intention to follow the pattern put forward by the hon. member for Ceres.

I did not propose that. I merely expressed a personal opinion.

Yes, he suggested it, and now we want to hear from the Minister what his opinion of that personal opinion is and whether it is not perhaps going to come before us in the form of a Bill soon. Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been dealing with the Bill. I am afraid that if I continue I shall wander away from the Bill, so I shall rather sit down.

I hope that I am not expected to reply to various arguments which the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) put forward to the House a few moments ago. Even you, Mr. Speaker, experienced some difficulty in following his arguments. The only thing for which I am very grateful is that the hon. member for Sea Point did not have the privilege to be my history master, for if he found it so difficult to sketch the historical background to this Bill I have serious doubts as to what would have happened to our descendants if they had to learn history from him.

Which clause are you discussing?

I am now on clause J. A. L. Basson. Mr. Speaker, at the time of Unification, in 1910, our rulers of the time certainly never dreamed, when they instituted the Provincial Councils, that the scope and the activities, the duties and the problems of the Provincial Councils would be increased to this extent, not as they saw the position at that time. Having been a member of the Provincial Council for eight years and having witnessed the folly of what took place there, with two members of the Opposition serving on the Executive Committee, I am grateful to the Minister to-day for at long last coming forward with this Bill to put a stop to that folly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put this question to-day to the members of the Opposition: Would they for one moment suffer a member of the Opposition on the Executive Committee, or can they tell me or anybody else what he is doing there? What purpose does he serve there? And is it not important and essential that the Executive Committee should at least show a united front since the responsibilities of the provinces are so great to-day and their duties have been increased to such an extent? They no longer have the time to persuade that member of the Opposition to accept their opinion and to see their point of view. The only purpose for which that member of the Opposition is on the Executive Committee is to be a millstone around the necks of those who have to govern. As members of the Executive Committee they want to take part in the government but they do not want to assume responsibility for what the Executive Committee does. They are not prepared to assume the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of the governing party but they want to have a share in the government. They refuse to accept the responsibility however. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) said “What about it?” when the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) mentioned the instance of a member of the Opposition who introduced a motion in the Cape Provincial Council and then voted against it. Is that not a stupid situation, Mr. Speaker? What does the man in the street think when somebody introduces a motion and then proceeds to vote against it? Nobody will believe that there is much to be said for a person who acts in this way in such a responsible body as the Provincial Council. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) let loose a flood of words this afternoon and said many things. But I want to ask him this: During all the years that the Johannesburg City Council ruled, did it ever think of giving any representation to the minority group? No, they did not give such representation. They did not take the slightest interest in the minority in the city. But to-day they are suddenly concerned about the minority. When they are in power, they do not worry about the minority.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) asked whether this system was now going to be extended so that the majority group would govern even on municipal councils. I want to tell him that is already the principle adopted in the Transvaal in terms of the Local Government Ordinance. I think it is sound, for then you get good government. You can then place responsibility on someone, but at the moment that is certainly not the position. That was stated very clearly by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). What was the position there? He has told us that he is a responsible person and an honourable and sincere man. What happened in the case of local government in the Transvaal? In local government in the Transvaal, where the hon. member for Vereeniging played an honourable part and where he did not want to hamper the National Party and where he did not want to accept the responsibility, the same sort of thing happened. Matters were referred to the Executive. He certainly did not pull his weight in that Provincial Council. We had another instance of a member who was responsible for health in the Transvaal. He strove to achieve an ideal, an ideal which conflicted with the principles of the governing party, and he was responsible for the fact that the hospital services landed in the greatest chaos that they ever had in the Transvaal. That was due to the fact that he did not agree with the policy and the principles of the then ruling party. That is why it is so important to-day, since the responsibilities of the provinces have increased to such an extent, that those responsibilities should fall not on the shoulders of one or two people only, but should rest squarely on the shoulders of all four members of the Executive Committee —unlike the position in the Transvaal, where we have one member of the Opposition, who until recently was also the leader of the Council on the Opposition side. But this member of the United Party was an honourable man. He laid down his leadership of the Opposition and of the Council because he said he could not accept it for he would then be required to observe a dual loyalty. To-day he is in disfavour with his members in the Transvaal because he is no longer their leader and because he is also a member of the Executive Committee now and that is why he does not want to lead them in the Councill He was at least honest in connection with the matter. What is the position to-day? He is not trusted by his own people and the Nationalists do not trust him. And what is his portfolio in the Transvaal? Little more than the eradication of weeds and pounds and things of that kind. And he draws the same salary. What about the hon. member for Hospital, who referred sneeringly to remuneration when he was mayor of Johannesburg? And in what make of car was he driving around? What compensation did he receive?

He cannot even ride a scooter.

Yes, he certainly cannot even ride a piebald pony. I want to say that all of us who were members of the Provincial Councils realized our responsibility. We set ourselves the task of promoting the interests of our provinces. Which members on the opposite side have taken part in this debate? With the exception of two, the others have never been Provincial Councillors. Why have the other hon. members who held important positions in the Provincial Council of Transvaal not taken part in the debate? They are responsible persons … [Interjections.] Yes, you know the position; why do you not take part in the debate? I am grateful that the hon. member is now going to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker, for we have always considered him a responsible man. I hope that he will speak in a responsible manner when he speaks on this matter.

I want to conclude by saying that we welcome this measure for we realize that from now on we shall get better government and more efficient government. The governing party will rule and it will assume the responsibility as it has always done in the past.

We have heard quite a lot this afternoon about the history of this proposed piece of legislation. Nothing that has been read out and nothing that has been said by the several members of the governing party has convinced anybody, I am sure, of the legitimacy of introducing legislation such as this, into this House. Nothing has been said to justify the doing away with the representation of a minority group, particularly not by the last speaker.

I first want to say something about what had happened during the years when the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was in the Provincial Council. The hon. member was a member of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council during its most difficult years of administration. We know that he was a member of the Provincial Council when that heated debate took place on the Education Ordinance. I can well imagine what took place on Exco. I can well imagine how he fought against the introduction of mother tongue education throughout the entire scholastic career of a child. I also know that the fight which he put up in Exco did not prevent him from making one of the longest speeches in history against the present Government. I know how he fought against the Administrator at the time. I know how he fought against the other members of the Executive Committee. That hon. member had no difficulty in fitting in his position as a member of Exco with his position as a member of the Provincial Council.

I had great difficulty.

You had no difficulty at all. The only difficulty that the hon. member had was to stand on his legs after the two and a half hours had passed. I was responsible for helping him along for a little longer. He should not come and tell us what difficulties he had.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions. What is going to happen if there is a dead heat in an election? Say for instance there are 62 candidates in the field: 30 are returned by, say, the Nationalist Party 30 are returned by the United Party and two by the Progressive Party.

Then we take a photofinish.

Yes, we will take a photofinish and the Judge will give his verdict of a dead heat. Now I want to know how the Executive Committee is then going to be nominated? Can the hon. the Minister tell us that? Can he tell us what is going to happen if there is a balance of power in the hands of a very small minority group? This will possibly happen and it has happened in the past. There is no provision in the Bill to cover that sort of situation. I do not know whether the Minister has read through the Bill very carefully because I see him studying it now. I want to know what he intends doing in cases of such an eventuality, and the possibility is there, especially in these times. That is the one point the Minister must answer.

You are very pessimistic as to your chances.

The second point is what is going to happen if, during the life of a provincial council which has a small majority, several resignations or deaths take place on the governing side and the balance of power is changed? Do the members of Exco have to leave their positions? What will happen? Is he going to make provision for such an eventuality or will it mean that a minority party will continue to rule in that province?

When the debate was adjourned I put several questions to the Minister and one of them dealt with the position that might arise if there was an equal number of candidates returned to a provincial council after an election, and what would take place if such a dead heat occurred. During the debates in the Provincial Council during my stay there, which coincided more or less with the period when the hon. the Minister was there, I remember one debate in which the Minister threw up his hands in horror when gambling was discussed. He objected most strongly to gambling at that time. We were then discussing the abolition of dog-racing. On looking through the Bill we find that in Clause 2 of the Bill the Minister advocates the drawing of lots to decide who shall govern the Province. I always thought that the drawing of lots and raffles and lotteries were things which we must not even talk about.

Do you not know your Bible?

The Bible has nothing to do with this. There are many things in the Bible which we are not adhering to. Now, I want to know why the government of a province should be decided on by the toss of a coin or the drawing of lots. If that is a better method of determining the Provincial Administration than the present one, then I feel sorry for the future.

The arguments put up by the Minister do not really contain any substance whatever. He said that in the past there had been the utmost co-operation from the members of Exco and the greatest loyalty from them. If that is the case, why does he suddenly want to change this system? If there has not been a complaint from anyone, at any rate from the minority groups, during the past 52 years, why should we suddenly have to change the system? If the system was good enough until the Select Committee sat on the Constitution Bill last year, why suddenly from then to now, should we have a change? If this was such a bad system, which we must remember lasted 52 years, and it needed to be changed, surely that was apparent before the Select Committee sat? What has happened during the past few months to make it so imperative that we have to come here and suddenly be faced with this legislation?

That brings me to the point made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr, Muller). He wants domination from top to bottom. He made it quite clear that nothing less than complete domination would satisfy him. Whether he speaks for his party or not, I do not know, but that is what he said, and I take it that he is a responsible member of his party, even though he sits in a back bench. He was in the Provincial Council and he was a member of Exco, and was it his idea to do away with the minority groups in Exco? Is he influencing the hon. the Minister to-day? I am very suspicious when I hear that type of speech and see this type of legislation. I am disappointed because it is domination from top to bottom by one party and we on this side are against that type of thing. For the past 52 years no complaints have come from those people who have found themselves in difficulties, according to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). They have done their work properly and honestly, according to the Minister. There has never been a complaint from any Administrator that the work done by these people was not efficient. Why must they now be got rid of? I was rather perturbed at the facts given to us here by the Minister, who says that only minor tasks are given to members of Exco belonging to the minority group. If these people are as loyal as he says, if they co-operate as well as he says, if they have never had any trouble with their own caucuses, why should they be given only minor tasks? Are they not to be trusted? Are there any tasks in the Administration today that could not be handed over to them? Perhaps some of the financial measures, yes, but why should not a member of the minority group be given the portfolio of Hospitals? It was done efficiently and honestly, and if the opinions clashed with those of the Administrator and the majority group, then surely the voting process was sufficient to put it aside. Surely that was the process, but now nobody must be heard on the Executive except the majority group.

I feel that if difficulties have been put in the way of the Administrator over past years, as has been said here, the Administrators had their say before the Constitution was changed, and it was the time then to change the present set-up in the Provinces. I feel that this type of legislation could quite easily be set aside. There is no hurry for it and no need for it and no justification for it. I must agree with the hon. member for Springs that if we discuss this matter in six months’ time it will be time enough.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this Bill was to a large extent disappointing in the sense that the real content of the Bill was hardly discussed at all, but that the causes and the consequences of it were particularly referred to by the Opposition. But much attention was paid to the real content and object of this Bill when I said in my second reading speech what I now want to repeat, namely that the present Government very definitely does not favour the development of a federal system; that this Government realizes that our provincial system is the system we inherited at the time of Union in 1910, and that the people have become accustomed to it, and the Prime Minister, at the time he introduced the Constitution Bill, declared unequivocally that this provincial system would be accepted as it was and incorporated in the Constitution. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. And that was done. Now the first reproach was made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that the ink of the constitution was scarcely dry before we introduced this amendment of the provincial system and that he has learned from a very reliable source which he is able to credit—because otherwise, as a responsible person, he would certainly not have accepted it—that the next stage will be an amendment to the term of office of the Provincial Council. The hon. member is surely a responsible person who would not repeat gossip. If he heard something like that, I suppose he believed it. We are not a lot of children, to be amused by stories; we want facts. Now I allege that by means of this amending Bill before the House the provincial system will not be affected in any way. But the hon. members ask provocative questions, and unfortunately two of my own supporters on this side also felt that we could go a step further, and let me say immediately that I do not accept it. I do not accept it, neither from hon. members opposite nor from my own side, and in a moment I shall tell the House clearly why not, not because I am obstinate but because it will affect the provincial council system. All that is being done in this Bill is to remove an anomaly which did not, as hon. members opposite allege, constitute a good system for 50 years and against which there were no complaints. Of course there were serious complaints. At the time of Union already there were complaints, and there were complaints every year. Six years after Union there were also complaints, but the fewest complaints came from Natal and the Free State, because there the problem does not exist. The complaints emanate from the Cape Province and the Transvaal, where this problem actually exists. When I say that this Government is opposed to federalism and will never allow, whilst it is in power, greater powers to be granted to the Provincial Councils, Administrators or Executive Committees, I really mean it; and when I say here that this Government does not in the least intend applying control on the Provincial Councils, as they are now functioning, by for example reducing their term of office and retaining the right to dissolve them after a certain period, it is the truth. We have no ulterior motives in the least, and this Bill is not the forerunner of a Bill intended to change the provincial system, but what we are doing here is something which has been considered necessary for many years. Where do hon. members hope to find a clearer exposition than that given by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)? The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) tried to ridicule it, but that hon. member has been through this particular mill and has had practical experience of it. He is a man who knew what it meant to have a dual loyalty, to the party caucus on the one hand and to an oath of allegiance and secrecy on the other. It is as the result of this impossible position in which he found himself that he can speak from actual experience.

But what is more, there is great objection to the majority vote being decisive. When appointing members of the Executive Committee, it is the majority vote which has counted ever since 1910. When they are elected on a proportional basis, as was the position in the Transvaal—in the Transvaal in 1949 there were two members of the National Party and two of the United Party. In 1953 the hon. member for Vereeniging resigned as a member of the Executive Committee in order to stand for Parliament, and by a majority vote the National Party elected a third person, and if the present Senator Woolf had also resigned to stand for election, the National Party would have had all four members. In other words, the minority vote is not used consistently. It is used only once in five years on a proportional basis. That is the first point.

The second point is that when the majority vote in a province appoints all four members of the Executive Committee because the minority vote is too weak to justify having one member, the argument advanced by that side of the House fall flat completely. The great point made by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is that the minority group is being thrown to the wolves completely and has no representation or voice. But has the hon. member taken the trouble to see how many people voted in the last election for the United Party in the Free State? The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) knows those figures well; he continually quotes them. But must there be ten more in order to elect one member of the Executive Committee, and is it immoral for them to have that member whilst it is totally wrong that they should not get it if there are ten fewer votes? Are there no Nationalists in Natal? How many Nationalists voted there in the referendum or in the other elections? But they are also a minority group. [Interjections.] Where do hon. members get the idea that a minority group should be represented in an Executive Committee? What sense does that make in the essence of democracy? Where do hon. members see it? What is democracy, and what is the essence of it?

It stands in the Constitution.

As the hon. the Prime Minister said at the time, if in the referendum there is a single vote more in favour of a republic we will have a Republic, and if there is one less we will not have a Republic, and that is the essence of democracy. One abides by the majority vote and the majority rules. But one of the hon. members on this side said something true. The hon. members opposite have no conception of what the task of the Opposition is. They continually harbour feelings of frustration and of rebellion and jealousy because they are not sitting on this side of the House, but they do not want to deserve it. Those hon. members just want to define democracy at certain moments in the way which suits them best. I am now talking merely of the argument that the majority should rule. Here we now have the system by which we did it on a proportional basis, and the hon. member for Vereeniging has explained very clearly how it was possible to do so in 1910. In 1910 the Executive Committee met under the chairmanship of the Administrator. In the beginning they sat for one day a month, and later for two days, and still later a week and then for two weeks, with a full agenda, and they voted on party lines. But gradually the work increased so much that to-day the position in the Transvaal is that the members of the Executive Committee are employed full-time, and in terms of a Cabinet decision they may not participate in any other activities, with a few exceptions.

Now the position has changed. The responsibility of these people is now such that they must take certain decisions in their offices. There simply is no time to have an Executive Committee meeting with an agenda and to discuss a matter on its merits, because that would hamper the work. They must take decisions themselves.

What about the language rights of the English-speaking people? [Laughter.]

This situation has developed and I have already stated clearly in my introductory speech that hon. members opposite cannot expect the members of the Executive to be clothed with executive powers, with a party-political programme and a policy, and to take decisions —how can they expect their United Party members to be put into this difficult position where they must take important decisions in regard to policy? [Interjection.] If the hon. member wants to put a question I shall sit down, but he should not interrupt.

How can you reconcile that argument with the appointment of a Nationalist as the Administrator of Natal?

I shall come to it in a moment. I am dealing now with the members of the Executive Committee. These circumstances resulted in the fact that we carried on and on, but for many years this feeling persisted. Things have been quoted here from all sides to show that the complaints did not come only from the Nationalists. The feeling was that this was a strange system to which we had been subjected. We know that the founders of Union had difficulty in getting the various provinces together, and the price we had to pay was to say: Very well, you can act as Provincial councils with certain prescribed functions, but only within the scope of that. Then there was the pious hope that it would be a best-man government, consisting of hand-picked men, which would do the work, like a board of directors. But those expectations were not realized. To come and tell me that it worked well for 50 years and why should we make changes now—I say it did not work well for 50 years and it is getting progressively worse and we just cannot carry on like this. I just want to tell hon. members that one of the United Party Executive Committee members told me that he felt he should resign because he just could not stand it any longer; he felt that he was not trusted completely; that there were occasions when the Administrator discussed matters only with the other members of the Committee. And in the days when the hon. member for Vereeniging and I were there, we often held separate caucus meetings to devise plans to outwit the two United Party members, because it was a question of policy. That is only politics, and I want to ask hon. members that if that is what they want in the Provincial Councils, why have they not said that this is the best form of government and that we should have it in the Central Government also? Do those hon. members want to sit in our Cabinet? No, they do not, but they want to put other people into that difficult position.

That is the only way they will ever get there.

I continue with the few other worthwhile arguments, because I cannot reply to everything that was said here. Those hon. members said that we could now within five years and as the result of a by-election change a majority into minority, and what would happen then? The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) particularly mentioned it, and they felt that if the majority party were to elect the members, then the Provincial Councli should also have the power to get rid of them when they are no longer members of the majority party. I say no, and for this reason. I say no, because that is the first step towards federalism. We recognize firstly that the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee and the Administrator are three separate entities. The Administrator—and now I am coming to the Administrator in regard to whom the hon. member put a question—is an official, according to the Constitution, appointed by the State President. In other words, he is an official of the Central Government. He is an official who has to represent the interests of the Government there, who must supervise, and who has the financial control in his hands. No Executive Committee can do anything if the Administrator refuses. The result is that any Government will appoint a supporter of its party, or a sympathizer. That has always been the position. At one time a staunch supporter of the United Party was appointed as the Administrator of the 100 per cent Nationalist Free State. [Interjections.] The moment we come to this suggestion made by the hon. member, that we can remove these people also, which unfortunately was supported also by a few members on this side of the House—I just want to say that I am very sorry that we cannot accept it, because if one makes the Executive Committee responsible and gives it Cabinet status, the next demand made will be that the Provincial Council should have the right to appoint the Administrator, and then we will have complete federalism. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that we already have so many federal elements in our country but that it has not derogated from our unity, but I want to tell him this, that if we accede to this request we can forget about achieving and preserving the long-desired unity we have tried to obtain. [Laughter.] In addition, I can tell the hon. member for Pinelands, who almost burst into tears because we had introduced this Bill, whilst on the other hand we say that we are the people who seek unity and co-operation, that we have never sought co-operation with any party which is unacceptable to us. But we have sought unity and co-operation with individuals who support the standpoint of this side of the House, and I should like to see what this legislation can do to disrupt the unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people—not in the least, and it is just there that the hon. member went wrong in his argument. It has nothing to do with it. To say here that you now want to put people in a better position to do the work, that you want to create better machinery for doing the work—if the hon. member reads Section 9 of the Constitution he will see that the Executive Committee is there to continue the activities of the Provincial Council when that Council is not sitting, and that is an important task. It is not really a question of its being responsible, as a Cabinet is responsible, for its elected members. It is the executive committee of a big board of directors. The board of directors is the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee has to carry out the work. The Administrator is the Chairman (of it), and in that capacity he will have to deal with Government policy, if the Government party is in the majority. Take Natal. Who said the Government wanted to take over everything? There is no such idea. In Natal the United Party form the majority group. All that this Bill says is that where the majority, and not the Government, wishes it, these people are elected in that way. Therefore in Natal we will still have that position perhaps for a number of years—and if the hon. member for South Coast improves as nicely as he has, it may perhaps be less than five years—and then the Government Party may also be in the majority. But at the moment the United Party bears the responsibility. The United Party elected the Provincial Council and it bears the full responsibility, and what is the task of the minority group? It is to keep the United Party in Natal on its toes and to see that its policy is being implemented, and even to try to get them to accept Government policy, and to criticize where they make mistakes. If hon. members would just realize that is where the representation of a minority group lies, and not in the Executive Committee, it would be a good thing. How can the minority implement policy? Surely it is impossible. It is unheard of. It is a monstrosity which was created at the time. If it had worked as it was intended to we would not have found it necessary to make these amendments to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the main points. I wish to conclude by again referring to the leading article in the Pretoria News. After having discussed the whole matter—and I hope hon. members will see it that way—and after having discussed all the changes it says—

I want to support that. We must put these people in their right perspective, like the Opposition here. Just as we have an Opposition here from whom we expect at all times to oppose things they do not agree with, and if they want to do their duty we expect them to make a contribution towards the Government of the country. Where an Opposition says that it wants to make its contribution by means of constructive and not negative criticism, one finds a healthy state of affairs. But one does not find it in the Provincial Council where two members or one member of the Opposition sit on the Executive Committee and they are placed in the difficult position where they have to oppose on behalf of their party, and to be the first speakers, the budget they have helped to frame or legislation they have helped to draft. That is an untenable position and what I called an immoral position. These people are expected to do things one cannot expect from a person with a high standard of morality. Hon. members wanted to ridicule that by referring to motor-cars, etc., much to their own amusement. But I have never yet blamed hon. members who found themselves in that position. It is the system. They are elected. Somebody must do it, but the fact that he does it does not mean that it is right and that he feels happy about it.

I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition this: This is a forward step. Its strengthens the provincial system. This is not drawing a line through a constitution which has just been framed. It is a strengthening of the provincial system in the sense that it will now fulfil its true functions. Its true function is to formulate a policy in regard to the matters entrusted to it and to support the general policy of the governing party. The party in Natal can oppose it if it likes. During every sitting of the Provincial Councils in all the Provinces except in the Free State where there is no longer an Opposition, a motion of no-confidence has been moved in the central Government. If that is not politics, what is? How does the hon. member expect us to carry on with this system? On the contrary, we have heard no arguments from them which have made us think in the least that they would accept the amendment. If there should be a change as the result of by-elections—say, for example, we have 46 members in a Provincial Council and the United Party has 43, and as the result of death or for some other reason these figures are reversed withing the five years —will those members, if there is no legal provision for it, if they possess the necessary high morality, resign of their own accord, because the law provides that the majority party must elect the executive members? [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh about. And if it should be the case that they do not resign, there are enough checks and balances with which to deal with them and to make things so difficult for them that they will not be able to do anything and will have to get out.

I feel absolutely satisfied with these amendments. I repeat that I am grateful that we are going to put and end to this system. All I can wish the United Party is that things will go better with them, otherwise what will happen to them is what has already happened in the Free State—nothing will be left of them.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; 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.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G de K.; 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.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; 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 Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell. D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Swart, H. G.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

Hon members no doubt realize that this is not a contentious measure and that the amendments that it tries to achieve in the interests of the national and special roads system of the Republic of South Africa, are necessary. I should like to emphasize that in view of the fact that the Provincial Administrations are very intimately concerned with this question, my Department and the National Transport Commission have consulted them fully and it gives me pleasure to assure the House that the Provincial Administrations are in full agreement with the proposed amendments. The National Roads Act of 1935, with the minor amendments that have been effected from time to time, has been in operation for approximately 27 years and experience over this period has often shown that there were various defects in the existing legislation, defects which hampered the National Transport Commission in the performance of its functions. It has become necessary to amend and to augment existing legislation in respect of declared roads as a result of the world-wide revolution that has taken place over the past quarter of a century in road transport and more particularly as a result of the unknown speed at which motor vehicles travel along our high roads today.

It is unnecessary to remind the House that South Africa is amongst those countries that have the highest percentage of fatal road accidents in the world. The average figure in respect of all roads in South Africa is estimated to-day to be 29 per 100,000,000 travelled vehicular miles per annum and compares particularly unfavourably with the average figure for America of approximately seven for all roads—and a figure of two for the American freeways.

In order to combat this terrific loss of human lives and the damage to property that is taking place annually on our high roads, but yet to allow the heavy road traffic to travel along safely but at a reasonably high speed, there has been a country-wide demand for freeways, that is to say, roads with strictly guarded accesses. The National Transport Commission is fully aware of the necessity and the desirability of the introduction of a system of freeways for the country and has adopted it as policy that with the planning of national and special roads provision should be made for all declared roads, in due course, to comply with the standards applicable to freeways. Unless steps are taken to-day gradually to convert the country’s primary road system into a system of freeways, the day will soon arrive when our national and special road systems, on which more than R200,000,000 has been spent to date, will be found to be inadequate and obsolete. The result will be that it will have to be written off and started afresh. All possible steps should therefore be taken timeously to limit the loss—that could be regarded as a national catastrophe—to the minimum by making the existing systems of declared roads as safe as is within our power to do.

The objects of Clauses 1, 2, 4 and 8 are to remedy certain defects which exist in the Principal Act to-day. Clause 3 empowers the National Transport Commission to arrange for the redemption of certain loans which the four Administrators raised before 1 April 1935. Repayment of these loans was stopped during 1948 but it has become clear that from the point of view of the National Transport Commission it will be more economical to repay these loans than to continue to pay interest for an indefinite period.

I have already referred to the necessity for freeways. The National Transport Commission also fully realizes the need for urban freeways and has already indicated its willingness to give financial assistance in respect of the introduction of freeways. As the principal Act reads at the moment such assistance could have been in the form of declaring existing freeways as national or special roads but such a step would have considerable disadvantages. The best thing seems to be to make special provision, as we are doing in Clause 5. Hon. members will see that the proposed provision is self-explanatory.

An attempt is made in Clauses 6 and 7 to deal comprehensively with the very important question of controlling accesses to national and special roads. As far as Clause 6 is concerned, I want to point out that, in view of the modern concept of freeways, it is exceedingly dangerous to allow a farmer, for example, who has a freeway running across his farm, to drive his sheep across that freeway. Naturally the farmer must be allowed to trek with his sheep from one part of his farm to the other and the only solution is to construct a bridge across the freeway or where the terrain permits of it, to construct a subway underneath the freeway.

To my mind Clause 7 is self-explanatory. It deals with the various sets of circumstances that may arise and if this comprehensive provision is accepted, the provisions covering accesses to declared roads, as contained in the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act of 1940 (Act No. 21 of 1940), as amended, will no longer be necessary and will consequently be repealed. This is the first time that we have dared to introduce a comprehensive provision such as this. The matter was thoroughly considered and it is hoped that the provision will function effectively and fairly. If experience shows, however, that it is defective in some respects or that it falls short in others, I shall in due course come back to the House in order to put those matters right.

In my opinion Clause 9 is a necessary provision. Insofar as national and special roads outside urban areas are concerned, it will put a stop to the extremely dangerous practice of trading within a road area. It seems as if a state of affairs has developed where vehicles never move from one month to the other, that permanent business sites have developed within road areas. In any case, the danger to the travelling public that is inherent in this practice of trading within a road area, is far too great to be allowed to continue.

Clause 10 empowers me, after consultation with the Administrator concerned, to instruct the National Transport Commission to undertake the basic planning of a national road. In view of the fact that 100 per cent of the construction and maintenance costs in respect of national roads, come from the National Road Fund, it is considered to be only logical that the Commission should also play a part in the basic planning of such roads. It is not the intention of the Commission to construct national roads itself, or to renew, repair or maintain them and we do not intend amending Section 17 of the Principal Act. The Commission is further empowered, at the request of the Administrator concerned, to undertake the basic planning of a special road.

These are the important provisions of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. As I have said this is not a contentious measure and I trust it will enjoy the support of the House.

I think we in South Africa are fortunate indeed in the quality of our roads. I know most countries in the world and, by any standard of comparison, particularly in the light of our particular circumstances, very high praise indeed can be given to our road builders. We live in a country of vast areas with a strung-out transport system, high mountains and difficult terrain, rivers which are sometimes sandy and some times come down in flood. Yet we have built up a system of roads of which any country could be proud. The contribution they must have made to our economic development is considerable. We must recognize that a great deal of this credit goes to the excellent co-ordination and co-operation that has been maintained between the National Transport Commission and the different provinces, divisional councils and subordinate authorities concerned with road construction. Our attitude is that we wish to assist all we can in the great task of making our good roads even better.

The hon. the Minister has told us that this is practically an agreed measure. The Bill, of course, will get our support. In broad principle we welcome it. In the Committee Stage we will suggest two or three important amendments, which I hope the Minister will accept. The amendments that we intend moving will make this measure a more workable Act, when it becomes an Act. Above all it will be fairer. We approve of the whole principle, but we fear that some of the powers sought are greater than will be needed for the proper administration of the Act. The Bill has many objects and before I go on to deal with some of them may I pay tribute to the ready help and assistance which the Minister’s Department always gives me and members on this side in these matters. They explain points to us patiently and adopt an attitude which is quite objective in every way.

As I see the Bill it contains some seven principal objects. Its first aim, the overriding aim, I think, is to exercise greater control over access to and egress from declared roads. The Minister has given us interesting statistics to show that if it were only safety that we were considering, this type of control must of necessity be passed on to the Commission. The second principle is that it seeks to deal with “remaining extents” around and about declared roads. Here, Sir, we will have some useful suggestions to make to the Minister. We feel that some power must be taken to tidy up the process of road-making when it leaves unusually shaped or awkward or valueless “remaining extents”.

The Minister also intends in this Bill to restore to the National Road Board the power to redeem loans should they so wish, instead of paying interest on them. I think he will forgive me if I remind him that the practice of loan redemption is something that we suggested to him in other debates.

The fourth principal aim is to finance out of the Road Fund the building of “service” roads which have access to declared roads even though these service roads may be outside a declared area. That is also necessary, Sir, and I shall shortly deal with some aspects of that matter. Fifthly, he seeks to finance, to plan and to control the ingress and exits of throughways in our cities. He seeks to do this in a sensible way, I think, without the necessity of declaring them special roads or national roads. To do all these things the Minister naturally takes power to apply sanctions regarding adequate access to and egress from roads and to compel local authorities to comply with agreed planning. I think the whole House should examine these sanctions carefully. This Bill contains many new ideas of control and we shall have to see whether or not the control to be exercised is not too harshly planned.

Lastly, and I say in parenthesis that I think it is necessary to do so, this Bill will enable the Commission to take part in the basic and preliminary planning and routing of declared roads. I consider most of those seven objectives of the Bill or practically all of them, to be necessary and we will support them, with two exceptions which can be met by amendment.

The explanatory memorandum from which the Minister quoted extensively has been helpful to us. But in certain respects the explanatory memorandum needs explanation itself. Particularly in connection with Clause 2 which deals with “remaining extents”. By the way I notice an error which the hon. the Minister may perhaps also have marked. It says—

I think he means “expropriation”.

I queried that with my Department and they told me that “appropriation” was “expropriation”.

Well, the law on the matter does not agree with the Minister. The Afrikaans is correct but perhaps his Department should go into the matter as far as the English text is concerned, a little more closely.

One is constrained to ask what is the real meaning of a “remaining extent”. I know from my own personal experience that it is advantageous that small and odd-shaped, useless remaining portions of land through which a road is built, should be taken over, if possible by treaty, if unavoidable in certain circumstances, by expropriation or the milder sounding term “appropriation”. There have been cases where adjoining owners have been unreasonable; where the owner of some queerly shaped piece of land or a small and valueless remaining extent tries to compel the Board to give access to it in terms of the original Act. But each case must be treated on its own merit. I myself had a piece of land and an awkward triangle was left after the road had been taken through my land. By negotiation I was given some other land that adjoined mine and I was only too glad to take it over. Now my neighbour had what looked like an awkward piece of land as a “remaining extent”, also triangular in shape. But quite rightly he was unwilling to surrender it. He eventually built a tea-house of a superior character on this piece of land. It is to-day his sole, but profitable means of existence. In that case the remaining extent was very valuable to him, indeed almost a necessity. It would be awkward if, as this Bill provides, harsh compulsions could be brought to bear to compel an owner to surrender a “remaining extent” without appeal. The Board may be of opinion that the land is useless, whereas in fact the owner might be able to make out a very good case to a disinterested court for retaining it. We will, therefore, suggest an amendment when we come to the Committee Stage. I believe it would be unfair in many cases to leave the final decision in a case like this to the judgment of a bureaucrat, shall we say, or of somebody however well-intentioned, whose judgment could not be queried. We think that in the case of “remaining extents” the consent of the owner should be obtained before purchase. We will draft suitable suggestions along those lines. Sir, we agree with the Minister’s plan regarding loans in Clause 3. We can also approve of Clause 4, the clause in connection with service roads, which are built of course out of moneys provided by the fund, but are not maintained by the fund. They are necessary particularly in view of the new style of planning, where a service road does not necessarily run parallel with the national road, but sometimes takes another line of country in order, perhaps, to preserve the beauty of the road or perhaps to skirt round or through a little town or village.

Clause 5 is the most important clause, I think, in this Bill. It is a new idea and on the whole I approve of it. Up to the present, the conception of the National Road Fund has been that it is primarily intended for the provision of rural as opposed to urban roads. The cost in the past, even of link-roads from National or Special roads to the street system of a town, was almost invariably held to be outside the scope of the Road Rund. This new provision in Clause 5 brings us closer to what may become eventually an ideal system. The policy of the National Transport Commission is at present, I understand, under re-examination, and I think it is opportune to suggest that further extensions of responsibility of the Board towards the roadways in urban areas and throughways should be considered. Many of us hope that in time the Commission may see its way clear to go further in helping to plan and finance important throughways in our big cities; throughways that tie in with the city’s own road system and facilitate the free flow of traffic without impeding either the traffic of the town or of the peri-urban areas. But that is another question. We can examine that policy on another occasion. Meanwhile let me say that I myself approve of this Clause 5 in the Bill.

The hon. Minister has referred to Clauses 6 and 7. They are clauses in respect of which we have differences of opinion. The object of the clauses is acceptable. It makes it possible for the National Transport Commission to provide out of the fund, bridges or culverts under or over a road, as well as gates for landowners. Again the safety factor is most important. It is an excellent idea, instead of having both sides of a farm connected up by gates which of necessity have to be used for the transport of various stock or goods across the national road, to be able to pass them under or over the road. But there is one element here which needs rather close examination. The Board in terms of this Bill remains the sole judge (I don’t suggest that it will be an arbitrary judge, but it could be) as to whether the new crossings are adequate for the owner whose land adjoins the road. In the main Act, in relation to gates, the owner had the right to as many gates “as may be necessary”, not “as may be necessary in the opinion of the Board”. These insidious words “in the opinion of the Board” are a new importation I am sure there were not many disputes; but in case of a dispute, the aggrieved person previously had access to a court of law, an objective body calculated to settle a dispute fairly. That right has now been taken away from the owner in this Bill. I know the difficulties that face the Commission. Here is a farmer and a road runs right through part of his farm. He may have different camps, three or four or five camps, and he needs a gate opposite each of his camps to get access to his camps across the road. Instead of allowing that there may be six gates, the Board will build either one culvert or one bridge (much more expensive, but much safer). Then they may erect gates between the camps inside the enclosure. The Board is able to meet their expenses out of the fund. But the Board is the sole judge as to whether the culvert or the bridge supplied is adequate for the farmer’s needs. In that case again I think there should be access, in case of disputes, to an impartial judge. It should not be left to the judgment of one of the interested parties to decide what is “adequate”. Neither the Board, which of course provides access by way of culvert or bridge without cost to the farmer, nor the farmer who has rendered up his land, should be unreasonable. We should not import into this Bill anything that might smack of arbitrary judgment, should a dispute arise. I hope the Minister will agree with me, that disputes should go, as was the position under the previous Act, to an impartial court. Why has this new procedure been introduced when the old worked so well?

I take it that Clause 7 is considered vital to the proper administration of this Act. It is the sanctions clause. It aims to control access to and egress from declared roads. It contains powers to close existing accesses and to provide new accesses. It contains the power to compel a subordinate authority to provide such access; it makes allowance for the acquisition of property by treaty or expropriation, and also of course makes allowance for compensation; it provides for the erection of bridges and subways. Here again the possible correction of the courts of an arbitrary decision has been excluded. That should not happen. It is the Board which decides, without any appeal against its decision, whether such bridge or subway gives the owner reasonable access to the other portions of his lands. I know that disputes will seldom occur. In the past my experience has been that these things are fairly speedily adjusted, and neither side should be unreasonable. In the case of a farmer, he is getting something for nothing, and in the case of the Government, they also get something for nothing in the way of the right to make the road. But I feel that what we have to do in this case is to accept the inevitable. I acknowledge the fact that there must be some form of control. The element of compulsion and punishment for non-compliance is essential. So I have asked myself: If I were administering the Act, would I need this clause, and I find myself saying that, anyway at the start, I would need these powers. Therefore I think that, with reluctance we will have to give these powers to the Board, knowing that this is an experiment, knowing that this is a new idea, hoping that experience will show that harsh measures are not necessary. I would like the hon. the Minister to give an undertaking that if he finds the Board does not need the vast powers it is given, he will come to this House later and minimize them. If he does not, perhaps a new government will do so.

The final provisions of the Bill can be dealt with by me just as shortly as the hon. the Minister dealt with them. Trading and hawking on national roads is controlled, as I feel it should be controlled, and I believe the Minister has organized commerce behind him in his method of control of trading on the national roads. The last clause is also necessary. There seems to have existed some doubt in the past as to whether the Commission could undertake out of its funds to take full part in the basic and preliminary planning, in the routing and direction of national and special roads. That doubt is now removed. Expenses incurred in this way can be met, as they should be met, out of the Fund. Preliminary planning is not left entirely to the subordinate authorities. Some control now can be exercised and indeed should be exercised from the very beginning. It does not, however, I am pleased to say, make the Commission a road-builder. That is a function it does not want, and a function it should not have. Exactly the same type of machinery for co-ordination remains as was used before and was used so successfully. This new provision also makes duplication and unnecessary expense a thing of the past. This preliminary planning and initial control of works is important.

I have said that the National Transport Commission does not wish and should not become a road-builder. Nevertheless I think it can and it should exercise control and have an influence over road-builders and road-planners. I should like it to be more conscious of aesthetic considerations. In this age, this modern age of speed and jet-propulsion, where the aim of so many road-planners seems to be to make a road as straight as a Roman road, straight in its monotony and always speedier. The ruthlessness with which the straight road forces its way along, cutting through lands and buildings and forests, all in the cause of the demon speed, is to me quite distressing. I wonder sometimes whether our road-builders and planners have sufficient aesthetic appreciation. Take our Cape Town roads for example. I might illustrate it by our own De Waal Drive and Rhodes Avenue. In the cause of speed, (the Minister and myself living in the same direction can now get into town a few minutes earlier) glorious trees are being methodically felled and fields ploughed up. I suppose this is the price one must pay for progress, but it upsets me. I have been a member of the Table Mountain Preservation Board for some time and I know that parts of the mountain slopes, which we do not control, are being spoiled. He who plants a tree does something pleasing in the eyes of God and man. It seems sad to see great noble century old oak trees, having given four hundred seasons of beauty to mankind, pushed over, toppled over by some modern machine, the still living roots wrenched out of the earth and all the beautiful forest land destroyed. Why? Just because we want to rush straight through this particular area in haste and speed instead of meandering or circling around in comfort. I look, and all of us must look, and the Minister must have seen the desecration that is taking place in that beautiful piece of meadowland just above Mostert’s Mill. I know the whole history of it. Originally wretched and pernicious cluster pines that destroyed the soil, destroyed the bird life and animal life there. These were cleared away and new grasses planted and the beauty was restored. A splendid view was opened up. The old Mostert Cemetery with the great spreading oak tree came into view. Beyond it we could see a glorious view of the Rhodes Memorial and look right up the slope to Devil’s Peak. The streams started running again, Sir. The whole place was a place of beauty. And now in the cause of quick transport, great bulldozers have gashed holes in this field, a great python of a road snakes up and round and has taken away much of the beauty of the place.

But I must get off my hobby-horse I hope the House will excuse me for having wandered so far afield. I will satisfy myself by asking the Minister to use what influence he has with, or to give directions to the Commission. Ask the Commission to exercise as far as possible some sense of judgment regarding the aesthetic value of the surroundings to roads. Ask them not make themselves ardent servants of the great modern god “speed.” This side of the House in broad principle agrees with the objects of this Bill, but we will have something to say in the Committee Stage, regarding the methods by which those objects are to be achieved.

This is an outstandingly good Bill which the Minister has introduced, not only because of the good effects it will have on our system of roads but also because it has the useful effect of getting the lion and the lamb to lie down together. Because it is the first time, I may say, that I fully agree with what the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has said, especially in his peroration which usually arouses other emotions in one. To-night it carried me with him in pleasant agreement, and so we find that between those of us who are the farthest removed from each other, there are still matters on which we can agree.

The broad objects of this Bill are, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, excellent objects and very necessary at the present time. I want to say nothing further about it, except this, that I think that the Minister and the Department of Transport have through the years succeeded in building up a road system in South Africa which should be the rightful pride of the nation, and what we have before us now are again some timely amendments to enable us to make this road system meet the increasing demands.

There are however a few points to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, perhaps not for consideration and amendments at the present moment, but maybe at a later stage. The first is the point that the hon. member for Wynberg also mentioned, i.e. the purchase and if need be appropriation (let me use that word) under Clause 2 of remaining pieces of land. I think something can be said in favour of requiring the owner’s permission in such cases or that it should be in the interest of road development. At the moment no qualifying provision is included that it has to take place in the interest of road development if the owner does not consent. The general purport of this Clause is of course quite correct and in favour of the owner. At the moment the Road fund cannot buy the useless remaining pieces of land, and it is often the only reasonable way in which to compensate owners. As to the very important Clause 5, which provides that throughways through cities may in future be financed either partially or entirely by the Fund, I just want to move this objection that the Act only provides at the moment that any condition may be laid down by the Board, and that is putting it very generally. Unlike the hon. member for Wynberg who feels that perhaps too many sanctions were taken up in the sub-sections, I am afraid that the Transport Commission does not retain enough authority in respect of the throughways which they make through cities. I will mention a few elementary things: The changing of speed limits, either too low or too high speed limits; it may accidentally be left out of the conditions and then such a local authority is free. But there are a hundred-and-one other things which are not always foreseen, e.g. in the replanning of a city and the changing of the use to which adjacent land is put; from a residential area to industrial purposes or a business area or whatever it may be. There are many conditions of use which are changed from time to time by a local authority and which are not necessarily provided for by the Board when the conditions are drafted. I would like to see a provision here that any ordinance by a local authority or resolution by a local authority having the effect of an ordinance, e.g. a resolution on city planning, must be approved of by the Transportation Commission after such a subsidy is accepted, in order that road and its surroundings practically becomes available to the Transport Commission.

On Clause 6 I want to say very little. It is the Clause concerning the closing of farm gates. I also do not think that it is necessary for us to have a judicial appeal in this regard when somebody is dissatisfied with the accesses which are provided, also under Clause 7. I think we should guard against opening the door increasingly to appeals and essential fragments through such administrative decisions. You have a small number of unreasonable people in the world who can waste a tremendous lot of time and cause trouble if you make it too easy for them to go to court. But I do want to ask the hon. the Minister and the House to handle the closing of farmers’ gates carefully if the House is to grant subways for cattle. It sounds very nice to say that a subway under the road will be provided, and it is a brilliant idea, but we are forgetting that the road reserve of our national roads may easily be 150ft. wide and I want to give the assurance that when you come up against such a 6’×6’ cattle subway which is 150 ft. long for the first time, and you see that it is dark on the other side, and you think you have to put a herd of 200 to 300 red Afrikaners through it then it is not child’s play to get the cattle to go through that subway.

There can be a bridge.

Unfortunately it is usually not a bridge for cattle. The bridge is usually in the case of large excavations, for vehicles, but the most conventional passage is a subway. Therefore the Commission should deal safely with the people who have to use cattle subways.

Under Clause 7, I want to make my only urgent appeal to the Minister. Here we arrive in Clause 7 read together with Clause 6, at the important and necessary principle that the authorities have to control the accesses to our national roads, and these accesses now become what was historically servitudes of right of way. Every piece of farm land adjacent to a national road is to-day effectively cut off from that national road by the provisions of this Bill, as if there is any farm which does not have any exit to the main road, as if there is another farm lying between you and the main road, and as our Roman-Dutch Law has recognized through the ages. If you have to obtain an access of this nature over another man’s farm, a servitude of right of way is registered, and this access is to-day what the servitude of right of way, was. It is just as important. When you buy a piece of land and it has three or four or five convenient accesses to the national road, it is of much greater value than when you buy a piece of land which has one access to the national road. Furthermore the question arises whether the Commission is functus officio. You apply for an exit and the exit is refused. Could you come again after three months (you can at the moment) and ask again and again after six months? There is no end to the asking. I just want to state this proposition: I think this clause should be developed further in order to bring in two principles; in the first place that every entrance shall be registered on the deed of transport of affected property, and where an exit is refused, in other words, where the final decision has been given on the whole boundary line, the negative servitude must also be registered that there shall be no exit except the exit A or the exit B, and it must be registered so that the purchaser knows for all time what his rights are, and if a stranger is to buy he will be able to see exactly what he is buying. These provisions create economic interests in the land which are so important that it should not remain unregistered, and registration is furthermore the only easy method with which to reach finality on the decisions. If you have asked for three or four exits and the servitude is registered then, both positive and negative, with regard to exits A and B, and in the remainder of the national road there is no exit, then the case is decided and you cannot come back to the Transportation Commission again and again.

What about subdivision?

It is a feature which I just wanted to mention. Of course this Bill does not provide for it, but with subdivision it is dealt with in the proposal which I already made, because when a positive and a negative servitude is once registered that you may go out only at A and B, and you come to sub-division, then it inevitably means that the person who subdivides will have to give a servitude of right of way parallel to the national road, and outside the national road, so that the new subdivisions will have exits. But if we are to leave the matter as it is to-day, i.e. where nothing is registered, then the land will be subdivided and then the innocent purchasers of the subdivision will come to the Commission and say: “What can I do now? I was very unfortunate, I have bought a piece of land with 200 yards adjacent to a national road, and you must please give me an exit.” The problem of subdivision will be solved if we consider the preceding suggestions. I realize that our registration of deeds resorts under the Department of Lands and that it is a section which is overworked in many ways and which has staff troubles, and that neither the Department of Lands nor the Registrar of Deeds will easily agree also to do this registration work. They will try to talk the hon. the Minister out of it. However, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to allow himself to be talked out of it, but that in the fullness of time the necessary arrangements will be made with the Ministry of Lands and that this very important additional principle will be adopted.

The hon. Minister rightly said that this is a comparatively simple Bill in its provisions as an amendment to the original Act, but there are one or two important amendments brought to the original Act in this Bill. But let me say to the hon. the Minister that I regret that when he dealt with the new principle in Clause 5 of the Bill, he did not go further, as I am sure he was able to do, in his explanation of the powers that are now being given to the National Transport Commission. I hope in the course of my speech to put one or two points to the hon. the Minister and I trust that when he replies to the debate, he will take this matter much further with the knowledge that I know he has of the subject that has given rise to the introduction of this Bill. I am going to raise a few points that arise out of the policy that is represented in this Bill, in Clause 5, the new powers to be given to the Transport Commission.

If I may say first of all a few words in regard to the other provisions of the Bill which are comparatively simple in character, for example, Clause 4 which is not new and exists in the principal Act at present, I would first of all say that the provision, as it is worded here, puts beyond doubt that the expenditure that can now be incurred by the Board in respect of the extensions and accesses to these roads, puts the position legally completely beyond doubt. As I understand it, a large measure of doubt existed in the past as to whether the Board was empowered to incur the expenditure in terms of this section, but this puts it beyond doubt. In regard to Clause 7, I think personally, that it is absolutely vital that the control of, to put it in the new terminology, ingress and egress to any national road or service road should be completely in the control of the Transportation Commission as such. Because otherwise it would be impossible to plan a national highway in the sense that it is a national highway if other authorities have a full right to build their ingresses and egresses how and when they like. I think the powers that are taken here to control the ingress and egress to a declared road are necessary. In a sense one might say that it is surprising that the Commission itself in the past has not come before now to ask for the introduction of a Bill asking for powers in that regard. Then there is one other point in regard to the new principles that seek to include a new Clause 15ter prohibiting trading rights on declared roads. I think this is necessary. If one travels in the Transvaal along some of the national highways there, it is regrettable to see comparatively near to the urban centres where there has been a by-pass, the erection of these stores which mar the highway, the erection of large advertising signs, and one feels that the safety factor—and I understand that this matter has been the subject of a report by the Safety Council—is also of the utmost importance. This provision therefore is essential particularly in view of the extension of our peri-urban areas where you see this increased trading going on on the national roads. One welcomes the addition of a provision such as this to give the commission powers to take action against any person trading on a national road. These minor provisions of the Bill are, generally speaking, improvements to the existing Act which can be welcomed, with the exception of a point or two that was raised by the hon. member for Wynberg where in the Committee Stage we will introduce amendments.

But, Sir, if you will allow me the same liberty to digress but for one moment on the same line of thought followed by the hon. member for Wynberg, may I say that I do not quite agree with him that when a national highway is constructed and traverses miles of our beautiful country, of necessity a national highway is an ugly thing. One brings to mind when you drive on a national highway and you cast your eye over the South African veld, such wonderful words as those composed by Roy Campbell, the famous South African poet, when he said: “Cast the window wider sonny, let me see the veld, rolling grandly to the sunset where the mountains melt”. And undoubtedly, Sir, when one traversed the new highways of this country, then that is what one does see—where the mountains melt. I as a South African find it beautiful.

But now I want to come to the most important provision of this Bill. Primarily the reasons for the introduction of this measure is the new principle embodied in Section 5, where the Board is now being empowered, or let me put it clearly, Mr. Speaker, where the Board is being given permissive power and discretionary power to expend from the National Road Fund moneys as a subsidy to an urban local authority for the construction of any throughway. To make it perfectly clear, in this Bill the term throughway is used. As the Minister knows, there are many descriptions of a throughway; they are known as express ways, urban arterial connections and free ways. But I believe in this Bill the Minister has selected the term throughway. It is perhaps in a sense very appropriate in terms of this clause. But in essence, what the term boils down to is this. It is a connection or construction of a highway on a similar scale to that of any other national highway in the country to give movement to fast-moving traffic, other than slow-moving traffic, within closely built-up areas. That is the prime function of a throughway. The second function is to enable quick access from one major urban centre to another when the national highway has to traverse a closely built-up urban area. Now, if that is so, my first question to the hon. the Minister is this. The Minister knows there has been a committee known as the Borckenhagen Committee, which has been sitting for a very long time and which has brought out no less than three reports. This committee was a committee of inquiry into the financial relations between the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities. The third interim report of this committee deals with the financing of roadways. This report is a rather voluminous report and it has a great deal of interesting data and information. The Borckenhagen Committee was a committee of experts and they took evidence from people interested in the construction, the control of our South African highways, the provincial authorities, urban authorities, the Federation of Road Users, the Automobile Association—in all sorts of directions the committee took evidence with a view to making recommendations to the Government for the financing and the construction of national highways, both in the rural areas and in the urban areas. Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to me that the hon. the Minister, after all the work done by this most important committee, after the vast volume of evidence collected by the committee, introduces this Bill and says no word about the committee. Because surely one must assume, if one looks at the recommendations contained in this report and the evidence taken by the committee in this regard, that the provisions of Clause 5 have been based on the evidence taken by the Borckenhagen Committee, and on its recommendations. Now, Sir, I do not want to bore you with a host of quotations in respect of this matter, but I do want to draw your attention to certain very relevant observations made by this committee in their study of this question of the financing of throughways and express ways in an urban area, in connection with which the provisions of Clause 5 now seek to empower the National Transportation Commission to accept certain financial obligations by way of subsidy. The first reference to this report I wish to make is in regard to the comments made by the committee in general, in regard to the building of arterial ways. Because bear in mind, Sir, the amendment to the original Act before you is to allow the National Transportation Commission to subsidize the work undertaken by the urban local authority in the building of a throughway. That is the prime purpose of Clause 5. Now what does this committee say about that in regard to the financing and costs of such work undertaken by the local authorities? They say this—

Let us forget the second part. They say it is neither equitable nor desirable that the high cost of arterial roads in urban areas should be financed wholly from municipal revenue. Now I take it the Minister has accepted that comment of the committee, and that is why the Minister is empowering the Transportation Commission permissively and in his own discretion, if he so wishes, to give this assistance to an urban local authority. But as it studied the evidence the committee went further and took a far stronger line, because in its recommendations the committee says this. I am referring to par. 119 and 200 of the report—

It goes on to say this—

I ask the hon. the Minister: Is that a sound principle? It was based on evidence. Then finally, if we look at the actual recommendations. we find that on further evidence the committee stated, or rather made this actual proposal—

So the conclusion of this most important committee, appointed by the Government, is that when it comes to the question of assisting local authorities in respect of the construction of these throughways, these arterial road connections which link up with the whole National road network, the recommendation of the Borckenhagen Committee is that at least the responsibility to a certain measure should be accepted by the National Transportation Commission—they recommend 50 per cent. I do not suggest for one moment that the Minister must accept the principle of 50 per cent. But what I would suggest, Mr. Speaker—and I would like to hear the hon. Minister on this—is why, after having received the recommendation of such an important committee, does he now say to the National Transportation Commission: You can, if you so wish and you can in your discretion, if you wish, finance an urban local authority in connection with the building of these arterial road connections to link up with our whole national roads network. Because, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important points made in this report—if the Minister has studied it he will know it is so—is that the second phase of the building of the whole national roadwork structure throughout the country, is that the next 25-year programme should consider the question of connecting in the urban areas the whole national roadwork system of our country as it has developed.

Now, Sir, to us who come from the Rand and who represent Johannesburg constituencies, this is a most important matter. It is a matter of great interest to us and to the people we represent. Because primarily, as we know it, this provision is being included in this Bill to meet the situation and a commitment already undertaken by the National Transportation Commission. I think the Minister will confirm this, that the Commission has already accepted an obligation without having the legal right to accept that commitment.

They have the legal right.

But they have not the legal right to pay the money out of their funds.

The position is that the road must be declared before the National Transportation Commission can make any contribution. They have the legal right to do it. But now I want to obviate the necessity for first declaring it a road before making the contribution.

The Commission has the right now in the case of any declared road, but the difficulty the commission ran up against is this, that in building a through road to connect, let us say the North and the South of Johannesburg with the national arterial road network, it has to declare it as a national road, but that road would be within the area of jurisdiction of the urban local authority, and in the built-up area it would be faced with a host of problems it is normally not faced with when it builds a normal road I think that is correct.

To a certain extent.

That is why this provision is now being included in the Bill, because the Commission under this clause is empowered to subsidize the local authority that in the first instance planned or built the road. I think that is the correct interpretation.

Without declaring it.

Yes, without declaring it. But apart from the issue of declaring it a national road, the Borckenhagen Committee’s report and the evidence taken by the committee was quite clear and emphatic that this question of building throughways and express ways had become a matter of national policy, part of the roads programme of the country, as being the second phase in the development of the national roads network of the country. That was the evidence, and it was based on that evidence that the committee made the recommendation that the Commission should accept a measure of financial responsibility in the construction of these throughways.

There are many recommendations I do not accept.

I agree and appreciate that.

There is a recommendation that the Railways should pay petrol tax, which I do not accept.

You would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I were to discuss that because I am now dealing with the Minister who is dealing with road transportation and not with Railways. But when the Minister sees recommendations made on the basis of first-class evidence, then he must take note of them and he cannot just push them aside.

I take note of it but I do not accept it.

But the Minister has partly accepted it. That is my point, because in this part acceptance of the principle we who represent constituencies on the Witwatersrand are very deeply concerned, and I would therefore like to bring to your attention what in fact is the Position now—if this clause had to he accepted—in regard to the scheme for through-ways presently planned by the Johannesburg city authorities. And of course, I need not tell you it is a United Party town council.

That would not make any difference.

Yes, but it was a jolly good scheme.

I say it would not make any difference to my contribution.

Well, we are very glad to hear that. We are glad to hear that the Minister commits himself in advance. The Minister is also going to get the benefit of this scheme which has been planned by the United Party City Council. The scheme planned in Johannesburg is one which will connect the Eastern and Western arterial roads network in the Transvaal. and the North and South arterial roads network. In the first instance the scheme is to construct this North-South arterial highway right through the entire urban area, under the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg Municipality. It will connect the road through to Pretoria and it will connect the road through to Vereeniging. The planning of this throughway is a big undertaking and it is necessary to give a few details. The planning of this scheme was first conceived and considered in 1954 by the Johannesburg Municipality, obtaining the services of a renowned traffic engineering consultant by the name of Reed. He was brought at the expense of the ratepayers of Johannesburg to carry out investigations. As a result of certain recommendations made by Mr. Reed, the Johannesburg City Council’s Traffic Department conducted surveys both in regard to the internal and the external origin of traffic within the built-up urban areas of the city itself. The point that is of interest to us in considering this Bill is the fact that out of the two important proposals contained in the eventual report brought out by this Mr. Reed after some nine months of study of the problem, was that his major recommendation was that in order to relieve the whole situation of the traffic flowing into Johannesburg from the outside extremes, as well as the traffic that originated from inside Johannesburg, it was necessary to build an urban throughway, or express way or motor way, as it is called in the United States. The recommendations of this report were, in fact, accepted by the Johannesburg Municipality in 1956. It is interesting to note that in the report of the survey made, about 108,600 motor cars which entered the central urban area of Johannesburg during every 12-hour period, over 50,500 or 46.5 per cent originate from beyond the extremes of the municipal area. In other words, Sir, 50 per cent of the traffic originates from without the confines of the city of Johannesburg. It was these motorists who came from external points who added to the situation in the city, and a great deal of that was through traffic, through the urban areas to other centres beyond. What is now planned in this scheme of the City Council is a two to three lane carriage way, designed for a speed of 50 miles per hour, right through the central urban areas of Johannesburg, connecting up completely with the national roads network. In other words, it is a throughway. Mr. Speaker, it was originally estimated that this scheme would cost something like R54,000,000, of which some R41,000,000 was for the building of this gigantic through way. The remaining R10,000,000 was for the purpose of extending and enlarging egresses to the roadway itself. The actual estimated cost involved in the construction of the throughway was something like R41,000,000. The Council, in order to meet the increasing situation in its own area, imposed a special rate of three farthings over a ten-year period. Let me quote from a special report tabled by the City Council itself and made known to the public, in respect of the costs involved and how it was proposed to raise the money. It said this—

That brings me to a specific question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. The consideration of this Bill in this House does offer the Minister the opportunity of making a clear statement of policy in respect of this further development in our national highway system. We have had no statement of Government policy in regard to the construction of these urban throughways, and it is not only the Johannesburg City Council, but also other major local authorities that are now in a position that they can take no planning steps whatsoever until the Government announces its policy in regard to the financing of these throughways. [Interjections.] You know, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at members like the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), then on occasions one cannot help wandering what actually generates in the brain power of the hon. member. It is a source of continual wonderment to members on this side of the House what operates the brain power of the hon. member, but I have ceased to wonder. I think it is his close association with sheep all these years which has brought him to the state in which he finds himself now. Sir, I say we have had no statements of Government road policy in respect of the subsidization of schemes such as I have mentioned. I must limit that statement by this observation that in regard to the Johannesburg scheme—the building of this gigantic throughway in Johannesburg—there was a statement of policy made in respect of this scheme in May of last year, when the representatives of the City Council of Johannesburg met the Transportation Commission. I can say this because it has already been published. But it was stated it was subject to the necessary parliamentary authority, that the Commission was prepared to give a subsidy in respect of the scheme to the City Council for the construction of this throughway, of some R15,000,000. But they went further and said this, and this is a point on which I would also like the comments of the Minister, in order to clarify the position to the House and the country. They said that whilst the Commission was prepared to make this lump sum contribution of R15,000,000 towards this R41,000,000 scheme, the Commission was not prepared to subsidize a definite percentage of the costs of the road, but only prepared to work on the system of contributing a lump sum. I therefore think it is necessary that, if this planning is to take place, we should have a statement of policy. Let me point out that the National Transportation Commission did not in any way ever initiate this scheme, that in no way whatsoever did it conceive it, and in no way whatsoever did it originate it. It was originated entirely by the Johannesburg Municipality, elected by the United Party. Sir, I think it is necessary for the hon. Minister to give us a clear statement of policy, because my own view is that it is not desirable nor in the interest of the establishment of a proper roadway network in the country, to leave the matter as wide as this. Let me read the words, namely that the Board, that is the National Transportation Commission, subject to parliamentary approval—and I come to that point in a minute—may only assist in the construction, and the Board may only in terms of the wording use its discretion whether it would assist in the construction; and on the third condition that the Board may in its discretion and on any condition it likes assist in the construction. I put it to the hon. the Minister that if there were a national roads policy, if there were a definite percentage laid down or a formula worked out which necessitated in the national interest the construction of these throughways, it would not be necessary to have a permissive right such as this, but then it would be necessary to have an obligatory right on the part of the Board to assume its responsibility in this regard. Because it is now feasible in terms of the wording of the clause as it stands, that any responsible local authority may approach the Board and ask for subsidization of a scheme for construction of a throughway, and in terms of the powers contained in this clause they can get a direct refusal.

There are other aspects of the matter, such as the measure of control, etc. But these are wide matters, and until we have a clear-cut statement of policy from the Government— and it is the Government’s responsibility to give it to the country in order to assist local authorities to plan their roadways and through-ways in the interest not only of the citizens, but in the national interest and the interest of all citizens, in the interest of the transportation needs of our country as a whole—we cannot hope to make the necessary progress, and therefore it is necessary to have a statement of policy from the Government in regard to what it intends doing in this respect.

We welcome this Bill because it is a step in the right direction. It recognizes in a sense that the Board will finance local authorities, that it will give a measure of financial assistance. I think the powers taken are rather wide. But we welcome it as a first step and I hope the hon. Minister in his reply will give an indication whether he is prepared, perhaps at a later stage, to work on the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Committee, based on a constructive road policy for our country as a whole, which will embody the connecting up of our entire road network through the system of throughways in the urban areas.

Except for signs of unrest here and there which one notices in the speeches we have had in the House to-night, it is refreshing to sit and listen here to speeches on both sides of the House which are constructive and positive. Seeing that one feels to-night that a stage has been reached—I take it that it will be of brief duration …

Why be so pessimistic?

All the incalculable elements outside and in this House are the cause of it. Although it might be of brief duration, one finds to-night that the functions of a Government party and of an Opposition party have been put into the right perspective in this House to some extent, because this measure has been welcomed on all sides and from both sides of the House constructive criticism has been voiced and suggestions made. Now it is a fact that when that is the position we also find speeches from the other side of the House, particularly from the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), which have become somewhat confused perhaps by the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant); that being so, we feel that we are on common ground in so far as the interests of the country are concerned to such an extent that the Government side, and particularly the hon. the Minister, will feel free to make further suggestions where we think that improvements can be made without it being regarded as being malacious criticism of the Government. We want to welcome this measure heartily. These improvements which are being made by the Bill before us, one almost thinks, should have been made long ago, because they are so sound and so logical that we are surprised that it has not been done before. Nevertheless we heartily want to welcome it to-night. Now the position is, as the result of contacts that have been made with me from my constituency by way of letters and telegrams and telephone calls, I want to bring certain matters to the notice of the Minister. Before I do so, and because I would prefer not to interrupt the suggestions I want to make, and because it is almost time for us to adjourn, I wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 15 February.