I move—

1. (a) in respect of the taxable income of any person other than a company for the year of assessment ending on the twenty-ninth day of February, 1968, or the thirtieth day of June, 1968, whichever is applicable, as prescribed in the tables below:

TABLES.

1. (b) on each rand of the taxable income of any company (excluding so much as is derived from mining operations carried on by it in the Republic and, in the case of any company referred to in subparagraph (e), so much as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962) for each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of fifteen months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, thirty-three and one-third cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subparagraph a sum equal to ten per cent of such amount;
2. (c) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of any year of assessment of such company ending during the period of fifteen months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, from mining in the Republic for gold (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962), a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

in which formula (and in the formulae set out in the first proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and X the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears "o the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

and if such taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula by one for each completed amount of two thousand five hundred rand by which the said taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand: Provided further that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subparagraph a sum equal to five Der cent of such amount: Provided further that this subparagraph shall not apply in respect of any taxable income referred to in subparagraph (d);

(d) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of any year of assessment of such company ending during the period of three months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, from mining for gold on any mine in the Republic which is a post-1956 gold mine (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (/) of the definition cf “gross income” in section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962), a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

in which formula (and in the formulae set out in the first proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and X the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

and if such taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula by one for each completed amount of two thousand five hundred rand by which the said taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand: Provided further that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subparagraph a sum equal to five per cent of such amount;

(e) on each rand of the taxable income of any company, the sole or principal business of which in the Republic is or has been mining for gold and the determination of the taxable income of which for the period assessed does not result in an assessed loss, which the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962, a rate for any year of assessment of such company ending during the period of three months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, equal to the average rate of normal tax or twenty-eight and one-third cents, whichever is higher: Provided that for the purposes of this subparagraph, the average rate of normal tax shall be determined by dividing the total normal tax (excluding the tax determined in accordance with this subparagraph for the period assessed) paid by the company in respect of its aggregate taxable income from gold mining for the period from the first day of July, 1916, to the end of the period assessed, by the number of rand contained in the said aggregate taxable income;

1. (f) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of fifteen months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, from mining in the Republic for diamonds, forty-five cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subparagraph a sum equal to ten per cent of such amount;
2. (g) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of fifteen months ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, from mining operations (other than mining for gold, diamonds or natural oil) carried on by such company in the Republic, thirty-three and one-third cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subparagraph a sum equal to ten per cent of such amount;
3. (h) in respect of the taxable income of any person other than a company for the year of assessment ending on the twenty-ninth day of February, 1968, or the thirtieth day of June, 1968, whichever is applicable, a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the amount of tax determined in accordance with subparagraph (a) after the deduction of the rebates provided for in section 6 of Act No. 58 of 1962:
   • Provided that any fraction of a rand of the tax calculated under this sub-paragraph shall be disregarded: Provided further that the tax calculated in terms of this subparagraph shall not be payable by any taxpayer whose liability under this subparagraph would, but for this proviso, be less than fifteen rand;
4. (i) in respect of the taxable income of any company derived during each year of assessment of such company ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1968, from any of the sources referred to in subparagraph (b), (c), (d), (f) or (g)—
   1. (i) a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts of tax determined in respect of such year of assessment under subparagraphs (b), (f) and (g) before the addition of the sum referred to in the proviso to subparagraph (b), the sum referred to in the proviso to sub-paragraph (f), and the sum referred to in the proviso to subparagraph (g); and
   2. (ii) a sum equal to five per cent of the aggregate of the amounts of tax determined in respect of such year of assessment under subparagraphs (c) and (d) before the addition of the sum referred to in the second proviso to subparagraph (c) and the sum referred to in the second proviso to subparagraph (d):
      • Provided that any fraction of a rand of the tax calculated under this subparagraph shall be disregarded: Provided further that the tax calculated in terms of this subparagraph shall not be payable by any taxpayer whose liability under this subparagraph would, but for this proviso, be less than five rand:
      • Provided that the tax determined in accordance with any of the subparagraphs (a) to (0, inclusive, shall be payable in addition to the tax determined in accordance with any other of the said subparagraphs: Provided further that the taxes calculated under subparagraphs (h) and (f) shall be repayable to the taxpayer concerned at such times and subject to such conditions as may be provided for in the aforesaid Acts.
5. (2) That the rates fixed by paragraph (1) shall be the rates required to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 (2) of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended):
   • Provided that, subject to the provisions of any law providing for the payment of money into the Transkeian Revenue Fund, fifteen per cent of any amount of tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph (1) before the addition of the sum referred to in the proviso to that subparagraph shall accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces in such proportions as may be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette and shall in the said proportions be paid into the said provincial revenue funds in accordance with the laws relating to the collection, banking and custody of provincial revenues as though it were a tax imposed by the provincial councils of the said provinces on the incomes of companies:
   • Provided further that the rates of tax provided for in paragraph (1) (b), (c), (f), (g) and (0 shall, to the extent that such rates refer to years of assessment of companies ending on or before the thirty-first day of December, 1967, be substituted for the rates laid down in paragraph (1) (6), (c), (e), (f) and (h) of the Schedule to Act No. 55 of 1966.
6. (3) That there shall from time to time be paid to the credit of the loan account referred to in the General Loans Act, 1961 (Act No. 16 of 1961), sums determined by the Secretary for Inland Revenue to be equal to the amounts of taxes collected in accordance with sub-paragraphs (h) and (/) of paragraph (1) which are in terms of the final proviso to that paragraph repayable to the taxpayers concerned.
7. (4) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall, in respect of every year of assessment of any company ending on or after the first day of January, 1967, and during which such company derives taxable income from mining for natural oil, be paid as from the said date a tax (to be called the normal tax) in respect of so much of the taxable income of such company as is derived from mining for natural oil and is derived from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic, at the following rates: —
   1. (a) On each rand of such taxable income which is derived from mining for natural oil (excluding gas) won by the company, fifty cents;
   2. (b) on each rand of such taxable income which is derived from mining for natural oil in the form of gas won by the company, forty cents:
      • Provided that the normal tax calculated under the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall be reduced to or by such an amount as the Minister of Mines, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may determine under section 14 of the Mining Rights Act, 1967 (Act No. 20 of 1967).
8. (5) That, for the purposes of the normal tax levied under Act No. 58 of 1962 but subject to the provisions of that Act and of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts—
   1. (a)any amount received or accrued under the provisions of section 30 (3) of the Mining Rights Act, 1967 (Act No. 20 of 1967), shall be included in gross income;
   2. (b)an amount shall be deemed to have accrued to any person from a source within the Republic if it has been received by or has accrued to or in favour of such person by virtue of—
      1. (i) any contract made by such person for the disposal of any mineral (including natural oil) won by him in the course of mining operations carried on by him under any mining lease granted under the Mining Rights Act, 1967, wheresoever such contract is made or such mining operations are carried on; or
      2. (ii) any services rendered by such person to, or work or labour done by such person for, any other person upon, beneath or above the continental shelf referred to in section 7 of the Territorial Waters Act, 1963 (Act No. 87 of 1963) in the course of operations carried on by such other person under any prospecting or mining lease granted under the Mining Rights Act, 1967, wheresoever payment for such services or work or labour is or is to be made.

I wish to discuss the rates of taxation. The hon. the Minister will see that the rates provided for taxation in the income-tax bracket R5,000 to R6,000 and from R6,000 to R7,000 and up to R12,000 differ considerably. These rates of taxation, I submit, are not equitable, having regard to the rise in the tax scale of both the tax rates below the R5,000 bracket and the tax rates above the R12,000 bracket. This is particularly accentuated in the R5,000 to R7,000 a year bracket, and having regard to the fact that when this income-tax was first fixed the purchasing power of the rand was a great deal greater than it is now, I suggest that the time has arrived when consideration should be given to ironing out this curve. This matter has been raised in previous years and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it is a fundamental principle of taxation that the incidence of taxation should be equitably borne by all sections of the community. The effect of these scheduled rates and of this scheme of bracketing is to put an inequitable burden on the people in these income-tax brackets. It is no longer unusual in the average middle income group, particularly where the husband and the wife are both working, for people to be in the R5,000 per annum group or just in excess of it. I would ask the Minister to indicate whether he is going to do anything about this. It has been raised in previous years and the Minister has been asked to go into the matter and to see whether something cannot be done to iron out the curve to give a more equitable distribution of the tax burden. The taxpayers in the higher groups pay according to their ability to pay, and the same applies to the lower income groups, but for those in the R5,000 to R6,000 bracket and particularly up to R12,000 the incidence of taxation is heavier than it is for those in the other income groups. This matter requires attention, and I think that the Minister, in fairness to these income-taxpayers, should see whether something cannot be done to alter these income-tax brackets so as to give a more equitable distribution of the tax burden for these taxpayers.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked the hon. the Minister to consider giving relief to this Group of taxpayers, but I think that the Opposition owes it to this Committee to be at least a little more specific in what they ask. As hon. members know, the question of the bulge in the tax curve at that point, is a remnant of the old super-tax system. At that stage people paid normal tax but, when they reached £2,300, or the present R4,600. they also became subject to paying super-tax on their entire income. I have looked at that. In those years, before 1960, the normal rate of taxation amounted to 15d. in the pound: it started there and then it rose to 24d. up to £9,000. but when one’s income was in excess of £2,300 or R4,600, one paid, in respect of one’s entire tax assessment, an additional super-tax which started at 24d. and ended at 70d. on £9,000 or R18,000. Another thing that contributed to the fact that a curve resumed, a curve which still exists to-day, was the fact that dividends in respect of normal tax were exempted up to R4,600. When one qualified for super-tax, dividends were taxed fully. That contributed further to this state of affairs. The result of all that was that a curve or a bulge came about the present R4,600 mark in the tax curve. In all fairness I also want to point out that in 1960 the previous Minister of Finance effected a change in this respect when he introduced the block system, and the also chanced the tax on dividends. I do not want to go into the details, but the effect of that was that the curve was flattened to a certain extent, but it was of course not levelled out altogether. In 1964 he effected a further change in this respect and the effect of that was that tax relief was granted, particularly to taxpayers in the R4,600 up to R8,000 income-tax groups; that was in 1964. That resulted in the curve being flattened out to a reasonable extent. I think the Opposition must give us a clear indication of what they want further. I think that there are three proposals which they may submit to the Minister. One of them is, of course, that one may start at the figure naught and have a straight, even line up to the point where maximum tax is payable. Suppose that maximum tax is 50 per cent and that it is payable on a taxable income of R18,000, then one can have an absolutely straight line from R0 to R18,000; then the bulge to which the hon. member referred will, of course, not be there at all. If the Opposition is in favour of that, then they must say so. I think that that would be very unwise, because it would in fact hit the R4,600 to R6,000 group reasonably hard. It will hit the R5,000 group hardest, but all the groups up to R6 000 will be hit hard. Then one can have a straight line from the old R4,600 mark up to the maximum; after that it will, of course, run more horizontally; one can also have that, but these people for whom the hon. member for Pinetown has just pleaded, will also be hit reasonably hard by that. Then one can, of course, also have this from approximately R6,000 upwards, but then the greatest relief will be granted to the R8,000 to R14,000 group. Mr. Sneaker, I do not want to throw cold water on the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Pinetown, but I nevertheless think that the Opposition should come forward with a more practical proposal. They must indicate what they want more or less, and then the hon. the Deputy Minister can give them his reply. I just want to say that I think that the loss of revenue will be considerable; the loss will amount to no less than R6 million to R8 million.

The hon. member for Queenstown has repudiated what the previous Minister of Finance said last year. Last year when we raised this question the then Minister indicated that he would go into the matter and he admitted that there was a certain inequity in this curve. The hon. member for Queenstown now asks us to come forward with specific proposals. Sir, I will put forward specific proposals if the hon. member will make it possible for me to have all the departmental information at my disposal. In order to be able to come to specific proposals you must have the whole picture before you and naturally we on this side of the House have not got it. The Minister has.

And so has the hon. member for Queenstown.

With the departmental information at his disposal it is easy enough for the hon. member to make the remarks which he did here; there is nothing clever about it. Sir, this is a legacy of the old days of super-tax. Super-tax no longer applies. There is this bulge in the tax curve and we are raising this matter again because last year the then Minister of Finance admitted that there was this curve and he admitted that that there were inequities. We repeat that there are inequities and ask what the Minister is going to do about it and then we are subjected to the sort of remarks made here by the hon. member for Queenstown. The hon. member in his own remarks admits that there are inequities. He admits that there is this curve.

I was not quarrelling with you.

The hon. member admits by implication that there are inequities and then he asks us to come forward with specific proposals. We will make specific proposals if the hon. member will make available to us all the departmental information so that we can see the effect of the incidence of tax. I do not think it is disputed by the other side of the House that there are inequities as a result of this grouping of taxpayers. All we are asking the hon. the Minister to do is to see what can be done about these inequities, and if he cannot do anything about it we would like him to tell us what his reasons are.

I want to support the hon. member for Pinetown in this matter. I do not think that there is really any issue in this matter between the two sides of the House. I think there has perhaps been a certain slackness on the part of the Government. I think it is acknowledged that as a result of history there is this famous bulge in our income-tax curve. The position is that from R5,000 to R6,000 the increase is from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, and from R6,000 to R7,000 the increase is 9 per cent, from 20 per cent to 29 per cent, as against the average increases of 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent in the other groups. It is merely a question of examination and arithmetic. The position appears to be that we all want this change because the incidence of tax is falling most heavily on the people in whom we are really interested. Because it is the young executive, the young professional man, the young man who has to take his place in management in this country, who is so important. All we are asking the Government is to make the necessary analysis and to bring about the necessary change. Obviously if you have to get Rx per annum by way of income-tax and you reduce taxation in one sector, you will have to increase it in other sectors; that goes without saying. Of course, if times were normal to-day and we did not have to worry about the credit squeeze, then there could be a general alleviation of taxation for this group without affecting the position, because the hon. the Minister is actually collecting more money than he needs. That is his policy. We do not object to this policy, but we hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us that this matter will be reconsidered by him and his Department in the reasonably near future.

There is another aspect of these tables and that is the incidence of the incremental rate which is bearing very heavily upon people. There was an article published in the Sunday Times of 7th May in which it was stated: “Top wage earners pay top taxes”. The article shows that so far as South Africa is concerned, on additional income earned by many taxpayers the incidence of taxation in South Africa is heavier than in most countries of the world. They took a taxpayer in a fairly high income group whose total income was R20,000 per annum, and they calculated that on that amount he pays a tax of R9,214, leaving him with R10,786. They then went on to show that if he earned an additional R1,430, the tax payable on this amount would be R1,058, leaving him with only R372. The article then goes on to say—

We therefore have this peculiar position that the incremental rate is such that in certain income groups the incidence of tax in this country is far higher than in other countries of the world. Of course, there may be explanations; the rate may change in different groups. We know that in England, for example, the top rate of tax is higher than ours. But I think this is something that needs to be examined. I want to quote what Dr. M. D. Marais of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut said; he said—

Sir, we do not want the same thing taking place here. Then there was an article in the Natal Mercury of the 29th March in which they said this—

I think these are matters that should be investigated. We know there are problems. But it is the job of the Government to examine the problems and to see that they do not stifle initiative by means of tax and to take the necessary steps to make tax reasonable, equitable and encouraging for people to earn more money.

Now I want to speak for a moment about this question of the loan portion of the tax. If one examines this fairly carefully I think one will find that there is really only a portion loan and a portion tax. As far as we know it is going to take seven years before the loan portion of the tax is repaid. We know that seven years is the maximum period in which the Government has to repay these loans but knowing Governments it is not very likely that the loans will be repaid in a shorter period. These loans bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, but it is simple interest. In other words, the interest is added yearly to the amount of the loan. To take an example this would mean that if a taxpayer pays a loan levy of R200, he would earn R70 in interest over a period of seven years. But what is the factual position about lending and rates of interest to-day? To-day you can invest with the best possible security on a long-term basis at a minimum of 7 per cent per annum compound interest. If the taxpayer had this R200 which by law he is now forced to give to the Government, he could invest it on the soundest possible basis. At 7 per cent compound interest he would receive over a period of seven years interest amounting to R121. In effect therefore by virtue of the fact that he has to lend his money to the Government at 5 per cent simple interest, he is denying himself R51 in interest over that period. I really believe that the Government should be more realistic when it finds it necessary to impose a loan levy. It should fix the rate of interest comparable with interest that can be obtained under normal investment circumstances. In other words, the rate should be the same and it should be compound and not simple interest.

There is another matter which I dealt with fairly fully in the Budget debate, namely the question of the new company tax. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to give us a very good reason for this change in company tax and not tell us, as the hon. the Minister of Finance told us, that it was due to a technical reason and that if he did it any differently, he would not collect sufficient money this year. Let us get the position regarding company tax very clear. First of all company tax in South Africa to-day at the rate of 40 per cent is no longer low in relation to company taxes paid in other countries of the world. I said in the Budget debate, and I repeat it, that this is the same rate that is being paid in socialistic England. The other point is that in the way our tax is set up, there is no differentiation between the small company and the big company. A tax of 40 per cent on a small company is going to bear very heavily on it. There is no reason why the hon. the Minister should not adopt the same system as is applied in Australia, of differentiation between, first of all, public companies and private companies, and secondly differentiation between the first 10,000 dollars earned by the company and the amounts earned thereafter. I gave these figures and I will repeat them. In Australia a public company pays 21½ per cent on its first 10,000 dollars income and thereafter 42½ per cent. A private company only pays 21½ per cent on the first 10,000 dollars earned, and thereafter 21½ per cent, which is much lower than in this country—for small companies, who are going to find this new basis of taxation very heavy and very onerous. The second point to which we objected in the Budget debate and to which we object again is the fact that the resolutions of this Parliament which we took last year to fix the taxation for companies … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentlemen on that side want me to say that the rates of tax will be considered in the meantime, until we meet here again next year, then it is very easy for me to say yes. I can assure the House that the rates of tax are always being considered and that it is the task of this Government to distribute the incidence of taxation among the various income groups as proportionately and as equitably as is at all possible. In other words, if that is all they are asking of me, I can merely say that we shall, and leave it at that. However, it may be deduced then that at the moment these rates of tax have not been investigated properly and that the present rates are very inequitable. Those hon. gentlemen made reference to the bulge. The hon. member for Parktown referred to “the famous bulge in the curve”.

Dr. Dönges was very concerned about that.

Yes. In the first instance I should like to explain to these hon. gentlemen that it is quite wrong to say “the famous bulge in the curve”, because there is in fact no bulge. A bulge is something that goes up and comes down again. The thing they are complaining about is rapid increase in the rates. The hon. member for Parktown proved this point in that he read out those rates of tax to which he objects. We find that a rapid increase occurred above a certain amount, as the hon. member for Parktown did in fact indicate. Although there is a bulge in the marginal rates of tax, it does not necessarily mean that it is a bulge in the effective rates of tax. In other words, it does not mean that it causes a bulge if you were to draw a graph of the actual income-tax paid on the various taxable incomes. I took the trouble to ask for such a graph to be drawn, and it is clear that a rapid increase does in fact occur in the vicinity of the R5,000 income level and that it rises even more rapidly above the R6,000 level, but it is also clear that that increase continues and that later, at a much higher income level, it starts running level again. Consequently there is no question of there being a bulge in the effective taxes that are paid. There are in fact signs of a bulge in the marginal rates of tax, but not in the actual income tax that is being paid. Unfortunately I cannot show the graph to all hon. members; I should have liked to do so. [Interjection.] There is a rapid rise. You must remember that that rise has to be there sooner or later. It has to be there; if not, the hon. member for Yeoville must tell us how we may obtain that revenue in a different way. If you want to obtain revenue by way of income-tax, then that rise simply has to be there.

I want to point out to the hon. member that .3 per cent of the taxpayers have taxable incomes in excess of R20,000 a year. That .3 per cent pay 14 per cent of our taxes. How. is one to reach that if one does not have a rapid increase? If the hon. member for Yeoville, or anyone else, says that the increase is too rapid at a certain point, it is all very well. If we eliminate that increase at a specific point, then we have to obtain the revenue in another way. Then the question that was put by the hon. member for Queenstown is a fair one, namely that those hon. members should be more specific. If they want this so-called rapid increase— and I do not want to call it a bulge because it is not one—in the effective taxes to be eliminated, then it means that there will be less revenue and that it will have to be added somewhere. After all, that is essential. But I do not want to say the graph is perfect as it is at the moment. There may possibly be improvements that can be effected.

However, the fact of the matter is that if we effect any change to that, which will result in tax relief at any given point, and we want the same revenue, we shall have to take that money at another point. I do not think that we have time now to discuss the whole psychology of the payment of income tax. I want to agree with hon. members that there is in fact a debatable point before this Committee as to what constitutes a basic income for any family to enable it to live reasonably and decently. In other words, we can argue about the stage at which that rapid increase should occur. As I see the matter, it has to start somewhere.

As income increases, a rapid increase has to start somewhere. Hon. members may perhaps argue about the point at which the increase has to start. The hon. member for Pinetown said that the buying power of the rand had diminished. I want to acknowledge that he is right. The buying power of the rand has diminished. I think that what he meant by that was that, whereas previously the rapid increase started at a certain stage, it should now start at a later stage, since families do in fact need more money now. I think that I am correct in making that statement. That is what the hon. member meant. Since basically the family needs more at present for the purpose of leading a decent existence, that has to happen. I do not want to say that this cannot be improved, but as far as that matter is concerned, I should like to bring this to the hon. member’s notice—the hon. member for Queenstown has already pointed it out—namely that this basic amount at which that rapid increase occurs, has already been moved forward. Previously, in the 1959 progressive rates of tax, it occurred at the R4,600 mark. Subsequent to that, in the 1960-’64 block rates of tax, it started increasing gradually at the R4,600 mark. The rapid increase only occurred at the R5,000 mark. According to the present rates of tax, it starts rising reasonably fast at the R5,000 mark. The increase above the R6,000 mark is even more rapid. I grant hon. members that it is possible for us to argue about that, namely the point at which the rapid increase is to start. However, to look at the rates of tax and to say that there is a bulge in the effective tax, is not quite correct.

The hon. member for Pinetown also referred to the new company tax. He mentioned the fact that, as in the case of personal tax, there should also be lower tax in respect of smaller companies. That is being done in certain other countries. We have certain problems in that regard. As the hon. member himself knows, the establishment of companies is often used as a means of evading taxes. [Interjections.] Yes, that is indeed the case.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON; It is done to reduce taxes, not to evade them.

Well then, to avoid them. Let us give it another name. If the hon. member wants to make a rule that a small company should pay a lower tax, then, when that company becomes too big, it will be the easiest thing in the world for it to establish another company and to invest its income in those companies. Therefore, there are numerous problems that will make it difficult to put this system into operation. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department is investigating what can be done to avoid those dangers or to cope with them. This matter will in fact be investigated in order to determine whether it will be possible to accommodate these small companies to a certain extent, without creating opportunities for avoiding the payment of taxes. That is all I want to say at the moment.

I should like to move—

In regard to this proposal, I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is not our intention that everybody of or over the age of 65 years should escape this particular levy. We do not, however, have at our disposal the figures with which we could calculate the income level at which this levy should be applied. We do wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Finance that this levy, if applied indiscriminately to all taxpayers, will bear very heavily on a certain group. Perhaps the word is unparliamentary, but I think that any means by which one borrows forcibly, when one knows that one cannot repay, verges upon dishonesty. Many of these people over the age of 65 will not be here in roughly seven years’ time when the hon. the Minister will repay the levy. Secondly, if they are here, they will have been deprived of the interest on this money over a period of seven years, at a time of their lives when they can least afford it. Taxation is paid presumably to keep the community going. The community in return provides certain services. Apart from a pauper’s funeral, which some of these people will have, it is unlikely that they will gain any other benefit from this levy. They have over the years, because they are 65 years old, paid many taxes, for which they have gained some benefit. But to apply to a man of 65 of moderate income a compulsory loan levy is unjustifiable. I hope that the hon. the Minister with his officials will find some way of equitably and without serious damage to the revenue of the country, fixing a level at which this loan levy will not be payable. This is a loan which is unrepayable to these older people. It is no good saying that it is repayable to the estate. The estate is not the man. It is not his wife. The estate is something inert. The man cannot benefit from what happens to his estate after he has died. Therefore every effort should be made to avoid inflicting hardships on these people when their earning powers have diminished or disappeared. I move.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather sympathetic to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central), because in a certain sense his proposal has merits. But the hon. member made a f-w statements that were a little far-fetched. He said that a levy that was imposed when it was likely that in seven years’ time the person concerned would no longer be here to get it back, verges on dishonesty. Then he went on to say that such a person is at any rate not interested in what his estate will receive after his death. Well, that is the most uninteresting statement I have heard in a very long time. Who of us are not interested in what our heirs will receive? The person who lives only for himself and is not interested in what his heirs will receive, is after all not a very human person, and with all due respects I feel that the hon. member has simply not given consideration to the consequences of his statement, because I do not believe that he is such a person. I also believe that the hon. member is very definitely concerned about what his heirs will receive after his death.

Perhaps he is a bachelor.

Well, even if the hon. member is a bachelor, he is still likely to have heirs.

I want to come back for a moment to the previous two speakers, namely the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown. It is true that all of us—because it is only human—are interested in that income group in which we ourselves fall. That is always the income group we notice first. Incidentally, it is very obvious to me that those two hon. members do not fall in the same income group, because they approach the matter from two entirely different angles.

The hon. member for Pinetown complained a great deal about the bulge—for which, according to our translators, the Afrikaans translation is “uitdying”—that appears in the R5,000 to R6 000 and R6,000 to R7,000 income group, that is the R5,000 to R7,000 income group. I want to point out that what we have here is in actual fact not a bulge or an “uitdying”. It is only a more rapid or sharper increase. It is in actual fact no bulge. Then I want to make the further point that what the hon. member for Pinetown is forgetting—or is perhaps not forgetting but perhaps keeping back very deliberately—in talking about the middle income groups which should not be hit too hard, is that all income groups above that group do after all have to pay this rapid increase as well. After all, it is only the income groups under R5,000 …

That is a smaller percentage of their income.

I have much respect for the debating ability of the hon. member for Yeoville, but I am afraid that his arithmetic is letting him down. Surely, the income groups above R7,000 pay a higher percentage of their income. It is only the increase per R1,000 above R7,000 which is slower again. One cannot talk about a smaller percentage of their income. No, Sir. The only groups that are favoured, are the groups under R5,000. If one wants this curve to run evenly, there are only two possibilities. The first is that the income groups under R5,000 should be taxed more heavily, and I am sure that hon. members on that side, just as we on this side, do not want that. The second possibility is that the income groups above R7,000 should be taxed much more heavily still than they are being taxed at the moment.

But then the hon. member for Pinetown disagrees with the hon. member for Parktown, not so? Because the hon. member for Parktown referred to the income groups in the vicinity of R20,000. If one wants this curve to run evenly, in other words, if one wants the increase above R5,000 to run evenly, geometrically speaking—say by 4 per cent for every R1,000 increase; in other words, 10 per cent, I 14 per cent, 18 per cent, 22 per cent, etc., up to 50 per cent and more—then a large tax concession is being made; that is, the State gives up a very great deal of revenue. That will have to be found again in another way.

Now I want to emphasize once again that hon. members on that side are making this basic error: They believe—and when I refer to “they”, I refer to the hon. member for Pinetown in particular—that the income groups between R5,000 and R7,000 are the only ones that are being wronged. That is not so. All higher income groups pay the same rapid increase in this R5,000 to R7,000 category. Everybody pays the same rapid increase in respect of that part of his income which is between R5,000 and R7,000, and after that it goes further. If one wants to make that rapid increase smaller and still have the same result, then it will simply mean that one will have to go above 50 per cent as regards the higher income groups, otherwise there will have to be a very rapid increase above R7,000. And then one comes into conflict with what the hon. member for Parktown advocated.

I want to grant readily—and to this extent I want to agree with those hon. members who discussed this matter this afternoon—that there is in fact an anomaly in this increase. I believe that all of us would like to see that anomaly eliminated. But if that is not done in one of the two ways I have just mentioned, it will mean that the State will have to surrender a considerable amount of revenue. At this stage in our economic cycle, where we are dealing with this tremendous inflation which we shall now have to stamp out once and for all, it is not the time for that. I nevertheless trust that the hon. the Minister will very definitely attend to this matter. When the time is ripe for that—in other words, when the death-blow has been dealt to this inflation, and when we do perhaps reach the stage again where there is a temporary recession and where we should like to get the economy going once again— then making tax concessions will be one of the best means. Then it will be time to remedy the uneven increase. But then the Opposition should not ask us not to favour the higher income groups above the poor man. Then they should not accuse us of being a rich man’s government that looks after the rich man only. Because they themselves asked for this correction, something we all believe will have to come. Then the Opposition should also display responsibility by not criticizing at that stage what they themselves are asking to be done.

It is not very clear what the contribution is the hon. member for Paarl has just made to this discussion. He devoted the first seven minutes of his speech to pointing out that there was no injustice in the sudden increase in the income-tax rates. Then he went further by saying that there were only two ways in which it could be remedied: The rich people should either pay less in taxes nr the poor people should pay more in taxes. Then he advanced a sound argument which amounted to the fact that there was no bulge in the rates of tax, and that if there were, it would be inequitable; however, in view of the fact that it is not a bulge but merely a sudden rise, although it is inequitable, it does not matter. Only an inequitable bulge would matter. When he had used all these arguments, he admitted that his arguments were wrong, that an injustice was in fact being done. And then he came with the third and obvious suggestion, namely that when it was time to grant tax relief, this anomaly and injustice had to be removed. What must one make of that? What is one to do with a speaker who takes seven minutes to make a statement which he himself destroys within three minutes, and, having destroyed it, stands squarely behind the Opposition?

But I am actually rising, firstly, to identify myself with the plea and the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Central), who asked that persons of or above the age of 65 should be exempted from this large increase in the loan levy. I am doing that gladly, because my motives cannot be questioned. I have quite a few years to go before I reach 65.

Is the hon. member saying that the motives of those who are in fact above the age of 65, should be questioned?

No, all I am saying is that my word cannot be questioned. There may be unreasonable people who may perhaps question it in the case of older members, but even an unreasonable person cannot question my motives. When we consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Central), we must think of what has been happening to the income-tax payers over the past two years, in the present as well as the previous two Budgets. Firstly, the special rebate of 10 per cent was removed in two stages. Subsequent to that the loan levy was increased, first of all by 5 per cent and then by 10 per cent; now it is 15 per cent—an increase of 25 per cent in all. If one takes into account that two years ago the taxpayer only paid 90 per cent of the rate, then it is not 25 on a 100, but 25 on 90. Over the past two years, in three budgets, income tax has therefore been increased by 27.78 per cent. That is a tremendous increase, and it is very clear that the hon. the Minister of Finance did not want this to appear to be an increase in taxation, and for that reason he imposed the major part thereof in the form of a loan levy which will be repayable at some stage or other within a period of sewn years. He himself felt that an increase of 27.78 per cent was too much to expect of people in the form of a permanent tax which they cannot get back again. As this is the case, why then must the aged by satisfied with paying this increase of 27.78 per cent in their income tax, when humanly speaking many of them can never expect to get it back? We are making special provision in our tax proposals and other Departments are making special provision for the exceptional circumstances of our aged, of our veterans, and I fail to see why the hon. the Minister cannot give in on this point. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Central) is an extremely fair one. This is something our elderly people feel very deeply; and it cannot have a very great tax sacrifice as a result. If the Minister feels that the sacrifice will be too great, then he can say that it will only apply above a certain tax limit which is higher than the present ridiculous R15 in the case of elderly people. But we feel that our aged should not pay this tax. In the case of the majority of them it cannot be regarded as a levy, because the life expectancy of those people is such that in practice it will be the same as a tax in the case of younger people. We are pleading with the hon. the Minister to consider that.

Then I just want to put a question to the Minister. The people we should not discourage in South Africa, are those people who invest their money in the undertakings of this country, the entrepreneurs of South Africa, and particularly those people who invest their money in companies that assist in making South Africa’s progress and expansion possible. I wonder whether the Minister would not consider steps to prevent discrimination against the smaller shareholder. Under the present Act one may deduct up to one-third of the income one receives in the form of dividends from one’s taxable income. It used to be more or less in proportion to the rate of company tax. Company tax has now been increased in two stages up to 40 per cent, but one can still only deduct a maximum of 33½ per cent from one’s income. Is it not time for that proportion to be considered? Where a person has in fact already paid tax on his income in the form of company tax, should he not receive a special concession enabling him to deduct a higher proportion from his taxable income?

I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central). I think he has put his case very well, ably assisted by the hon. member for Yeoville, but for certain specific reasons it will be impossible to accept that amendment. In the first place I would like to point out that this loan levy is only applicable above a certain income. In the case of a married man without children it only applies to those with an income of R2,225 or more. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that it will cause grave hardship. I definitely think it will not, particularly if we realize that if we were to approve this amendment it would mean a loss of R2.5 million in loan levies, and this amount will probably be increased if furthermore we repay all those who reach the age of 65 years, the age which the hon. member for Durban (Central) suggested.

But we did not suggest that it should be repaid.

I know you did not, but I think it is logical that if people over the age of 65 ought to be in possession of the money they paid by way of loan levies, then those over 65 should be repaid what they have paid before.

There is also another consideration, and that is the combating of inflation. This is one of the ways of combating inflation, and as such it should be applicable to all taxpayers. The trouble also arises that if you make the age 65, or whatever you make it, there will always be problems and people on the one side of the line will be dissatisfied. But apart from that, the statistical data are not kept by the Department and it would involve a great amount of work for the Department if it had to keep statistical data in order to know when a person reaches the age of 65, or to know which people are 65 or older. [Interjection.] It would create a large amount of work and I am therefore very sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment.

I was very much encouraged by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech when he said that the amount involved would be only R2.5 million. That is peanuts. I thought it would be a much larger amount, and it is only a loan. The Government will not lose any money. The Government borrows large sums every week. Here we are putting up a case for old people, that they should be excused from lending money to the Government in their old age. Surely, if this is all it means, the Government should concede it immediately. I would go even further. I would be prepared to say that these people should perhaps get a remission of income tax, but we do not ask for that. We simply say that when it comes to a loan, these people should be exempt. All of us have received letters about this.

The man over 65 says: “I have been saving through insurance and through the post office and other Government loans all my life to spend now; I want to take a holiday now; I have reached my retiring age; why should I be compelled to lend money to the Government at this age?” I think the matter is absurd. I can quite understand the argument that if a man has an income he should pay income-tax. We do not ask that he should be exempted. If he is a rich man, he says: “Well, I sometimes make provision in this way myself and I wish to be a free agent. I find that if I take out certain Government loans my estate will get a concession.” But, Sir, that is intended for the very rich man; it is not intended for the man we have in mind. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has assisted us a great deal.

Now, Sir, I want to revert to the subject of income tax. I like the argument of the hon. member for Paarl. He says that you must wait until you get a depression, and then we will consider adjusting the scales. Sir, you do not wait for a depression to adjust your income-tax scales you adjust them as soon as possible. I want to put forward a plea that I have put forward for many years, and here again I am encouraged by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He says that the scales of income tax are constantly being revised and that they are always under consideration. Well, I am encouraged to hear that. I would like to know when gold mining taxation was last revised. The gold mines are operating on a system that is well over 20 years old, and yet the Government attempt to justify it. What is this gold mining taxation? They have a special formula. We had a Minister of Finance here some years ago justifying the formula and the invidious differentiation against the gold mines because gold mining companies, he said, were mining the property of the country. I agree. This is the old argument of the patrimony; the gold, the diamonds, the valuable minerals of this country are all the property of the Government. The Government now says: “We wish to mine gold; we wish to take it out of the ground; you can form a company on conditions laid down by the Government. There will be a Government lease and you may only mine if you have a Government lease.” The Government therefore comes in as a shareholder in the case of every gold mine, and when it comes in as a shareholder it is on the system of saying: “We are a partner; heads I win, tails you lose. If there is a profit we will take a very big slice of it on the lease formula; if on the other hand, the mine is a failure, we will not lose”. Several have been failures recently in South Africa; my hon. friends from the Free State will bear this out; all gold mines are not successful; gold mining is an enterprise where you have to take a chance. The Government says: “I am not interested if all the capital has been lost; I did not put up any of it.” Sir, let me give one example that I worked out some years ago. The Government has a lease on the mine; the Government, after its lease, taxes the profits, and altogether in this case the Government got 72 per cent of the profits, not 33½ per cent as in the case of ordinary companies, but 72 per cent of the profits. You are not taxing the company only; you are also taxing the individual shareholder. The individual shareholder receives his dividend from the company and then the Receiver of Revenue says: “I am going to tax two-thirds of your dividend.” The shareholder gives his share to the Government through the lease; he pays company taxation as a shareholder and then they tax him as an individual. When Mr. Havenga was Minister of Finance, he appointed a commission at one stage to revise our income-tax system. Mr. Raymond Steyn, was the chairman of what we now call the Steyn Commission. That commission was prepared to tackle the whole system of income taxation but before they started they got a second directive. That directive instructed them not to touch gold mining taxation but to leave it severely alone. The Government was doing too well out of gold mining taxation. Sir, this whole system is inequitable. Why should a gold mine be taxed differently from any other company after it has paid tax on the lease agreement? Give companies the right to mine gold and then tax them on the lease formula. Thereafter they should be taxed in the same way as any ordinary company. I think the time has come for a revision; in fact, I think it is long overdue.

Then there is a final point I should like to mention. I have suggested that we should introduce the system of apportionment in assessing income tax. The predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Finance told me that that system in Britain was not being abolished but gradually abandoned. That is not the case, because when I was over there last year I asked that certain assessments should be worked out for me and the only change they have made is this: In the old days the shareholder received the dividend; now they do not receive the whole dividend. When a dividend has to be paid, the company deducts a certain amount and sends it direct to the Government, so when the man receives his dividend, taxation has already been paid, sometimes too much, sometimes too little. If they have deducted too much, the taxpayer gets part of it back in his assessment. The system works well. You do not have to go to the shareholder in order to get the tax. I think our system is inferior to that, and I would suggest that when this income tax commission is appointed again—and it is long overdue—they should consider the whole question of apportionment.

Before coming back to the hon. member for Kensington, I should like to respond to what the hon. member for Parktown said. It is all very well to quote figures here, but then one should not misrepresent matters. I do not think the hon. member for Parktown outlined the position correctly when he said this afternoon that the company tax in South Africa is at present 40c in the rand. Surely you know that this is not true, Sir. The Central Government does not receive 40c in the rand. The hon. member failed to mention that 5c of this 40c goes to the provincial council. That has nothing to do with the Central Government; that is not a Government tax.

Then what is it?

If the hon. member wants to bring in the provincial taxes, he should also bring in the municipal rates. But what about the savings levy? The tax levied by the Government is in actual fact 31½ in the rand. The hon. member knows that this is the case; why did he not tell it to the House? The hon. member mentioned the taxes payable in overseas countries. In particular he referred to Australia, but what is the position over there? The hon. member failed to tell the House that in the case of public companies the tax on the first R8,000 is 37½ per cent, and on amounts higher than R8,000 the tax is 42½ per cent.

I did say so.

No, the hon. member did not mention that. He was only referring to private companies.

Both.

Why did the hon. member not mention the taxation as regards the U.S.A.? In the U.S.A. the tax is 48 per cent if the taxable income exceeds R17,000. The hon. member kept quiet on that score, but he is trying to create the impression to the outside that the company tax in South Africa is tremendously high. He knows that the company tax in South Africa is the lowest in the world. In France the tax is 50 per cent, which is considerably higher than the 31f per cent payable in South Africa. In Canada the tax is 47 per cent where the taxable income exceeds R23,000, and thus I could mention a whole series of countries.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here. The hon. member also tried to present an incorrect picture to us. He came here and said that the rebate of 5 per cent had been removed, and that this year taxpayers had to pay 15 per cent. That is not taxation; it is a savings levy. And then he broadcast to the world that the taxes had increased by 27 per cent. A savings levy and a tax are two different things altogether. If that hon. member is trying to tell me that he does not know the difference between taxation and a savings levy, then I do not think he should be legislating in this House. [Interjection.] I am prepared to argue, and I think it is correct that we compare comparable figures, but this kind of distortion is wrong, and I call it distortion to tell the world that taxation has been increased by 27 per cent, while one knows that it is not the case. We could also look at other things, and I want to come back to this table. Hon. members have had so much to say about this curve, but let us consider the actual position. We do not want to smother the poor man in this country. One should only pay what one is capable of paying. For any person earning up to R3,000. 10 per cent is always added. For the next bracket, from R3,000 to R4,600, it is 11 per cent, and from R4,600 to R5,000 it is 12 per cent. It increases by one per cent every time. That is why these people who earn up to R5,000 can make a decent living. From R5,000 to R6,000, regardless of whether they fall in the middle income group or are rich, everybody has to pay an additional 21 per cent. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with adding that percentage? From there on it increases to 33 per cent, etc. We have to raise these taxes. If we cannot raise them through direct taxation according to this scale, then they have to be raised by way of indirect taxation. I now want to ask the hon. member for Parktown: Is he advocating direct or indirect taxation? Does he want this taxation, which we are sacrificing, to be recovered through direct or indirect taxation? The hon. member should say “yes” or “no”. No, that hon. member knows that he cannot say that. In the first place, we cannot at this stage levy indirect taxation, because it will simply be shifted onto the public and we have to protect the poor man and the middle man. because they are the ones who will pay it. These direct taxes are aimed at the people who can in fact pay them. No government or party wants high taxes. Why should we impose them if they are not necessary? These persons must make their contribution to pay for the management and the administration and the infra-structure of this country, because as a result of those costs the people are able to earn these high incomes. If hon. members wanted to establish their case by saying that the unmarried scale should be increased and should be higher than the married scale, I would have said that they had a case there, because that would help to increase the population of South Africa and to bring about other advantages.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Kensington. The income tax scales which we have before us are surely those which we inherited from the United Party. That Party introduced this income tax scale when they were in power. In 1961, and again in 1965 this Government levelled off that bulge of which they are speaking. Why should we be charged with that Party’s sins and shames? [Interjections.] Changes have been made. It has been improved, and this was the best that could be done. If one is asked to abolish these taxes, one has to be practical and realistic. Then the hon. member for Transkei should tell us who and where we should tax. There is no point in just making a fuss. That hon. member does not know where we shall get the taxes. As for the gold-mines. I want to ask: If we take the gold-mines in South Africa and compare the dividends received by them with those in respect of industry, is it the honest opinion of that hon. member that they are going hungry in this country? To-day we have the position in South Africa that there has been a tremendous upsurge in industry. la recent years a tremendous boom has been in progress, and it is disproportionate. The industries escalated and the gold-mines are not going hungry in this country. If we consider what this Government has done through the years to assist the gold-mines, whether as marginal mines or through subsidies, we find the following: You know that several millions of rand have been provided to those gold-mines as subsidies. You know what the Government is doing for the mine-worker, and therefore you cannot say that the employee in the mining industry is neglected and that he is not taken care of. Nor can you say that those shareholders of the gold-mines are not receiving equitable treatment. The hon. member for Kensington told us that the Government was taking something like 72 per cent.

That was the example I gave.

That was his example, and then the company also has to be taxed, and then there are the dividends which are drawn. The shareholders must pay taxes on those as well. There is nobody in this country who is not prepared to pay taxes on the share he receives. As for dividends which are paid out, whether by a gold-mining company or an ordinary company or by financial institutions, each man pays in accordance with his fair share. What difference does it make whether I get my dividends from a bank and the hon. member for Kensington gets his dividends from a gold-mining company? If each of us gets R5,000 in dividends, we simply get that. It is our capital which was invested there and we get our dividends. The hon. member for Yeoville and also the hon. member for Kensington tried to establish that we were taxing the dividends at too high a rate. What is the true position in respect of the dividends? Surely we know that the dividends, under the present position, are added to one’s income. If one’s income has not reached a certain notch one gets a 100 per cent rebate. That notch is R2,600. There is a 100 per cent rebate on one’s dividends up to R2,600. Later one gets a third, when one reaches one’s maximum scale, namely R4,600. Is that not a fair rebate? Is that not equitable? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I enjoyed listening to the second portion of the speech of the hon. member for Sunny-side much more than I did the first half. He unfortunately sees a political implication in everything, even in a simple discussion on income tax. When I referred to the 40 per cent I did not refer to all the countries of the world. All I said was that it was no longer modest. [Interjections]. I used the word “modest” as a general term. Even if you exclude the savings levy, it is still no longer modest. To differentiate between this tax and what goes to the province, does not really warrant consideration. The hon. member wanted to know whether he wanted more direct taxation or more indirect taxation. This is not the point we are trying to discuss. The hon. the Minister dealt with the matter much more intelligently. He spent quite a lot of time telling us that it was not a bulge. “A rose by any other name, can smell as sweet”; we do not care what you call it. What we want is to try and establish the principle that we must try to make the taxation from one point to another more equitable. If the hon. member for Sunnyside was listening when I spoke previously, he may have heard me say that it may possibly be that we will have to increase taxation in some grades. This may well be but that does not affect the issue. I was also very pleased that the hon. the Minister said that the principle of taxing the smaller companies at a different rate to the larger companies, was a difficult one, but that it would be given consideration. I want to try to help the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House spend most of our time trying to help the Government to get things straight. About two years ago I suggested that the time had perhaps come for another commission on income tax. I know that that is not a matter to be dealt with here but I want to give the hon. the Minister prior notice that when we come to the Income Tax Bill or the Appropriation Bill, I intend to suggest again that the time has come for a commission on income-tax to be established once again. We can then help the hon. the Minister solve all his problems. There is an old adage: Two heads are better than one.

I was interested in the hon. the Minister’s figure of R2,500,000 being the amount it would cost the Government if we were not to have a tax levy in respect of people over the age of 65. But there was a proviso, Sir. That after the Government went into the figures, they should establish the grade of income at which alleviation should take place. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister where he gets this figure of R2,500,000. Does this apply to every taxpayer over the age of 65, or to taxpayers in certain grades? I should like some clarification in this regard.

When I last spoke, I was dealing with the company tax. I was coming to the point that our objection to this change in company tax is mainly that the companies tax introduced this year, in effect changes the companies tax fixed by this House last year for the tax year ending 1967. It seems to us wrong in principle that once a tax has been imposed by Parliament. Parliament should, before that tax has been paid, increase that taxation. The second point we raised in the Budget debate was that this tax is now discriminatory as between companies. The hon. the Minister will know that, because as the tax was made applicable from the 1st January, 1967, certain companies are going to find that a portion of their 1966 calendar income year will fall within the ambit of the new taxation, and a portion will not. As far as different companies are concerned, they are going to pay this additional tax for different periods. Discrimination is a bad thing. I think the hon. the Minister will accept that. I hope he will tell us how he proposes to overcome this problem, or if he is going to overcome it. There is another aspect of discrimination. When the tax is changed at the end of the period, we will again have discrimination as between companies. We will have a discrimination between those companies whose tax year ends between January 1st and March 31st and those companies whose year ends outside these dates. Both at the beginning of the imposition of this tax and in the periods when the tax is changed again, we will have discrimination as between companies. Those are our two objections, namely that this tax is undoing something that Parliament has imposed upon companies, and secondly that it is retrospective and discriminatory. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter at some length.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Parktown in his arguments, where he spoke on discrimination regarding the companies. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to that. I just want to say that the theme followed by both the hon. member for Park-town and the hon. member for Pinetown, and also by others this afternoon, is that our scales in respect of personal taxation are inequitable, and are inequitable for a specific group of our taxpayers. This is, namely, the average man or the man in the street, of whom we hear so much. I do not agree with that. I do not think the scales are inequitable at all. I shall tell you why. If we look at the Budget, we see that there is a total revenue of approximately R1,380 million, of which personal taxes represent approximately R226 million. In other words, they form approximately 20 per cent of that. In the first place I think that we here in South Africa are most fortunate in that our personal taxes represent only 20 per cent of our revenue. We can be grateful for the virile economic conditions in the country, which can contribute the rest of the money for the functioning of the State. But now we come to the argument that the tax scales are inequitable to the average man. Let us compare and see what the position is in other similar countries —counties with which we may be compared. Industrially some of them are more highly developed than we are, and others are perhaps on the same level as we are. I have drawn a comparison. I have taken some countries. As a basis for comparison I took the scale of a R5,000 a year income for a married person with two children. I compared this with the position in a country such as France. Such an average person in France pays approximately R70 more. In the U.S.A. a person with a similar income pays R600 more. In Britain a person with such an income pays R660 more. In Australia such a person pays R400 more. This, then, is the scale which is supposedly so inequitable in our country. If we compare it with those countries, it does not seem to me as though our taxpayers have a great deal to complain of. We have a great deal to be grateful for. But this is not all. I also compared the tax on income of a person earning R10,000 a year with that in other countries. A person who earns R10,000 a year is not in a low income group; it is a fairly high income group. Let us consider the position there. It is most extraordinary and interesting that in a country such as the U.S.A. a man with that income pays approximately R400 a year less than a man with a similar income in South Africa. The main reason for that is that that country has developed so tremendously in the industrial field. This taxable group is so much stronger over there than here. There the curve can therefore follow a different line from ours. Let us once again consider the position in France. The man in France pays approximately R300 a year more. In Britain he pays R700 more. In Australia he pays almost R1,500 more. Of these countries I would say that Australia can most readily be compared to our country, and industrially it is even more highly developed than South Africa. In the light of these arguments I want to say that instead of complaining and hawking the story abroad in the country that our average income group is so heavily taxed, the Opposition should rather be grateful that they are not living in one of those other countries.

I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Kensington said here. He asked why the goldmines could not, for example, be taxed on the same basis as other companies. There is a very good reason for that. The basic reason is that the profits of an ordinary company are calculated on a completely different basis from that obtaining in the case of gold-mining companies. A gold-mining company is a declining asset. Such a company is permitted to write off certain capital expenses. After a certain period the mine is exhausted and does not exist any longer. Its profit is therefore calculated on a completely different basis. That is why there is a completely separate formula in that respect. For that reason we cannot compare them in any way with a commercial company, which grows through the years. Its assets grow. They do not decrease. There are many technical reasons for that.

Then I want to say something in connection with the argument on the loan levy, namely that it is unjust of the Government to impose the loan levy. Surely this is a very old and recognized method used by the state to withdraw money from circulation or to finance itself. I think that to suggest that it may possibly be dishonest on the part of the Government is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Compulsory saving is a very good thing for the country. The argument that one cannot recover that money in one’s lifetime is also ridiculous. Which one of the hon. members in this House can lend money and say that they will live long enough to recover that money? That forms part and parcel of our commercial existence. We cannot do anything about that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg has quoted the excesses in direct tax paid by taxpayers in France, the U.S.A., Great Britain and Australia as compared with taxes paid in South Africa. He did this to try and show that the bulge that we on this side are complaining about is not really any cause for alarm. Did the hon. member go any further into this? Did he inquire what percentage of the overall income of these countries is composed of indirect taxation?

I was talking about personal tax.

Personal tax, yes, but how much do taxpayers in this country pay in indirect taxation? That is the point. He tried to show that the curve in their taxation proposals is in a different position because they have a larger number of taxpayers in other groups. The hon. member for Sunnyside also mentioned this curve and he said that it is not the policy of the Government “om die arm man uit te moor nie”—I think I heard correctly—and that the taxpayer earning between R5,00() and R10,000 is the one who should be taxed.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the people who are in that tax bracket at this stage are mainly young executives, young businessmen, young industrialists, who are developing industries. They are the ones who are going to be the future backbone of South Africa. Many of them have invested in properties. They have borrowed the money to invest. They are busy repaying. In addition to that they are paying income-tax at a higher rate then, we maintain, they should be charged. I add my appeal to those that have gone before me to the Minister to consider this question and to grant some relief to the people in that tax group because those are the people whom we are going to depend upon in the years to come in South Africa.

I want to go back to the question of the loan levy, and I want to say that I support entirely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central). I do not think that the Minister has really given us a reason for not accepting this amendment. I do not want to talk about that aspect now. I want to go on to the question of repayment. During the debate on the Inland Revenue Vote the hon. member for Parktown asked for an assurance from the hon. the Minister of Finance that the refunds of this loan levy, when due, would be automatic. We got the assurance from the Minister of Finance that it would indeed be automatic. We accept and we appreciate that. But the question now arises as to how this shall be done. In South Africa we have two types of taxpayer: The one is the wage earner who pays by way of a monthly or weekly deduction from his salary —the system commonly known as P.A.Y.E. The Income Tax Act lays down that, in the event of over-payment of tax during the tax year, when the assessment is made, the excess shall be automatically refunded in cash. In practice we find that the taxpayer receives a cheque with his assessment. But we have another type of taxpayer, and that is the one known as a “provisional” taxpayer (and this includes all companies) who pays his tax in two instalments. Twice a year they pay tax. In the event of over-payment by these taxpayers, the Act does not provide for an automatic refund. It is credited to the taxpayer’s account against the following year’s tax. Admittedly the taxpayer is allowed to apply for a refund of this amount, but such applications are not always successful. The question I want to ask the Minister is this: How will the repayments be effected? How will the repayment of the loan levy be effected? Will it be effected merely by crediting the taxpayer’s account in the office of the Receiver of Revenue, or will the taxpayer be repaid in cash by cheque? If these loan levies are refunded yearly by a credit of the taxpayer’s account it could eventuate that it could be 11 or 12 months before the taxpayer will actually get the benefit of such refund, with a resultant loss either in the use of his cash or of …

It will be repaid by cheque automatically.

Thank you very much, Sir. Then there is no need for me to pursue this matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened closely to hon. members on the opposite side of the House, and it struck me this morning that that side of the House did not take into account the entire background against which this Budget was framed. In the first place the hon. members forgot completely what they had said during the past financial debates in connection with the dangers of inflation, and that they had accused the Government of not acting firmly enough—and of not having acted firmly enough—to meet that problem. Now I want to say that I cannot think of any hon. member on that side who got up here to-day and did not ask for what amounted to a decrease in taxation. I could name them.

However, I want to begin by referring to the background to the Budget. The entire background was the problem of inflation was still forcibly present and that it was in the interests of the entire country and of the entire community that that danger and enemy should be fought with all our power. Against that background the Minister of Finance had to frame his taxation proposals to make them as equitable as possible without detracting from the main object of the Budget, over and above balancing his revenue and expenditure.

The Minister increased company taxation. He introduced several increases. He did not increase the direct taxation of the ordinary taxpayer. After the Minister had made his Budget speech and the country had had the opportunity to consider that Budget, it was clear that the Budget was acclaimed by the entire country and by all sections of the population and all groups. He received high praise for the way in which he handled it. It was only the Opposition which criticized it. But obviously—as befits an Opposition—they criticized it for political reasons. I concede that they have to do so.

As regards the ordinary taxpayer, of whom a great deal was made to-day, the Government would have been justified in increasing the ordinary taxes, having regard to the problem of inflation. But the Government said that it did not want to do that. It wanted to withdraw the surplus money in the country in such a way that it would be as fair as possible to the ordinary taxpayer. That is what it did. It said: “I shall not impose extra taxes on you; all I am doing is to impose a compulsory saving on you, one which is repayable.” It has now been asked why people older than 65 years have not been exempted from this levy. Why such a low rate of interest as 5 per cent? Does the hon. member not know that the 5 per cent interest paid by the State compares well with the other current rate-of-interest patterns of the State? Do the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown not know that if the State increased it considerably it would have created a precedent? Must the State compete with private concerns as regards its rate of interest? Is it not in any event a great concession which the State has made in not imposing ordinary taxation but a savings levy, to give the public the benefit of compulsory saving? This is a great and important consideration for which the public is grateful to it.

I said that by implication all the hon. members on the opposite side advocated a decrease in taxation. I say by implication, because if one wants to eliminate the bulge to which they referred, the State would lose a considerable deal in revenue. If one does not want to lose that, one has to levy it somewhere else. If the hon. member had said that he was satisfied that it could not be done this year but that it should be reconsidered in future, I would not have had much to object to. But that is not all. It was said that people older than 65 years should not be assessed for that levy, as though people older than 65 years are no longer saving. The fact that R2.5 million will be lost proves that in general people who pay that levy and who are older than 65 years also have a reasonable income. They also gain from other savings. For example, they do not take out insurance policies any longer. They are therefore still saving, and this is merely another method of saving, also for their progeny. How many of us in this House, and how many of the public outside, are not saving for our progeny? That is not prejudiced by this levy. Tax relief was called for, but hon. members on the opposite side contradict themselves from time to time.

They asked for relief for smaller companies. I have no objection to the principle that this should be considered for the future, but if the State did that this year, it would surrender a considerable amount in revenue, because either inflation had to continue or the State had to impose other taxes. There was mention of the gold-mining companies. In that respect, too, a decrease of taxes was in effect called for. Where is the State going to end if it must accede to all that? Nothing is more popular than to ask for a decrease of taxation in this House. That is politics. The hon. members on the opposite side said that they were not indulging in politics. If it is merely a matter of asking for decreased taxes, we can also compete with them, because they know very well that they are not bearing the responsibility of keeping the national finances in order and of raising the revenue which is necessary to meet the expenditure.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the discriminatory company tax. It is not discriminatory. The State fixed the date at 1st January. Companies whose financial year ends at any time after 1st January have to pay this tax. There are no exceptions and there is no discrimination. If the State had to make it applicable as from 1st April, companies whose financial years end on 30th June would have benefited, proportionately, compared with companies whose financial year ends on 28th February. No matter what one does, therefore, one cannot satisfy everybody. [Time expired.]

Before I call on the next speaker I want to tell hon. members that they are indulging in generalizations. This is turning into a Second Reading Debate and we cannot allow a general debate.

We have before the Committee taxation proposals which show certain inequities. The whole object of our opening remarks was to bring to the notice of the Minister these inequities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention and that of hon. members opposite to what was said on this very subject last year, and which was allowed by the Chairman at the time. The Minister of Finance, in replying to me, said this when I then raised the question of the inequities. He said—

It was on this very matter that the then Minister of Finance spoke and I think the Deputy Minister will agree that his predecessor was competent to speak on this matter. He admitted that the position was not satisfactory and that some steps should be taken. It is quite clear there is no ambiguity in that statement at all. When hon. members opposite suggest that we are being unfair, it is obvious that they have not prepared themselves properly, because had they read what the Minister said last year they would have realized that something should be done. All we are asking the Deputy Minister is to implement the promise made by his predecessor, if Government promises mean anything at all. To deal with one or two other remarks, I am very surprised at the hon. member for Pietersburg using the argument he did about loans. Having regard to his educational background, I expected a more able answer than that, because there is all the difference in the world between a voluntary loan and a compulsory one. When a man lends money to a person in the ordinary way, he may die before the loan is repaid, but he can lay down conditions of repayment, but in the case of a compulsory loan there is no choice in the matter. That argument does not wash at all. I do not think the hon. member should waste the time of the Committee with that type of argument.

Then the Deputy Minister in his reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central), and supported by the hon. member for Yeoville, said that one of the reasons why he could not consider this relief for people over 65 was that it would mean the keeping of a lot of records. Sir, the Minister surely does not expect us to accept that. Surely he knows that the Revenue Department has been computerized and it is an easy matter in doing the programming, having regard to the fact that every taxpayer’s form contains the date of his birth, to throw out every year all those who are 65 years of age. Then all the returns of taxpayers who are over 65 can be taken out. It is just a matter of pressing a button and it comes out of the computer if the computer is programmed for it. It is a simple matter to do it. So the Deputy Minister should not talk about a lot of records that have to be kept that will occupy a large number of clerks.

Finally, I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Parktown in regard to companies. The hon. member for Florida suggested that there was no discrimination. In the past the taxation proposals covered 12 months, but here we find that the taxation proposals cover companies for a period of 15 months. Surely that is discrimination against those companies whose year-end falls in that specific period. To that extent there is discrimination against those companies. I suggest that it is not sound and that it is unfair and inequitable.

Then on page 470 the taxation proposal under Heading No. 4 provides, in terms of Act No. 58 of 1962, for the proposed taxation of companies which have an income from natural oil. I should like to know from the Minister, although this has been brought in for the first time, what he anticipates getting in taxation during the current year.

I am just getting up to reply to what the hon. member for Pinetown said. The hon. member waxed quite indignant because I had asked the Opposition to give us a more detailed indication of how they proposed to level off the constant increase in the curve. The hon. member for Pinetown, supported by the hon. member for Yeoville, took me to task rather severely. I did not reprimand him; I simply asked him for information, and most indignantly he asked: “How are we to know? You on that side of the House and the Minister should know.” But if they do not know, I want to ask the hon. member, why do they speak about things of which they know nothing? That hon. member is an auditor, and there are other auditors on that side of the House. This thing is elementary; they are not deeply rooted obscurities; it is elementary, and the hon. member could easily way: “What we want to suggest, is this or that.” But instead of that he tries to make political gain out of the matter, and if he is repaid in kind, he should simply admit that he started it. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to discuss the merits any further. As far as the merits are concerned, the hon. the Minister has already said that the matter is revealed constantly, and that he was of the opinion, considering the constant decrease in the purchasing power of money, that there was in fact some merit in the suggestion that the onset of the curve be advanced slightly. But this curve has been levelled off twice, the last time in 1964. Married persons with a taxable income of R5,000 paid 6½ per cent less in taxes as a result of the 1964 measure, and persons with an income of R6,000 paid 12 per cent less as a result of the 1964 measure, and persons with an income of R8,000 paid 3½ per cent less. That is what was done in 1964. I do not want to rub that in any further, but that very member, the hon. member for Pinetown, said in 1964 (Column 3312 of Hansard), because we then did what he is now asking for, that people with an income of less than R4,600 “have been treated miserably by this Government”. Then he played them off against the other groups and said—

That is all I want to say about that.

Hon. members of the Opposition spoke about the company tax. If the Minister had introduced these measures and had said that the surtax and the additional levy would apply only to companies whose taxation obligations are not already covered by legislation, then the surtax and the levy would have applied only to the first three months of 1968. Hon. members on that side are also pleading now that companies whose financial year ends during the 1967 calendar year should have continued to fall under the old Act. That is, as far as this tax year is concerned, the surtax and the levy should affect only companies whose financial year ended between 1st January and 31st March, 1968. But then the entire object of this measure, as an anti-inflationary one, would have been frustrated completely. This measure causes no injustice. Hon. members of the Opposition may tell me that companies whose financial year ends between 1st January and 31st March, 1967, are now to be affected for the second time in the first quarter of 1968 and that if there is a decrease, they would have had to pay twice on the higher scale. I concede that; that is quite correct. But let us suppose that in the next tax-year there is an increase, then these companies, which pay on that scale in the first quarter of next year, will benefit. The entire tendency as far as taxation is concerned is upwards rather than downwards. I think it is a very valid reply.

I do not want to get involved in any private argument between the economists in this House, but I find it hard to understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Queenstown when he says that the solution to this problem should be “elementary” as far as we on this side are concerned. Sir, we do not have the statistics at our disposal that the hon. the Minister and the Department have at their disposal. The Minister knows how many taxpayers there are in each group and what amount of tax is paid by each of those groups.

Order! The hon. member is now generalizing; he should have raised those points in the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Very well, Sir, I accept your ruling. I was merely replying to the points made by the hon. member for Queenstown. Sir, I was extremely glad to get an assurance from the hon. the Minister about refunds of the loan levy which is now being imposed. I am pleased to hear that the loan levies will be refunded automatically and in cash. I would like to pose one further question to the hon. the Minister in this connection and that is in connection with the old loan levies which were raised in previous years and which are now due. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would indicate to us whether his reply will also apply to old loan levies which have now become due; whether we can also expect them to be refunded automatically and in cash?

I want to begin with the argument of the hon. member for Parktown in connection with the interest paid on the loan levy. I just want to add that no tax is payable on that interest. The hon. member advanced the argument that he could earn 7 per cent in interest outside. I doubt whether he would get 7 per cent on this kind of investment; I think 6 per cent is closer to the truth, but be that as it may …

I shall tell you where I can get it.

If one takes into consideration that the income tax in the case of persons in the higher income groups can be as high as 45 per cent, then it means that this 5 per cent may eventually become 7 per cent as a result of the saving in income tax on that interest. I am just mentioning this in passing, because so far nobody has mentioned it. The hon. member asked me specifically how we arrived at the figure of R2½ million, which represents the loss in revenue if this amendment is accepted. It is purely an estimate. Obviously one cannot make an exact estimate, but it is an estimate of what the loss would be if everybody older than 65 years was exempted.

As regards the repayment of the levy, I cannot say much more than the hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech. Hon. members will appreciate that the revenue from the loan levy on companies will constitute a major source of revenue during the coming financial year. It goes without saying that if we had included the three months of next year on the same basis as was provided in the Budget of last year, we would collect a very small amount indeed in revenue. In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister indicated that the position should actually be rectified and that the end of the companies’ financial year should coincide with the Government’s financial year. In the process hon. members should accept, as a transition period this year, that for revenue purposes we have fixed it at from 1st January to the end of March, 1968. After that it will coincide with the Government’s financial year. I just want to point out to the hon. members that if we had taken a year extending from 1st April this year to 31st March next year, it would have involved a loss of R6,300,000 in respect of income tax and R3,150,000 in respect of the loan levy. These are the circumstances which had to be taken into consideration, and I fear I cannot pursue that aspect any further.

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Kensington. As regards the gold mines, I think that the gold mines have been reasonably fortunate in that they have remained untouched since 1956 as regards an increase in income-tax whereas the other companies have experienced increases since before 1966 from 30 cents to 36f cents. Furthermore, I should like to mention the fact that the gold-mining companies enjoy certain privileges which the other companies do not enjoy. An old gold-mining company for instance with a net income of up to 6 per cent of its sales, is completely free of income-tax, whereas the figure for the new companies is 8 per cent. I think that that is also a consideration which should be borne in mind. As regards the other aspect raised by the hon. member for Kensington, namely the system in England, I should like to mention that this system has definitely been abolished in Great Britain. The companies now nay a tax of 40 per cent which is not refunded to their shareholders. When the company pays a dividend, a further tax is deducted at source from the dividend at standard rate, namely 414 per cent. This 414 Percent is the tax which is credited against the shareholders’ tax. That is the position. In reply to his request that this system should be investigated, I want to mention specifically that it has already been abolished in Great Britain.

*Mr. Chairman, I have already told the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that the loan levy would be repaid in cash by cheque. In the past the old loan levy certificates had o be handed in for repayments. I am now speaking of the very old ones. According to the new system which is now being introduced, the loan levies will be repaid automatically by cheque.

The hon. member for Yeoville pleaded that there should be a greater concession in respect of the income from dividends. I may just tell the hon. member that I have taken note of his observations and that they will receive consideration.

The hon. member for Pinetown read a paragraph from what Dr. Dönges said last year. I do not dispute that. If you consider the marginal scales, then there is certainly a bulge. If you look at either of the two, that for the married persons or that for the unmarried persons, you find that the scale increases from 12 per cent in the case of married persons to 21 per cent, to 30 per cent, and then it levels off and becomes 33 per cent, 35 per cent and 39 per cent. In the marginal scales there is certainly a bulge which seems to be unnatural. If you look at the effective taxation, this bulge does not appear. It is a completely different picture. If an attempt is made to remove this bulge in the marginal scales, it simply means that there will have to be a later and larger increase. I have been informed that if any attempt is made to remove this bulge in the marginal scales, it will mean a loss of approximately R7 million. Then that R7 million has to be found somewhere else.

That is the problem. All in all I think that if one looks at the graph of the effective taxation, then our taxation system as it is at present is by no means unreasonable. I appreciate that it rises somewhat rapidly on a certain scale, but it has to rise somewhere. If we make it rise rapidly at too low a point, it simply means that it has to go much higher. We should not like to do that either, because we do not want to remove any incentive on the part of the higher income groups to earn more.

The hon. member also asked me a question in connection with revenue from oil. We do not expect to have any revenue from oil this year, but these scales are fixed on the basis of a request by overseas companies because they want to know what awaits them if they come here to prospect for oil.

Amendment put and negatived (official Opposition dissenting).

Original motion put and agreed to.

Non-resident shareholders tax:

I move—

1. (a) any dividend (excluding such portion thereof as consists of an interim dividend) declared by any company on or after the twenty-second day of March, 1967; and
2. (b) any interim dividend the payment of which has been approved on or after that date by the directors of any company or by some other person under authority conferred by the memorandum and articles of association of that company.

Agreed to.

Non-residents’ tax on interest:

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall with effect from the 1st day of April, 1967, be paid a tax (to be called the non-residents’ tax on interest) on any amount of interest accruing on or after that date to or in favour of—
   1. (a) any person, other than a company not ordinarily resident in the Republic; or
   2. (b) the deceased estate of any person who at the date of his death was not ordinarily resident in the Republic; or
   3. (c) a company not registered in the Republic;
2. if the debtor in respect of such amount is ordinarily resident or carrying on business in the Republic, at the rate of 10 per cent of such amount of interest.
3. (2) That the debtor in respect of the amount of interest subject to the non-residents’ tax on interest or any person receiving such amount on behalf of the creditor in respect of the interest shall be required to pay the tax on behalf of the creditor and shall be entitled to deduct or withhold the tax paid from the amount which such debtor or person is liable to pay to such creditor or to recover such tax from such creditor.

Mr. Chairman, this proposal intrigues me somewhat and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to clarify some of the problems I have in connection with it. When the hon. the Minister made his Budget speech, he said that interest on loans concluded outside the Republic is regarded as being derived from a source outside the Republic and therefore not subject to South Africa’s income tax. This is correct and one could understand what the hon. the Minister was trying to achieve. What he wanted to do was to impose a tax on interest received by people who received that interest from the Republic, where the loan had been negotiated outside the Republic. Consequently the source of the income was regarded as being outside the Republic. When we look at the Ways and Means proposals on page 471 there is no reference whatsoever to the fact that this tax would only be applicable in respect of loans concluded outside the Republic. If we pass proposal No. 3, it will mean that in the future all loans concerning a creditor outside the Republic will be subject to a 10 per cent non-residents’ tax on interest, irrespective of whether the loan was concluded and negotiated within the Republic or without the Republic. This changes one of the fundamental bases of our South African tax law. We have always regarded the source of income as being one of the fundamentals. When the source is in the Republic, one would have expected that the taxpayer would pay tax at the same rate as any other person in this country would pay. In most cases domicile or residence has very little to do with our system of taxation. The basic system is source, namely where the money is earned. If the money is earned in the Republic, one has to pay tax on it. We have changed this from time to time, for example in regard to dividends, but it has still been the basic principle. Now this has been changed. Interest on all loans, wherever concluded, where the lender is outside the Republic and the debtor is inside the Republic, will now attract tax at a rate of 10 per cent. There is a provision in this regard, not in the Ways and Means proposals, but in the Income Tax Bill. In terms of section 64 (b) of the Bill, if the lender has a place of business in the Republic, he is exempt from this provision. But what is the position when a person negotiates a loan in the Republic, but the money is borrowed from a person abroad? It seems to me, from what I can read in this provision and the new income tax proposals, that this interest will bear tax at the rate of 10 per cent or normal tax rates, whichever is the higher. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me if this is correct or not. As I have said, this is changing a fundamental principle in our tax system. A deal is concluded in South Africa. Therefore the source is South Africa. Therefore the man should pay normal tax. Now this is being changed so that he will pay either normal tax, or 10 per cent, whichever is the higher.

There is another problem which might arise on which the hon. the Minister might be able to guide us. If a person who has investments in South Africa suffers an overall tax loss for the year, he will nevertheless still pay the 10 per cent on any interest that he earns in this country. It also seems to me, in my reading of these provisions, that the interest earned will be set-off against the tax loss. In other words, this interest is now being put in quite a separate category, so that while tax is paid on the interest, the interest at the same time reduces the amount of the tax loss. This seems to be a curious situation. Perhaps the hon. the Minister and his advisers may be able to enlighten us in regard to this particular problem.

Mr. Chairman, this argument is rather involved, as you will appreciate, but at the outset I should like to say that the tax imposed here has nothing whatsoever to do with the place where the agreement was negotiated. If the borrower is in this country and he has to pay interest to someone outside this country, he is entitled to deduct the 10 per cent from his interest and pay it over to the Receiver of Revenue. That is in fact the long and the short of it. But for the information of the hon. member I may also state that in the case of normal tax the general rule in relation to interest—other than interest on Government and municipal loans—is that only such interest as is derived from sources within the Republic is taxable. For the purposes of South African tax, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has held that the source of interest is located in the country where the loan agreement was concluded, or the services of providing the credit which gave rise to the debt in respect of which the interest is payable, were performed. Subject to the exemptions which will be provided for in the Act, and subject to the provisions of the double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States of America, the non-residence tax on interest will be chargeable in respect of all interest payable by persons ordinarily resident or carrying on business in the Republic to persons, other than companies, not ordinarily resident in the Republic or to companies not registered in the Republic. If both the non-residents’ tax on interest and normal tax are payable on the same interest, the non-residents’ tax will be allowed as a credit against the normal tax payable on such interest.

Motion put and agreed to.

Company licences:

I move—

Agreed to.

Customs and excise duties’.

I move—

1. (2) the excise duty in Part 2 of Schedule No. 1 to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, on the goods described hereunder and classified under the tariff item set forth hereunder, be amended to the extent shown:

I have many objections to this, Sir. This seems to be becoming a hardy annual. I am speaking of this increase of excise duties on motor cars. There is an old adage which says: “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a habit”. This is the second time we have had this increase in two years. If we have it again next year, it will have become a habit. It is a habit we do not like. It seems to me that the discus is singling out the motor car user quite unduly. In 1966-’67 we had an increase in the taxation on petrol and diesel oil which, we were told, in a full year would provide the Government with an additional R6,700,000. We had an increase of 2 per cent per lb. in the excise duty and 5 per cent ad valorem in customs duty, which gave the fiscus a further R5,400,000. That was last year. This year again we are being asked to agree to a further tax. The hon. the Minister, when he introduced his Budget, said:

What intrigues me is why the hon. the Minister feels that they can bear an additional tax. We are having the position year after year where the ordinary user of a motor vehicle is having further. and further burdens imposed upon him. I hope the hon. the Minister will not in his reply tell us that this has anything to do with the credit squeeze. The imposition of an excise duty is not the way to deal with a credit squeeze, and the hon. the Minister knows that as well as I do. From figures I have had from the AA, it is estimated that in 1964 the public of South Africa, by direct and indirect taxation, contributed R188 million to the fiscus. This year, 1967, on the basis of this new taxation, it is estimated that the motor user will contribute directly and indirectly to the Government R200 million. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness whether he does not think that the time has come to stop these impositions which are being placed on the motorist. The provincial budget was presented in the Cape to-day. There is increased taxation again on the motorist. I know that this is not in our sphere of influence, but it is always the poor motorist who seems to be catching it in the neck. Last year and this year again the Minister said that the increase would amount to about R40 for a light car and R60 for a medium car as though this was not money we were talking about. The burden that the motorist of this country is bearing already is, I believe, quite out of proportion to what he should bear. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must make out a very good case why twice in two years he has imposed these further duties on motor vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, I support the hon. member for Parktown in his objection against the tax on motor cars. It is not only the motor industry or the motor user that I am concerned about—it is the motor industry as a whole. Long after the gold mines are finished, if South Africa is to have any future at all, it will be necessary to have a developing secondary industry, and the hon. the Minister should know that in Britain, in America, and on the Continent, the principal user of steel is the motor car industry. The industry is going to provide an avenue for employment long after gold is no longer mined in this country. For that reason I think that the Government are seeking an easy way out when it comes to raising taxes by using the motor car industry. It is applying a discriminatory tax against one particular industry. The tax affects not only the engineering industry and the motor industry as such but it affects the motor user, as an hon. member has said, and it also affects transport in the country as a whole. The motor car is relied upon more and more as a means of transport. In many cases, indeed, it is much more reliable than Government transport, and that is not saying very much. This is virtually a tax on transport, a tax which is passed on to the end user. It increases costs and increases the cost of transport in the country as a whole. For that reason we on this side say that it is essential that his should not become a habit. We do not like this tax; we do not like this habit of the Government, this continuing habit of overtaxing the motor car industry.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give a very brief reply. I think the hon. gentlemen have said everything they had to say. Actually, it is not necessary for me to say more than what has been said in the Budget Speech. The fact of the matter is simply that cars seem to be items which are very readily bought in times when people do buy things readily; in many cases they are not essential for the purposes of making a living. Consequently this is a desirable source of revenue.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the car industry in particular, and in this connection he compels me to draw his attention to certain comments. On 26th March, i.e. the very next Sunday after the Budget Speech, the following report appeared in the Sunday Times—

I now want to refer to another article to disprove the statements made by the hon. member. On 20th April the following article appeared in The Cape Argus—

I think what I have just read more or less replies to the comments, particularly those made by the hon. member for Pinetown. This is a convenient source of revenue and cars are articles which are very often used for luxury purposes and not for essential purposes. I do not think that I could take the matter any further than that.

Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the Minister’s argument at all that the motor car has become a luxury item. A motor car is to many people an absolutely essential item without which they cannot carry on their normal lives. To every farmer, for instance, in South Africa a motor car is not a luxury—he has got to have it. To every person whose occupation means travelling about a motor car is essential. To simply quote the figures and say that there are record sales and the number of cars is going up is not an indication that people are indulging in luxuries. In the first place, motor cars do not last these days as they used to last. They are not made to last. They are not made to give the service which they used to in past years. And so where a person would make a car last for 10 or 15 years, to-day he simply cannot keep his car that long. What happens is that hon. Ministers have to get longer and longer cars and they last for shorter and shorter times. We find that M.E.C.’s in the Transvaal …

Order! Should the hon. member not come back again to the proposals on customs and excise duties?

I am dealing with the question as to whether a motor car is a luxury, and I am suggesting …

I consider that the correct time to discuss that would be either during the Second or Third Reading or when the particular Vote is under discussion.

With respect. Sir, we are objecting to this increased taxation, and we are objecting on the ground that an essential item in normal life is being additionally taxed. I was coming to the point that the only time that a motor car is a luxury, as far as I can see, is when five people have 11 motor cars to drive around in, as the Nationalist M.E.C.’s in the Transvaal do. Then it is a luxury. Or when one has an extra long Cadillac; then it can become a luxury. But to the farmer, to the commercial traveller, to the ordinary person, to the doctor, to salesmen, to estate agents, to 1,001 occupations, it is an essential.

Or ordinary members of Parliament.

Ordinary members of Parliament, if they are on the Government side, also start looking for status symbols. But many of us have to have motor cars for our business. I am not alone in this. I accept that there are people who are unhappy about luxurious motor cars. The hon. member for Moorreesburg I am sure will get up and support me. In this case I am sure that he will give me strong support in pleading that where cars are being abused, where luxury transport is being used, that is an aspect where we can cut down on spending and perhaps save on this taxation. If the Government were not spending as much on luxury cars for Ministers they might not need this tax. The Minister simply says blithely that this is a convenient method of sucking a little more money out of the hard-pressed motorist. The pipeline pushes the price of his petrol up. Every single aspect of the Government’s approach to the motorist is one of “bleed them all you can”, and I take strong exception to the fact that the Minister should imply that this is a simple way of getting money out of a luxury item. We say that it is not a luxury item.

Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to get up and to reply to what the hon. member has just said. To use Parliamentary language: I have not often come across anybody who gives such wrong impressions of what has actually been said. No one here has alleged that a car is a luxury article out and out, except the hon. member for Durban (Point), who now wants to make a debating or political point of that. He will not agree with me, but all hon. members opposite will agree with me …

Except Piet Marais.

… that cars are luxury articles to a large extent. I know the hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me. Nevertheless, I do think that cars are used as luxury articles in many cases. Many people do not use them because it is essential to do so, whereas many people do use them because it is essential to do so.

Is that why Ministers must get a car?

That is so. Many people use cars in that way. But I will be out of order, and I think any other hon. member will be out of order, if we now have a discussion on whether or not cars are luxury articles.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is trifling with the Chair.

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister is not trifling with the Chair, and other hon. members must not try to trifle with the Chair either. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Consequently I think we should rather confine ourselves to the subject, and that is, as I said right at the beginning, that we are living in a period in which there is free spending. We are living in times where it is convenient, and also right, to levy taxes on those articles not only because they sell readily but also because they are, to a large extent, not essential things. I want to emphasize that, and in this respect I differ from the hon. member. Therefore I do not think that we have been unreasonable in introducing this additional increase in car taxation.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members, readily objects to any increase in taxation. Now, I may perhaps be out of order if I say so, but they object as readily if a sufficient amount is not given or if money is not available for other services which they would like to have. We have to find the funds in some way and if the hon. member objects to this increase in car taxation, I should like to hear from him from what source we are to get the additional revenue.

Motion put and agreed to.

Resolutions on income tax, non-resident shareholders’ tax, non-residents’ tax on interest, company licences and customs and excise duties reported.

At this stage I should like to reply to the contributions which have been made in this debate up to now. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation of the constructive contributions which came from everyone who participated in this debate up to now. At the same time I want to express my thanks for the speeches by various hon. members which testified to the goodwill at present existing amongst the Coloureds, goodwill towards the pattern of separate development. The testimony which was forthcoming here from all sides in regard to the goodwill prevailing on the part of the Coloureds, serves as a tribute to Minister P. W. Botha and the Department of Coloured Affairs, a tribute to the uphill, but ultimately successfully concluded task in the interests of the Coloureds and in the interests of South Africa. The path which my predecessor in the Department of Coloured Affairs had to walk was not always strewn with roses; it was not always one of assistance and conviction such as that on which I, as the present Minister of Coloured Affairs, am walking at present. His path was uphill and strewn with thorns on more than one occasion. That was so because he was faced with a wall of prejudice against our policy of separate development, a wall of prejudice created by incitement from different sides and by different bodies and persons. But truth prevailed eventually and the positive aspect, the positive side of separate development spoke so clearly that the voice of the inciter is no longer being heard at present. One may attribute this change in attitude on the part of the Coloureds to the fact that they can see and experience at present that separate development is not the bogey which they were led to believe throughout the years but that the contrary is true. I think the change in attitude may be attributed to the fact that the Coloureds can see and experience at present that they are getting opportunities within the framework of separate development for the promotion of their own welfare and progress—opportunities they have never had before.

Of the speakers who participated in this debate, I want to start with the hon. member for Peninsula. Unfortunately he is not present in the House at the moment. However, I want to say that I appreciate his remarks on this matter, as well as his remark that the Coloureds at present have more opportunities than ever before; as well as the appeal he made to the Coloureds to utilize those opportunities. At every meeting of Coloureds where I am a speaker, I never fail to tell them what opportunities are in fact being created for them and at the same time I appeal to them to do their share as well. It is of no use if we create opportunities for them if they are not prepared to do their share. Therefore I appreciate it even more that an appeal in this regard came from the hon. member as a Coloured representative. The hon. member for Peninsula pleaded for the creation of more facilities for the training of Coloureds. He wants us to accelerate this training in order to equip the Coloured more rapidly for the labour market. Mr. Chairman, as far as this is concerned, we have definitely not been asleep —as a matter of fact, an enormous amount has been done in this connection over the past number of years. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that in one year, in 1966, vocational schools were established at Johannesburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Kimberley. Since January of this year, i.e. 1967, the former Peninsula Technical College at Harrington Street, Cape Town, has also been operating as a vocational school and during that same month a new technical college was opened at Bellville. Apart from the establishment of these institutions, a system of multi-stream education has been introduced into schools with the result that they no longer make provision for the academic direction only but also for technical directions so that every pupil may choose one of various directions on the grounds of aptitude. In addition part-time classes have been introduced and have been extended to such a degree that provision exists at present for any direction in which there may be a need. The hon. member also referred with appreciation to the appointment of Dr. Van der Ross. I may just say that his appointment will not be the last appointment of its kind, and that I hope that we shall be able to appoint other suitable Coloureds to senior posts in the head office of the Department in the near future. From the nature of the case we are, of course, restricted by the number of really suitable people. However, there are suitable people and therefore I may say that greater use is going to be made of them in the future. Here I may add that it is my intention to appoint Coloured inspectors in the near future so that the Coloureds may truly experience that separate development is not something in regard to which they are only able to act as spectators, but that it is something in which they are active participants; that it affords them the opportunity to devote their energies and talents in the interests of the development of their own people, opportunities like they have never had before in this country.

The hon. member for Peninsula referred to the resignations of teachers. That is so; there are resignations. The figures have already been given. In 1965 550 resigned and in 1966 385, and in 1967, up to 25th April, 102. But also in this connection one has to see things in the right perspective. If one bears the fact in mind that there are 14,000 Coloured teachers in the country, these resignations represent 2½ per cent which one does not find so alarming. That does not mean that I adopt an indifferent attitude to these resignations, but one should also take the reasons for their resignation into account. At present there are opportunities for Coloureds in the private sector which they have never had before. Coloured teachers are drawn to the business world which is being stimulated through the agency of the C.D.C., and that is a matter which has to be taken into account. Reference is often made to the exodus to Canada. Yes, people have resigned and have gone to Canada, but I am really confident that an appointment such as that of Dr. Van der Ross and the appointments to which I have just referred—that it will be possible for Coloureds to become inspectors—will bring our Coloured teachers to realize to an ever-increasing extent that a ceiling has not been placed on their chances for promotion, but that the contrary is true and that they have the greatest opportunities to progress according to their own talents. I have every confidence that the contribution made to the number of resignations by that frustrating trend will be much smaller in the future than in the past.

Reference was also made here to the decrease in the number of pupils in the higher standards. The fact that there is a decrease is a matter which worries my Department and myself. It is a serious matter if one considers the tremendous need there will be in the future for Coloured leaders and professional men. In the Department of Coloured Affairs itself a tremendous need exists for Coloureds to become officials and they have to be drawn from the ranks of the matriculants. This is a matter for concern but once again it is a case that one may take a horse to the water but one cannot make him drink. The parents of the pupils concerned should also inspire and encourage them. The State cannot be held responsible for all these trends.

Reference was made to the training facilities for teachers. This is a matter which is receiving our serious attention. One of the tasks which I performed within my short period in office, was to open a new training college at Oudtshoorn. It is a beautiful building. Mr. Holland was also present, because that area falls within his constituency. It is one of the most beautiful training colleges in our country and it has a capable staff. But apart from that beautiful building at Oudtshoorn, we have made extensions at other colleges, and in addition to that, new colleges are being planned for Port Elizabeth. Durban, Johannesburg and Kimberley. One of my first tasks was to pay a visit to the site for the training college in Johannesburg. Provision has already been made there for sports grounds, etc., and the site is a large one which provides for further extensions. Apart from all these plans which have now reached the stage where they may be carried out, we have the newly completed technical college at Bellville South, which also provides training facilities for teachers, and apart from that the University College of the Western Cape is at present giving consideration to further courses for the training of teachers.

Pleas were made for the establishment of more facilities for the training of skilled labourers. During the discussion of the Labour Vote I referred to the numbers of Coloured apprentices and I am not going to repeat those figures because they are on record. But apart from that, these technical colleges and the vocational schools to which I have just referred make provision for this training and those which have not yet been completed are already providing such training in temporary rooms which are available. Therefore hon. members need have no doubt that in that sphere what can be done is not being done.

I also appreciate the plea made by the hon. member for Peninsula in regard to the question of cultural promotion. This is a matter which has been receiving my special attention during the past number of months, because I hold the view that no man can live by bread alone. We put many things into operation to make the Coloureds more prepared for work. As a matter of fact, I regard the Coloureds’ preparedness for work not only as an economic asset, but also as a moral asset, because preparedness for work brings pride in work, and that is one of the elements which also gives one national pride. But preparedness for work and pride in work alone are not sufficient to make a proud being of a person. We who should like to see that the Coloured nation should be a proud nation require more than those things. If we want to make something more of them than that, one must also encourage and educate the Coloureds in the cultural field. They should be given facilities and opportunities so that they may also be strong in the cultural field, so that they may be proud of their own achievements and personalities in the cultural field. We know that the Coloureds have many talents. They have singing and musical talents which are of the finest and of the best, and those talents should be encouraged in order to achieve this ideal of a proud Coloured nation. “La Traviata” was performed and I think you were all impressed by the high standard of the performances of those Coloured artists. We are grateful for those high standards and we are also grateful for the existence of musical societies amongst the Coloureds, but at present there is a need for the co-ordination of those musical societies. There is a need for planning and for purposeful action. I have felt that a need existed amongst them to be able to act in a coordinated fashion so that they may devise an ambitious plan, and with a view to that I have just decided that the Coloureds’ own council for performing arts should be created. The task of this council will be to organize, coordinate and develop the cultural life of the Coloureds so as to place their arts on a more sound footing. It will be the task of this Coloured Council for Performing Arts to promote the cultural life of the Coloureds, to initiate new activities and to make the Coloured public culture conscious. It is of no use if there are only a few people who are culture conscious and who are the promoters of cultural activities. One has to see to it that the people also become culture conscious. With a view to propagating this idea in the rural areas, a mobile unit will be created which will enable these artists to go to the rural areas. This Council will also give rise to the development of professional theatre groups which, as in the case of our white groups, can tour the country. In this way the Coloureds can develop their own André Huguenets and Hendrik Hanekoms. For the sake of their pride in their own people, it is essential for them to have their own André Huguenets and Hendrik Hanekoms, and I want to express the hope that this Council for Performing Arts which is to be created will be instrumental in producing them. But in addition to these things the University College of the Western Cape will now consider the possibility of establishing a department for fine arts at the University so that people may be trained in that department to perform this important task for them.

This brings me to the Eoan Group, to which hon. members also referred. The Eoan Group, which performed La Traviata, has, of course, been rendering excellent service throughout the years. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the Eoan Group does receive allowances from the State, but I have felt that the time has arrived when we may perhaps give further assistance. Recently this Group received assistance from a very friendly benefactor, Mr. J. W. Stone, who donated an amount of R100,000 to the Eoan Group for the building of a cultural centre at Athlone, a cultural centre which will accommodate a little theatre, which will accommodate certain workshops which are necessary for constructing décor, etc., and where artists can also be trained. The State will also render assistance in this regard. It gives me pleasure to announce that the State will contribute R50,000 to this cultural centre which will be established at Athlone. Of this amount of R50,000, an amount of R10,000 has already been given and provision for the balance of R40,000 will be made in the coming Budget. In this way we want to make a real effort to provide the Coloureds with opportunities for cultural training, something which is necessary to make a full human being of the Coloured. But apart from these steps, the Coloureds in the Peninsula also need a suitable concert hall where they can stage plays. Hon. members will recall that our previous Prime Minister referred to the Bellville South complex and the developments which he envisaged there as the future capital for the Coloured people, a place where one does not only have a university college but a place where one can also have one’s real cultural development. In order to give effect to that idea that the Bellville South complex can in due course be the capital for the Coloured people, we have now decided that a concert hall will be erected for the Coloureds in Bellville South, a concert hall which will be available for the staging of plays, etc. I regard this step as being necessary in the interests of the development of the Coloured as a full human being, not merely a labour factor, but as a human being who is proud of his own cultural possessions, because in my mind there is no doubt that our entire upliftment operation will be crippled if we do not also encourage and educate these people spiritually and culturally. I hope that the steps mentioned here by me will be instrumental in giving the Coloured that spiritual strength.

The hon. member for Malmesbury pleaded that town councils should give bursaries to persons who wanted to take a diploma or a degree course to qualify them as Coloured welfare workers and officials in Coloured local authorities. This is a plea which I want to support most strongly because such a crying need exists in this field for various reasons. At so many of these local authorities there are large Coloured housing schemes which have many social problems. At present, for various reasons, very few Coloureds enrol for courses in social science at the University College of the Western Cape, and I do think that it will have a very beneficial and useful effect if local authorities were to react to the plea made here by the hon. member for Malmesbury. I want to add to that, however, that the local authorities concerned should, in addition to the bursaries offered by them, offer a position in their own local authorities to the Coloured who qualifies in this direction. In that way they will be able to obtain the same fine services as one obtains in other towns as the result of the employment of such persons. A place like Bishop Lavis, for example, derives particularly fine services from people who are assisted in this way, and I shall be very glad if town councils react to the appeal made by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Tygervallei pleaded for the provision of bottle store and bar facilities in the Florida Coloured residential area. I shall request the Coloured Development Corporation to investigate this matter.

The hon. members for Gardens and Peninsula both raised the question of compulsory education. The question of compulsory education is a matter which is constantly enjoying our attention, but it is not a matter which can be carried into effect with one stroke of the pen. There are three factors which make this a difficult matter. In the first place we are faced with the hard fact that in spite of all our extensive building operations there simply is not sufficient school accommodation for the numbers who will have to attend school under compulsory education. Such accommodation simply does not exist at present. We are building as rapidly as we can, but that accommodation simply does not exist. In the second place, if compulsory education is introduced, we will not have sufficient teachers. What situation will be created if one compels children to go to school and there are no teachers to teach them? A third factor which is involved is the attitude of the Coloured parents themselves in regard to schooling. Hon. members should not labour under the misconception that all Coloured parents, or the majority of them, are very enthusiastic about the idea that their children have to go to school. A great deal of education has to be done in this regard. We first have to overcome these obstacles before we can give consideration to introducing compulsory education, even if I myself have the greatest sympathy for the idea.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg raised the question of a fishing harbour on the West Coast. Last year during the debate on the Vote he also raised this matter, and I gave the undertaking to have the matter investigated. As a matter of fact, I myself have paid a visit to that region. In the first place, I want to make it quite clear that I adopt a very sympathetic attitude in regard to the idea that there should be a separate fishing harbour for the Coloureds, but this too is one of the matters which cannot be carried into effect with a single stroke of the pen or by making a wish. After I had ordered this investigation, I had discussions with experts and I came to the conclusion that although a fishing harbour for the Coloureds was something very desirable— and I shall aim at establishing one—it would have to be regarded as a long-term project because of the fact that a fishing harbour was an expensive undertaking. The experts pointed out to me that one could not establish a fishing harbour by merely planting a few poles in the sea as some people thought. That is not a fishing harbour which can be established under the flag of the State. No, if we want to establish a fishing harbour for the Coloureds, it must be a fishing harbour which will not bring discredit on this Government and this country. If one wants a fishing harbour which will be able, on the one hand, to cope with this quota of 5,000 lobster units, which is the present allocation to the C.D.C., and if one takes into account the possibility of a fishmeal quota which will be allocated to the C.D.C., as I am given to understand by the Board of Trade and Industries, as soon as the position in the fishing industry permits, such a fishing harbour will also have to be suitable for deep-sea fishing vessels. One cannot simply provide a tiny shallow spot where small lobster boats can find shelter and regard that as being a fishing harbour. There must be packing and cooling facilities and there must also be housing for the Coloured workers. After all, they cannot just cover themselves with bags. One must definitely provide proper housing for them. Hon. members also realize how essential road transport is as far as the West Coast is concerned. In view of all these things I have come to the conclusion, along with the experts, that this is an expensive undertaking. It is not an undertaking which one can simply establish overnight. In view of all these aspects I have requested the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, under whom Viskor and these fishing experts fall, to have an investigation instituted into the most suitable site for a Coloured fishing harbour on the West Coast. In the meantime this lobster quota still has to be exploited. As you know, this is being exploited largely at Lambert’s Bay. I want to express my appreciation to the white interests at Lambert’s Bay for having accommodated this lobster quota and the C.D.C.’s activities in their community up to now. I know that there are certain problems. I was there myself recently and I heard and saw that there were serious housing problems as a result of the fact that a Coloured township has not yet been proclaimed at Lambert’s Bay. That causes friction and difficulties. Fortunately a Coloured township will shortly be proclaimed at Lambert’s Bay where it will be possible to provide housing which will eliminate this friction. Therefore I want to express my appreciation to the white interests for having accommodated the C.D.C. and I want to ask them, as an interim measure, to continue providing us with accommodation and a base. Apart from that I have asked the C.D.C. to investigate an additional place for exploiting the other part of this lobster quota in the hope that the entire lobster quota need not be exploited at the same place. It may be possible to effect a distribution in such exploitation and that may also contribute to a better attitude towards the C.D.C. on the part of the Whites.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg also pleaded for the housing of Coloured labourers on farms. The hon. member knows of the inter-departmental committee on housing for rural workers. He has already learnt from a reply given by me that an investigation was instituted into the matter, that a report was presented and that that report was at present being considered by the relevant Government bodies.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay pleaded for the Department of Coloured Affairs to take over the financing of Coloured beach resorts because coastal divisional councils could not shoulder this burden. This, in the first place, is a matter which falls under the provincial authorities and which should therefore be raised with them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak pursuant to what the hon. the Minister said, namely that our primary object was to assist the Coloured community to assist itself and the hon. the Minister clearly outlined what the Department was doing and made an appeal that the Coloureds themselves must also assist by doing these things themselves. The framework and the foundations have been provided, the bricks have been provided, the cement has been provided, they themselves must build. Pursuant to that I should like to refer to the welfare services provided by this Department. When a community has been placed at a certain place the welfare of its people is the first thing to which attention has to be given. That is its primary function. The first thing it has to do is to render assistance where assistance is required. Those are the things to which I should like to give attention and I want to do so in the sense that those things are the first things which the Coloured community has to tackle in order to uplift its people. I should like to refer to the words of the hon. the Prime Minister at the opening of the Coloured Council. He said, inter alia (translation)—

We have in mind all the various welfare organizations which are essential for making such a community a happy one. We have in mind mothercraft, child welfare, care for the aged, care for the physically infirm, rehabilitation services, juvenile delinquency, the combating of alcoholism, etc. These things form the essence and the beginning of building a nation and of a community. They have to do these things themselves because they know their people best. If we consult the annual report, we notice that an amount of nearly R4 million was spent on child welfare. If we make further analysis, we find that this amount of R4 million was inter alia, provided for foster children living with foster parents. Last year the children cared for in this way numbered 5,561 and this year the figure is 6,840. We have in mind the private children’s homes which also cared for a large number, namely 2,520 children, last year. Forty of them provide for more than 4,000 children. We have in mind the State places of safety which have accommodation for 480 children. If we go further, I want to make an appeal to the Coloured community in the first place to discuss these things because these are essential things and things which make a family a happy one.

People belonging to the Coloured community should stimulate and activate one another into establishing their own organizations for alcoholism, juvenile delinquency or whatever. They should feel that they too want a share in these services provided by the State. They can obtain all the necessary information at the regional offices but on their part there must be interest. They should look for all the promising youths in their ranks. The hon. the Minister spoke of the facilities for the training of social workers provided at the University College. Up to last year, if I remember correctly, four Coloured social workers were employed in the Cape Peninsula. Last year seven of them qualified. Do these figures not show that a crying need for social workers exists? Can the Coloureds themselves not provide in that need to a larger extent? The hon. member for Malmesbury said—and the hon. the Minister replied to him—that town councils and local authorities must also contribute their share. I want to extend that same appeal by appealing to the Coloureds to start establishing funds, such as bursary funds. We may be able to build on such beginnings. The local authorities may subsidize such funds on a R1 for R1 basis in order to assist promising Coloureds in their training as social workers. When I speak of social work I also mean health services. I include nurses, health inspectors, and health and mothercraft workers. All these things together will be able to uplift the Coloured community.

In summarizing all these matters, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister. I am convinced that many Coloureds do not know enough about these matters. I want to ask whether more information cannot be supplied through the Department to the bodies and persons concerned in order to acquaint them with these services. I am convinced that there are many Coloureds who do not know of all these facilities mentioned by the hon. the Minister. Is it not possible to acquaint the Coloureds with the services by means of propaganda, newspapers and publications and through the schools, the churches or anything else? I put the same question to the Coloureds themselves and to the Coloured leaders. In their own organizations they have to bring these services and these facilities, particularly the training facilities, more pertinently to the attention of their own people. Only by those means will they be able to attract promising youths to undergo training.

Mr. Chairman, there has been so much billing and cooing going on up to now on this Vote, that if it were not for the fact that I was quite hardened to the role that I often play in this House, I would hesitate to speak at all. The hon. the Minister has had a great deal of praise showered on him by the hon. member for Peninsula, the leader of the Coloured group, and the official Opposition. I am afraid that we have been indulging in the favourite occupation of white South Africans so far on this Vote. We have been deluding ourselves, and assuring everybody, as we often do, that the non-white people are perfectly happy with everything that is happening to them.

As I say, one hears this very often in South Africa. White South Africans are always telling each other and any visitors who come to this country that the non-Whites in South Africa are perfectly happy and if only agitators did not stir them up, they would not even know that they were suffering any sort of discrimination or any hardships at all in South Africa. The Government speakers have been thanking the Opposition speakers for the assurances that they have been giving this House that everything has now come right as far as the Coloured people are concerned and that they are all accepting the Government’s policy of separate development or apartheid. And, of course, the hon. the Minister has told us too that he is getting much more co-operation. The hon. the Prime Minister told the Coloured Council when he spoke to them on the 4th April of this year that he too was glad to hear that the Coloured people have now accepted the Government’s policy. I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the Coloured people have accepted the Government’s policy, that some are doing better than they have done before and that some people are happy in the jobs which they have obtained in the Department of Coloured Affairs be it in education, welfare or any of the other sub-departments under the hon. the Minister’s control.

I have no doubt that people who have been placed on boards and in banks, and people who have been given certain advantages in the Coloured areas themselves, for instance the acquisition of liquor licences, are getting opportunities they have not had before and there is no reason from their own individual point of view why they should not be feeling more contented than they were. There are better jobs being offered to people in these departments and some people in the small privileged sections who are getting these jobs, obviously may say that they are better off than they were before. Whether they are all happy, of course, is another question. One does not necessarily become happier as a result of this. In some cases the people who have taken jobs have made it quite clear that it is purely and simply a matter of “if you cannot beat them, join them”. That is exactly what many of them have done. They have stated quite unequivocally that they are tired of knocking their heads against a stone wall, that separate development is the policy which is being implemented by the Government which is in power and shows obviously no signs of being unseated in the foreseeable future. Therefore the sensible policy is to accept that this is a fait accompli and to try and get the best that one possibly can get out of this policy.

Do you agree?

Order! The hon. member may not speak from a ministerial bench.

Perhaps the hon. member is anticipating an illustrious future for himself. Now, these people have made it quite clear that they are going to get the most that they can. But for hon. members in this House to claim that because of this, the Coloured people belong to a happy society, is a delusion. To accept a policy is not to approve of a policy. There is a considerable distinction between acceptance and approval. This is a distinction that is apparently not well understood by hon. members in this House. There is a distinction also between not opposing a policy and welcoming a policy. Indeed, I might say that it is quite a brave Coloured person to-day who takes any political line that is against Government policy.

Nobody apparently sees any significance for instance in the fact that the much publicized meeting in the Cape Town City Hall which was held recently, where the Community Development Department was going to explain the whole position to the District Six inhabitants, was attended by literally a handful of people. Two to three hundred people appeared in the City Hall in order to hear the explanation of what was going to happen to them in District Six. I do not know whether this was meant to signify approval or whether perhaps it is either lack of hope or possibly even lack of interest, knowing full well that nothing that they heard was going to bring any comfort to them. I wonder whether hon. members do not see any significance in two salient factors that stick out like sore thumbs as regards this whole assurance we have about the happy society which the Coloured people now constitute.

First of all, the hon. the Minister mentioned the question of teachers resigning and some people emigrating to Canada as if it were a matter which gave him some concern. But we must look at it in the general context. After all, I think he said there were 13,000 Coloured teachers in South Africa, as if it were not really very important that some were leaving. But this is the cream of Coloured society that is going. Why should they go if they feel that there are greater opportunities here for them than ever before? In 1966, 335 Coloured people went to Canada alone. I cannot obtain any figures for the number who emigrated to Great Britain or elsewhere, but 335 last year went to Canada and in the first four months of this year 176 Coloured people have gone. These all consist of families. There are children among them. But also something like 30 per cent of them are teachers. There are nurses and artisans of all kinds. In other words, the more skilled members of society are deciding that they cannot accept separate development for themselves or their children.

Why, if the Government is so certain that the mass of the Coloured people have now accepted their policy, do they not hold the elections for the Coloured Council, let alone for the Coloured representatives in this House. We have argued that out before. But even the election for the one and only elected member of the Coloured Council, whose seat has been vacant since January, 1964, has not yet been held. I know perfectly well that under the new Coloured Council Act the State President could by proclamation extend the term of office of the sitting members. He has done that, of course, year after year. The term of office of the sitting members of the Coloured Council has been extended. Only one election has been held for the Coloured Council and that was in 1959, although the term of office of Coloured members of that council was supposed to expire in 1964. Instead of that, there was simply the prolongation of the term of office of the sitting members. Not that I might say that in 1959 the mass of the Coloured people were enthralled by this council. In fact, there were 12 nominations, but no election at all. Most of the Coloured organizations at that time completely boycotted those elections.

Let us put this to the test. Let us have this election to fill the one vacancy for an elected member of the Coloured Council and we will see just how much the mass of the Coloured people are now approving of the Government’s policy. I say that to the mass of the Coloured people separate development means now just what it has always meant—although there have been opportunities for some members of the Coloured community—and that is second-class citizenship, no more and no less. It has meant unequal economic opportunities for themselves and their children. This is for the mass of the Coloured people. It has meant lower pay for qualified doctors and qualified teachers among the Coloured people. It has meant lower wages for those people. It has meant humiliation under the Separate Amenities Act. It has meant job reservation, expropriation and forced removal under the Group Areas. Act. Above all, for the vast mass of Coloured people it still means to-day what it has always meant, namely poverty and a lower standard of living. These I submit are the matters that affect the lives of the vast majority of the Coloured people, these factors that limit their opportunities and do not offer these halcyon vistas of “the sky is the limit” that the former Minister talked about. For some people it has meant an improved standard, but for the vast mass, separate development is not just accepted. It is accepted under duress, not voluntarily. Let us put it to the proof. I am perfectly prepared to do so. Let us have an election and see.

Mr. Chairman, we have now had another opportunity of listening to the hon. member for Houghton trying once more, as is her wont, to make some cheap political capital out of the whole question of the position of the Coloured people. In the course of her speech she made a whole series of completely unfounded statements. Let me mention only one of them. The hon. member referred in a high tone to the “second-class citizenship” of the Coloured people; according to her they are doomed to second-class citizenship. She said that they were, inter alia, doomed to enjoy fewer opportunities in the economic field. But the very reverse is the case. The history of the development of the Coloured people over the past years has shown that under the policy of separate development more opportunities have been created for them as a less developed population group than they could ever have in an integrated community where they would have to compete on equal terms with the Whites in the economic field. What the hon. member said here is the biggest nonsense imaginable. I want to leave it at that. I have only mentioned this one example. There are numerous responsible Coloured persons to-day who are acting as independent businessmen with the assistance of the Coloured Development Corporation and who are making very good progress indeed. They are doing so well that even Whites envy them. This is happening in many towns and urban areas. Therefore I ask the hon. member please to investigate matters before she makes statements of that kind. The hon. member does not speak because she is actually concerned about the progress made by the Coloured people—she is concerned about the Progressive Party. She even looks highly displeased when reference is made in this House—as happened in the course of this Session—to the promotion of a man such as Dr. van der Ross. She then remarks sneeringly that “every man has his price”. That is the sort of view the hon. member takes of the Coloured people. She is not in the least concerned what progress these people make—she is only concerned about the political progress of the Progressive Party.

I may just refresh the hon. member’s memory a little by saying that during the discussion of the extension of the term of office of the sitting Coloured Representatives it became quite evident in this House—facts were submitted to the House which the hon. member has not been able to refute even to this day—that the Progressive Party, of which she is the parliamentary representative, is pre-eminently a party which holds the view that “every man has his price”. “Every man has his price”—that is the view the hon. member takes of the Coloured people. The hon. member for Peninsula submitted evidence here of how a prominent Coloured person had virtually been ruined by the Progressive Party. This person held a responsible position, but he was cunningly implicated in a political game. He was bribed.

That was denied and the hon. member will never dare repeat it outside this House.

The evidence was submitted here and the hon. member could not refute it. I just want to quote to the hon. member what that person wrote.

It is a pack of lies.

This person referred to the Progressive Party and said the following—I quote from Hansard of 29th September, 1966, col. 3176—

The agents brought to me deponents who completed their cards in my presence. They also brought to me cards that the deponents completed, but these voting cards were attested by me in the absence of the deponents. I was most reluctant to do so and to comply with their wishes, but they promised to divulge nothing and that they would reward me substantially …

As the hon. member said, “every man has his price”—

He is also a well-known personality. I continue—

The hon. member actually confirmed this year what this man had written—“every man has his price”. I noticed in the course of the hon. member’s latest election that Mr. Oppenheimer took a personal interest in her election. He rendered personal assistance. I now want to ask the hon. member:

Is she perhaps speaking on behalf of Mr. Oppenheimer because of the money he may make available for this kind of work? I repeat: “Every man has his price”. Mr. Chairman, it will be of no use to the hon. member to try to explain away or shout down this evidence. The fact of the matter is that what I am saying here to-day, I am saying on the strength of what the hon. member for Houghton says.

The attitude adopted by the Progressive Party as regards the progress made by the Coloured community and as regards their acceptance and endorsement of this policy is a terribly sly one. She simply cannot accept the fact that these people are making progress under the policy of separate development. She cannot feel happy about it, because it means that her party has no future. So I can only tell the hon. member for Houghton this:

She can be sure that the Coloured population, and responsible Coloureds, are seeing through this political game of the Progressive Party and are weighing the Progressive Party. I am not saying that all of them have had a close look at the Progressive Party. It is very easy to make promises. But there is a growing responsible section of the Coloured people who are realizing, accepting and acknowledging more and more that they are no longer going to allow themselves to be led by the nose. They will no longer allow themselves to be bribed with cheap promises and to be used as political voting cattle in the interests of the Progressive Party. The evidence given here by hon. members, evidence which has been given so often even by representatives of the Coloured population, indicates that this Government has steadily unfolded a development programme for the Coloured people over the years. Year after year we are providing proof of the fact that we are not only seeking to protect and safeguard the White population, but that we are also working to bring progress and advancement to the Coloured community. I say that there are many proofs of that. The work that is being done stands as a monument to that. There are so many schools, both primary and secondary. There are also many business undertakings to-day. There are many more that are still being planned and that will be established in future. All these things provide that evidence. The day will come when the Coloured people will acknowledge to a greater extent that what has been done and what has been achieved for them, has been achieved under the policy of separate development. [Time expired.]

We on this side of the House welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement of new cultural developments for the Coloured people, but I must say that an educated Coloured public must first be brought into existence in order to enable a sufficient number of people to enjoy these amenities he talks about, and the present educational position among the Coloured people is such that it leaves very little room for optimism. I would have thought, with great respect to the Minister, that he is putting the cart before the horse, because he complained just now that there was not enough school accommodation and there are very few schools on the Estimates this year. It would seem to me to be more practical to build a few more schools, even if it means having double sessions in those schools for a time.

I wish to confine my remarks this afternoon to commenting on the latest report of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I must commend the Department for its complete frankness in this report, because it is one of the gloomiest documents I have read for some time. There is one bright spot in it. With regard to local government, the report states that during the year under review a further 18 management or local government affairs committees were established, bringing the total in the Republic to 44. This represents a very welcome step forward in the essential process of building a sound infrastructure of local government amongst the Coloured people and giving them an opportunity to play an active part in the administrative affairs of the country, and, since sound local government is, after all, the basis for sound democratic government, this new development is to be welcomed. I think that is the only cheerful aspect of this whole report.

If you take the question of welfare services, the report states that the Department is acutely aware of certain grave problems requiring urgent attention and mentions specifically child welfare, excessive drinking, advanced age, physical and mental deficiency and juvenile delinquency. It is a matter of great regret, and the report admits this, that although the Department does all it can to foster a healthier family and community life there is a steady increase in the number of Coloured children who have to be placed in care away from their parental homes. The hon. member for Brentwood mentioned this fact and gave some figures in regard to the number of children who have to be handed out to foster parents. The number has steadily gone up and it is nearly 7,000 to-day, whereas it was 5,500 in 1963. Of course these figures only represent those children who are actually seen by a welfare officer of the Department and the remaining thousands who remain in dire need of care are, in the nature of things, never registered by departmental officers and neither are they placed in institutions. Those children who are registered have to be subsidized by the Department and the Minister knows that the capitation grant has gone up since April last year from R8.50 to R9.00, and in special cases the Department even pays R10 or R10.50, all of which adds a considerable financial burden to the Department. But the hon. member for Brentwood did not go nearly far enough when he was dealing with this matter, because there are 40 private homes 4,150 children, and if you add that to those who have been handed to foster parents for care, and those in places of safety and detention, you find that there are 11,471 of these children. These are the neglected children known to the Department, but even this is only scratching the surface of a very serious problem indeed. There must be literally thousands who never have any care and it is clear that it will take many decades of hard labour for educationists, psychiatrists and for members of the churches to deal with actual or potential individuals who have no care of this kind. The Minister gave a rather brief and a rather artificial sketch of his views about the educational situation, if I may say so. I think there are three comments in the report of the Department which are worth noting. The first is in the field of teaching training, that most has to be done in this field; the second is that much time is being devoted to the whole problem of the in-service training of teachers, which is desperately important, and the third is that the principle of multilateral, comprehensive schools, having been accepted, vocational education at school level has become a function of the secondary school system. These three comments seem to me to be the most important educational comments in the report. If you take teacher training, in 1965-’66—I am dealing with facts and figures—I am not prepared to talk a lot of woolly nonsense—the number of teachers who completed their training for all primary grades throughout the Republic was 1,783, which is totally inadequate. The report states that in comparison with the 1964 enrolment, there was a conspicuous decrease in the total number of students enrolled in training schools, and it goes on to say that in most of the training institutions the number of students enrolled was well below the maximum possible enrolment in the basic courses for which facilities exist; and the large number of vacancies is apparent from the figures. Sir, if the figures are analysed it is even more frightening because it will be found that out of a total of 13 training colleges in the Republic, every single one, with the exception of Hewatt College in the Cape, showed a decrease in enrolment. Out of a maximum possible total of 2,200 places for student teachers, the actual enrolment in these institutions was 1,768 in 1964 and 1,764 in 1965. In other words, what this means is that there are 536 vacancies in training colleges for teachers who are desperately needed and for whom accommodation is available. This situation cannot continue if compulsory schooling is eventually introduced, something which, we are agreed, is basic to the whole socio-economic position of the Coloured community. Figures for student teachers at the University College of the Western Cape are, I think, just as distressing. Can the Minister explain why the figures are so low? Only 34 secondary and high school teachers qualified at the university College of the Western Cape in 1964, according to this report, and in 1965 only 26 qualified. It is pathetic. There has been this alarming decrease in the number of primary teachers entering the training colleges. The main question must then, I think, be asked and answered in the sense that the Minister has tried to answer it. If accommodation is available for these people, why do young Coloured people not want to go in for the teaching profession? Have they given up in despair? Are they not paid enough, or have they gone into industry? What is the answer? This seems to me to be the key to the whole subject. Unfortunately this was not always the case. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that when I was in the Provincial Council in 1961 there were 561 prospective Coloured students in the Cape who applied for admission to the training colleges here, and only 207 could be accepted. At the end of 1962, 635 applied and only 227 were accepted. In other words, during these two years prior to the take-over by the Government, 408 potential teachers were available in the Cape but were rejected through lack of accommodation. But now we do not even have the potential, although we have the accommodation, and this is very alarming. It seems to me that the answer must be found in the secondary and high schools, because it is these schools which produce the teacher potential. One other cheerful note is the number of passes in the Junior Certificate examination. This shows a slight annual increase, although the failure rate is still alarmingly high. But at any rate in the Cape Province, where the majority of Coloureds are domiciled, the rate has increased from 53.4 per cent in 1964 to 54.6 per cent in 1965, and it has gone up as high as 66.3 per cent in 1966, and we are very pleased about this provided, of course, that the majority of these people enrol as student teachers, which they are not doing. But if you look at the Senior Certificate results the picture is not so happy. If one takes the Cape Province—I will deal with the Republican figures later—you find it is pathetic that in 1964 only 1,088 pupils wrote the Senior Certificate, of whom 439 passed, or 40.3 per cent. In 1965 1,181 wrote and only 508 passed, or 43 per cent, and in 1966 there was a decrease in the number of pupils who wrote, a decrease of 84; 1,097 wrote the examination and only 619 passed, which made a percentage of 56.5 per cent. [Time expired.]

I first want to correct an impression that may have been left yesterday in connection with the harbour for Coloureds advocated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He mentioned Boegoeberg Bay. The impression that may have been left—the inference that one could have made from the Press report—was that he advocated that Boegoeberg Bay, in respect of which departmental surveys as well as technical surveys have been carried out, should be a harbour exclusively for Coloureds. The hon. member has informed me that that was not his intention, but that he specifically meant that when this harbour was developed—a harbour which must be seen against the background of a large hinterland in the North-Western Cape, which also includes my constituency—the Coloured people should also be allocated a place right from the start where they will be able to carry on their fishing industry. I am just putting this straight at the request of the hon. member.

I listened very attentively to what the hon. member for Wynberg had to say about Coloured education. She said certain things here with which all of us have to agree and that we still do not feel happy about, but that simply proves that as soon as one has accomplished one thing, one gets complaints about another. Much better facilities have been created for these people in the training institutions. These institutions can accommodate 2,200 people, and only 1,764 enrolled for training in 1965. That also shows that as the position of the Coloured people improves, they themselves choose the directions in which they want to go. Coloureds who would otherwise have gone in for the teaching profession are employed in other sectors. In a certain sense this is also one of the growing-pains in the development of the Coloured people. I merely mention this as an example; I can mention other examples as well. However, some of the figures mentioned here by the hon. member were illuminating. As far as I am concerned, these figures also indicate that progress is being made, but that not enough Coloureds are coming forward to make use of these services.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the year 1960 was a very important one, not only to the Whites in South Africa, but also to the Coloureds. In that year the Whites decided to establish a Republic, and in that same year great promises were made to the Coloureds by way of a statement by Dr. Verwoerd in regard to the socio-economic development that was in the offing for them. I think that the acceptance of the Government’s policy and the pleasant discussions we had here both yesterday and this afternoon—although the fine spirit which prevailed here this afternoon was somewhat spoil; by the hon. member for Houghton, who, as usual, tried to throw a spanner into the works—are attributable to the fact that this Government makes a point of carrying out any promises made by it. I think 1967 is a good year in which to pause and fake stock of what happened in the years from 1960 to 1967. The year 1967 is a good year in which to pause and look back, because on 13th February this year the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs announced that an election would take place to elect the members of the Coloured Representative Council which is to be established, a body which will take over very important administrative functions from the Department within the next year or two and will create unique opportunities for the Coloureds in a new era and holds out to them the prospect of new possibilities of self-realization. The late Dr. J. P. van S. Bruwer, a great ethnologist, wrote quite recently still that this decision in connection with the Coloured Representative Council was a significant high-light in political development, and he went on to add (translation)—

I want to say to-night that I believe that those seven years will in time become known as the years during which a new era was born for the Coloured population group. I believe that the period of only “action from outside” is passing now, and I think that henceforth the Coloured people themselves will make a greater effort and achieve more. If we say that the Government has honoured its obligations and fulfilled its promises, then the following Question may be posed to us: What was promised? In the very first place, in 1960 the Coloured people were promised community development, communities in which more and more employment opportunities would become available for everyone, in which there would be public life, in which there would be school complexes and in which they would have greater group responsibility. People who were scattered about and who occupied sub ordinate positions in the past are now being given the opportunity to realize themselves in their own communities. Thus we find that 50,000 dwelling units were built during the past seven years at a cost of R40 million. In 1960 and also in 1961 these people were also given a glimpse of what their future would be in commerce and in business. I do not want to elaborate any further on the Coloured Development Corporation. We have enough evidence of what has been accomplished during these few years. A system of differentiated education under central control was introduced for the Coloured people, and in this respect they are ahead of the Whites, because we are still saddled with an education system in terms of which the Provinces exercise separate control, a system which may change in the near future. We learned here to-day that there were more than 370,000 Coloureds attending primary and high schools and that there were 14,000 teachers. I believe this concept of compulsory education of which the hon. the Minister spoke is something which is already being investigated by the research division, because it is something which is being contemplated. But we do not have enough Coloured teachers, and the standard of some of them is perhaps still not what it should be, and we do not have the accommodation either.

Like the hon. member for Wynberg, I have also noticed the promising signs as far as the results of the senior certificate examinations are concerned; this is encouraging, but as far as the Coloured University College is concerned, I do want to tell the hon. the Minister that he would do well to take note of the fact that there was a total of 79 Coloured students studying medicine at the Universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg in 1965. I think the time has come for us to give serious consideration to the establishment of a medical faculty for Coloureds. I do not want to elaborate any further on the other promises made to the Coloureds and the fulfilment thereof. There are, for example, the rural areas in respect of which an amount of only R57,700 was spent from 1910 to 1952, and an amount of no less than R1.9 million since 1952. The Coloureds were promised welfare services. And where do we stand to-day as far as those services are concerned? There is also the question of local authorities. The political development of the Coloureds has not been neglected either, because it has now been announced that the Coloured Representative Council will start functioning within a year or so. A new era is also dawning for the Coloureds as regards local authorities, in which they will have their own say, and the Coloureds, through some of their leaders, are now accepting the goodwill of the Government, but we still have too many people among us who sow suspicion. [Time expired.]

I rise only to reply to some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Piketberg. I cannot allow them to go unchallenged. I want to say first of all that the hon. member knows perfectly well that the allegations that were made in this House under the protection of Parliament were never repeated outside this House. I might say that if they had been repeated outside this House, action would have followed. As it is, there was a printed apology in the newspapers which reported certain matters out of context. The hon. member knows just as well that he is casting a reflection on an ex member of this House, Mr. Colin Eglin, a member who I might say brought more Iustre to this House than that hon. member is ever likely to bring, a person who was held in the highest esteem by everyone who knew him when he was a Member of Parliament. The allegations were completely untrue. They were made by a man who never dared to make them outside this House. The Coloured man who made those allegations never repeated them in public. I deny them categorically. There was no question ever of anybody offering bribes or money or any other advantage to anybody who was registering voters. The Progressive Party did one thing and one thing only, namely to pay its organizers. There are large numbers of members sitting in this House who are paid organizers of the National Party. It is accepted practice that people are paid to register voters and to canvass voters and to get support for the parties that they represent. I have nothing further to say in this regard.

As for this question of “every man has his price”, I may say that that was a remark which was made privately and which was repeated in this House. But quite apart from that, it so happens that I was not even referring to monetary reward. There are rewards given to people in the form of positions which they like and jobs which they wish to do and which they may not have had the opportunity to do otherwise, jobs which in themselves are sufficient enticement for people to join the hon. the Minister’s department, people who have no opportunities otherwise of exercising their influence in the spheres of higher education, of serving on the directorates of banks, and operating various businesses under the Coloured Corporation, etc. These are also rewards and they are not necessarily monetary rewards. They bring status and they bring the positions which people yearn to fill and would not have had the opportunity of doing otherwise. No reflection was intended in the monetary sense when I made that remark. What I was saying, had simply been repeated by Coloured leaders themselves. There is a report of an interview which was held with the Coloured leaders as reported in the Sunday Express of the 5th March, 1967, Here several Coloureds leaders are mentioned. Dr. Van der Ross himself made this statement:

Nobody can blame them. They have accepted it, but that does not mean to say that it is approved of. It means nothing except acceptance under duress, as I said earlier on. I do not know Mr. Essop personally but he says:

Mr. Joshua says:

Mr. Deane has this to say:

What do all these statements sound like? Do they sound like the approval of the Coloured community or do they sound as if the Coloured community, or its leaders, have had to accept under duress the policy which is being implemented, whether they like it or not. That is the statement I made earlier and I repeat it. None of the slurs, none of the statements which would be libellous if uttered outside this House that members such as the hon. member for Piketberg wish to utilize, makes any difference to the facts of the situation. The Coloured community has had to accept the situation and those who can, are making the best under the circumstances. Separate development remains what separate development always was, and that is the mark of a lower status as far as the Coloured community is concerned. I stand by every word I have said.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to make an appeal to hon. members not to refer, if possible, to matters which are being investigated by a commission. The parties declared at the beginning that they were not going to refer to such matters, and in my opinion sufficient reference has been made thereto.

Mr. Chairman, I find it tragic that the hon. member for Houghton, who seems to be such an intelligent person, should use the talents she received in such a wrong way. It is a pity she could not use those talents to assist those people about whom she is supposedly so concerned. What I find even more tragic is that she cannot appreciate that the Coloureds have completely rejected her party with her policy. She heard what the Coloured Representative said here, how the Coloureds had accepted the policy of separate development. She heard how the Coloureds appreciated it. The hon. member read us an extract from a letter. May I also read her an extract from a letter which I received from a Coloured who plays a leading role in the Coloured community? Amongst other things he says the following (translation)—

This was written by a very influential Coloured.

I should very much like to refer to a report which was placed very prominently in the organ of the Progressive Party, an ally of the hon. member for Houghton. I am referring to the Sunday Times of 11th September, 1966, Here we find the banner headline—

With reference to the Coloured area in Boksburg. Let me read to you what is written here—

He continues and says—

No matter who and what this so-called Rev. Habberton may be, it seems to me as though he is one of those Michael Scotts and Huddlestons who abuse the hospitality here in South Africa and live off the fat of the land, one of those so-called reverends who hide behind the Gospel and one of those persons who hide behind their pulpits to find evil in conditions where everything which is humanly possible is done to develop the areas for the Coloureds as soon as possible.

It appears, moreover, that the Rev. Habberton never went to the trouble of investigating matters before resorting to the Press. In this report he says, furthermore—

Here he creates the impression that there is no police station near the Coloured area. In actual fact there is a police station a mile and a half from that Coloured area. He never ascertained that those Coloureds had previously lived under much poorer conditions. He does not know that many of those Coloureds were moved from plantations and from the bush. Many of them lived under the most abject conditions. Now they at least have a roof over their heads and they live under hygienic conditions. He does not know that there is a waiting list of thousands of Coloureds who ask and beg for admission to those Coloured areas in Boksburg. He did not make inquiries and ascertain that on the average 20 of those houses are painted and cleaned every week. In that way there is rotation of the houses. 20 Houses are painted and cleaned every week. He never made inquiries and saw what fine houses were erected by the Coloureds themselves, now that they have proprietary rights for the first time. These are houses which many of our Whites envy them. He never ascertained what educational facilities there are for them, and that they have a secondary school and three primary schools. He never ascertained that health services are provided by the City Council and that there is a social worker, supported by a contribution by the City Council. This is typical. If he had any complaints, why did he not raise them through the proper channels instead of going to the hostile Press, which would like to denigrate South Africa abroad? There is the advisory committee he could have consulted, which is grateful to the local authority of Boksburg and the Government for what they are doing for those Coloureds. The Coloured people of South Africa realize what the Government is doing for them. Those people realize that the Coloureds have turned their backs on them, on those instigators, whom one cannot call anything but the saboteurs of South Africa. Langenhoven said that one swallow never makes a summer, but that one bluebottle could spoil an ox. That is what we have here now. They are the people who are trying to spoil that ox. But I believe that if we have the co-operation of the Coloureds they will never succeed in doing that. Such people will not spoil the future of South Africa and the future of the Coloureds.

Sir, there is something else I want to say, if you will permit me to mention it here. I said that this report appeared in the Sunday Times on 11th September, 1966. You will remember that this was the day after the funeral of our beloved deceased leader, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd. On the front page there was a prominent tribute. In the same edition of the Sunday Times we find that report. Is the tribute they paid there not a false one? Is it not hypocritical of them to try to deal him the final blow by means of this report—he, who was the great architect of this policy of separate development?

It is a fact that the policy of separate development is accepted by the four separate population groups in South Africa. The Coloureds in particular welcome it, for to them it is surely the only practical solution to their problems. That is why the Coloureds are in fact anxious that this Government should help them in order that they may preserve and strengthen their identity. A great deal is being done, as you heard, in respect of welfare services, child welfare, the care of aged people, the rehabilitation of adults, etc. This year we had legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the hon. member for Boksburg. When I sat down I was dealing with the senior certificates pass figures, which proved that a very limited number of Coloured pupils in fact passed the senior certificate every year. The number training as teachers in the higher teaching training institutions decreases annually. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to what he thinks this tendency is attributable. Will he tell us whether the new salary scales which are coming into force on the 1st April this year are likely to be such an improvement that they will attract or help to attract more teachers into the teaching profession? When one looks at the senior certificate examination results for the whole Republic, not merely for the Cape, which I quoted earlier, the figures are really quite frightening. In 1963, 661 pupils passed the senior certificate examinations. That is all. In 1964 there were 66 fewer, namely 595. In 1965 there were 702 and in 1966 there were 613, 89 fewer than the year before. This represents the whole teachers potential available for further study for secondary and high school teachers.

Then there is the question of the resignation of teachers. The position is very disquieting indeed. It does not matter if they go to Canada or where they go to. The fact of the matter is that they are resigning. In 1964, 163 resigned. In 1965, 550 resigned. It is a frightening figure. In 1966, 385 resigned. The process appears to be cumulative. It shows a very grievous loss, which South Africa can ill afford. I know that the Minister is worried about this, but on the Loan Vote I can only find estimates for 12 new primary schools for the whole country, and one new high school, unless I am mistaken. I have been through the Votes very carefully. The only new high school is one at Mossel Bay. There is no doubt all that there is a great need for more secondary schools to which potential primary student teachers can be encouraged to go. One new high school is just absurd and inadequate. One suspects very much that it will be some time before this situation is regularized, in view of the vast sums of money that still have to be spent on child welfare, rehabilitation centres and things of that kind. The whole situation in the Department at the moment seems to be a sort of humpty-dumpty affair. Provision is made in the estimates for all aspects of schooling, including teacher training, which amounts to R4,785,000. When one looks at the welfare situation, one finds that the amount voted for welfare, retreats, rehabilitation centres, schools of industries and so on amounts to R4,325,000. In other words only R460,000-odd more is allocated to cover the whole aspect of education as compared with welfare and rehabilitation. That situation should not be allowed to continue. If one adds to the figures in regard to child welfare which are given here, the additional estimates for the establishment and the running of training camps for, to use the Minister’s figures, some 90,000 Coloured youngsters between the ages of 18 and 24 years, one finds, of course, that education and proper training are very definitely coming off second best. When it comes to the enrolment of pupils the Department’s report shows that in primary schools there has been a consistent loss over the years. The number of pupils who left school in the course of 1965 is really alarmingly high. There was a 6 per cent reduction in Stds. I and II, a 7.6 per cent reduction in Std. III, a 9 per cent reduction in Std. IV and a 9.9 per cent reduction in Std. V, making a total overall loss in all standards of 6.5 per cent, which is very disquieting. If one takes the enrolment in secondary and high schools, one finds that the situation is just as bad. Pro rata the enrolment figures in standards VI to X are worse for the Coloured people than they are for the Indian community. In December, 1965, there were 16,000-odd pupils in Std. VI. It dropped to 9,000 in Std. VII. In Std. VIII it dropped to 5,500. When we get to Std. IX—this is for the whole Republic—we find only 1,987. In Std. X there were 1,466. I sometimes wonder how many people in South Africa realize, for all the Minister’s good intentions, and his efforts, which we appreciate, that there are only 13 teacher training institutions for the Coloureds throughout the Republic. There are only 65 high schools. What seems to me worst of all is that there are only 25 secondary schools for a community of 1¾ million people.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

When the debate was adjourned I was talking about the enrolment in schools and I just want to end by saying that, just as in the primary schools, there has been a steady decline in the number of pupils enrolled in the secondary and in the high schools during the past year or two as well. In 1965 there was a loss between the first quarter of the year and the last quarter in Std. VI of 11.6 per cent pupils, in Std. VII of 13.4 per cent of the pupils, and in Std. VIII of 9.5 per cent, in Std. IX of 14.3 per cent, and in Std. X of 3.7 per cent in one Government school year. With just over 400,000 Coloured children enrolled in schools at any one time in the Republic, I would like the hon. the Minister to know that only 39,216, or approximately 9.5 per cent, were or are enrolled in secondary high schools at any one time. I think the Department cannot possibly be satisfied with figures like that, and I am sorry to say that the educational picture among our Coloured people is deplorable.

In her customary fashion the hon. member for Wynberg has once again made a plea for the educational facilities of the Coloureds. As far as her basic theme is concerned, we have no objection. The hon. the Minister and others have in the past frequently explained to her why there has not been the progress in the field of education for the Coloureds that we should like to see. But there is one question that we should like to put to her, and which I think will make her sink her head, and that is: What, precisely, did this Government inherit from her Government in 1948? I want to submit that if the United Party had met its obligations towards the Coloureds in the field of education before 1948, this Government would to-day have had something to build on. But we had to start virtually from scratch, and if we were to make an analysis of what this Government has done compared with what was done for the Coloureds in the entire period of United Party rule.

But I want to come back to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Peninsula. I think that in future that speech will go on record as one of historic interest. I say this because only a few weeks ago, on 12th April, I heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition use the following words in this House—

This is the same story as the one told by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, to try to convince us that these people are cornered and are under such pressure that they cannot do anything else than to accept it. I want to allege that before long they will find that the words used by the hon. member for Peninsula last night were not fabrications, but that he said that because he knows the people whom he represents here and because he deals in facts.

There were two things in that speech with which I should like to associate myself. In the first place the hon. member suggested that this was attributable to the honesty with which the Government had treated the Coloured so far. That honesty was correctly interpreted. When the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the Coloured Council the other day he said, amongst other things, the following with reference to the previous Prime Minister—

In other words, he is saying in unequivocal language what the Coloured community is already experiencing, and this is that the promises of the National Party to the Coloureds have been carried out. But what did we find? Since this Government came into power, we have been consistently faced with the task of convincing the Opposition that the Government is sincere.

A second thought which is prominent in the speech of the hon. member for Peninsula is the appeal made to the Coloured community to make full use of all the opportunities which are offered so generously to them in their areas. But in this morning’s Cape Times we found an example of the kind of treatment that positive approach is going to receive. The Cape Times gave a fairly complete report of the speech by the hon. member for Peninsula, but failed to publish this positive appeal. Why was it deliberately omitted? It was simply to keep the Coloureds uninformed.

I now want to associate myself with that and make a cordial appeal to the hon. the Minister and to ask whether, in the light of this, the time has not come for the Department of Coloured Affairs to start an information service for the Coloured community on a very large scale and in very active fashion. I would suggest that that information service should not talk “about” the Coloureds. Its documents should not be drawn up for foreign consumption or for the Whites. They should be documents drawn up to talk “to” the Coloureds. There is a wide difference between talking “about” people and talking “to” them, and the Coloured community, just like the Whites, like us to talk to them about their problems and their possibilities, and not only about them to the outside world, or about their possible political strength, as hon. members on the opposite side are fond of doing, and then create the impression that they are merely seeking the support of the Coloureds. For that reason I want to ask whether the time has not come to tell these people directly exactly what the Government’s policy is with regard to them.

We may speak to four groups of Coloureds. We have the leaders among them, the more highly developed people; we have the youth, who to a large extent are perhaps most frustrated of all at present; we have the Coloured child, for whom it should not be necessary in future to accept a certain state of affairs but who will learn from his early years exactly what the positive idea is that the Government holds out to him and to his people. Fourthly, we have the illiterate group, mainly those in the rural areas and on the farms. When we establish this positive information service, I want to suggest that we should also carry out the dissemination of that information through different channels. On the one hand we shall have to use the developed Coloured, who can convey it to his own people. We shall have to use the employer, who can convey the information to his workers. We should also use the concerns that come into contact with the Coloured, and here I am thinking of education and of our churches. We must give them the information in order to reach those who cannot read and those who cannot receive it by mail every day, in order that one concept will be clear to them, namely that the Government and the white community are speaking to them about their future, and that they will not be dependent on political columnists to know what the Government wants to do for them, and will be attuned to the true facts.

The hon. member for Westdene will forgive me if I do not follow the line he has taken. I would like to confine myself to the notes I have made on this Vote. I would like to preface my remarks by asking hon. members to look at the Estimates before us. It will be seen from a close study of the various items appearing under this Vote what the multiplicity of responsibilities is, not only of the Minister of Coloured Affairs but of his Department. It will be noted that whereas one Minister is responsible for the items detailed here, many of these matters fall under separate Ministers as far as the white population is concerned. I want to pay a tribute to the Minister and to the Secretary of the Department and to the staff for being able to deal with these matters in a manner which has So far given little cause for complaint. Of course, we have had complaints about teachers’ salaries which have not been paid on time, but I am given to understand that this difficulty has now been overcome and that everything is running smoothly. The Coloured Affairs Department is leaving no stone unturned, according to my information and my experience, in its efforts to elevate the Coloured people and to prepare them to play their part in this country in the economic and other fields. In this connection the hon. member for Peninsula has already referred to our educational institutions, and yesterday during the debate on the Labour Vote I referred to the respective colleges and to the training of labour, and I would like to say that according to the report of the Department of Coloured Affairs the Coloured Development Corporation is playing its part in assisting Coloureds to establish their own businesses. I do believe that it has come as a welcome surprise and as a great satisfaction to the Coloured people to have the establishment of a supermarket at Athlone at the cost of some R600,000.

The Government has encouraged the Coloureds to play their full part in the defence of this country and there has been established the S.A. Coloured Corps, as well as a Naval Unit for the Coloureds. It has opened opportunities for the Coloureds and I wish to make an appeal to the Coloured youth to join these units, but at the same time I want to make an appeal to the Government to make it attractive to these youths to make a career in the military and naval units. It must be realized that the Coloured people are a westernized group whose ideals, hopes and aspirations are in fact those of the white people of this country. They stand very close to the white man. They speak our language and dress as we do, and they are members of our churches. Their education is on the same pattern as that of the Whites. Who can complain therefore if they strive to occupy positions in all spheres of life open to them and not only in the “labour class”. We know that in every other country in the world certain members of the population must occupy certain positions. Everybody, however, cannot be a white collar worker. If indeed it is expected of the Coloured people to engage in menial work I do believe that there should be a complete reappraisal of the wages paid to them and the conditions under which they work. One cannot resist the opportunity, Sir, of referring to the discrimination in wages and to the discrimination in pensions. Except for certain exceptions such as in the building trade and other occupations where labour unions have been successful in obtaining agreements which makes provision for equal pay for equal work, one finds a discrimination which is unjustified in modern times.

Order! The hon. member should not read his speech.

Sir, I am just refreshing my memory from notes. The fact that Coloured teachers, Coloured doctors and Coloured postmen employed by the Government receive less in wages than their white counterparts, is a discrimination which I hope the hon. the Minister will remove as soon as possible.

The attempts which the Department of Coloured Affairs is making towards ensuring the progress of the Coloured people in this country are fraught with difficulties because of what I believe is colour prejudice on the part of the Whites. I want to make a strong appeal to hon. members in this House to forget their colour prejudice. I want the white people of South Africa to forget colour prejudice. This prejudice is a negative approach. There are still many white people who have the Hottentot and Bushman mentality and still approach the Coloured people as a whole with that mentality. This approach is completely unworthy of white South Africa. No Minister and no Department who are dedicated to work for the betterment of the Coloured population can succeed in their efforts if this prejudice continues. I want to make a sincere appeal to hon. members of this House to go to their constituencies and to speak well of the Coloured people. By doing so they will aid the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his Department to achieve greater success in their efforts to help the Coloured people. It will lead to better relationships between Coloureds and Whites if the Coloureds know that the colour prejudice on the part of the Whites which up to now has been the stumbling block in improving these relationships, no longer exists.

Sir, I mentioned yesterday in the debate on the Labour Vote that the Government wants Coloured youths to be apprenticed in various trades, and I made the allegation, which I repeat now, that employers want to engage Coloured youths as apprentices. I know that the Government is anxious that they should be apprenticed, but it is the white worker who refuses to permit the Coloured boy to be apprenticed. Sir, I want to say that if this appeal of mine is successful, it will be a wonderful gesture of goodwill on the part of the Whites towards the Coloureds, but at the same time I would like to appeal to the Coloureds of South Africa as well. It is with great regret that I say that I have been told by people that the Coloured people are losing the sympathy of the Whites. They tell me that many Coloured people refuse to work at week-ends; they tell me that there are many Coloured people who drink too much and that they are becoming indolent. I am not going to go into the truth or otherwise of these allegations at the moment, but I do want to say to the Coloured people that if they wish to prosper in this country and if they want to play the part which we all hope they will play, then they must not give cause for complaint. They must prove that they are willing to play their part.

The hon. member for Peninsula has dealt with the question of Coloured school attendance. I do not want to go into the figures given in the report of the Coloured Affairs Department, but there is one aspect of Coloured education I think I should mention and that is that many Coloured children are unable to proceed with their education through lack of funds, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider the question of special bursary schools where students who show promise in the field of education can go to pursue their studies. We know that lack of funds often prevents a bright student from pursuing his studies. I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the establishment of what I call special bursary schools. [Time expired.]

In her first speech this afternoon the hon. member for Houghton referred to the meeting which was addressed by the Secretary for Community Development in the City Hall of Cape Town some time ago, and in which, according to her, very little interest was shown. One can understand that. There was no tremendous advance poster campaign to advertise the meeting, nor was it an incitement meeting such as those which are usually convened by the hon. member’s Party.

I should like to refer to a local matter which affects Pretoria and the City Council of Pretoria, and I do so with reference to allegations and statements made in respect of the Eersterus Coloured township, which adjoins my constituency. In this regard I am referring to a letter by a certain Dr. O. D. Wollheim, M.P.C., Coloured representative of the Cape, which he wrote to The Pretoria News of 9th May, 1967. Amongst other things he wrote the following—

We would have no objection to it if this person really did go there because he was interested and if his motives were pure and sincere. He continued—

He then continued to say that it did not befit a city council of the standing of the Pretoria City Council to choose a site which becomes a swamp in times of rain, where the soil is clayey, and where houses crack and walls even collapse. He then continued and said—

This representative of the Coloureds in the Provincial Council of the Cape proceeded to make an uncalled-for attack on the Coloured representative of Pretoria on the Coloured Council. He writes the following—

He went further and he also attacked the nominated advisory committee which is supposedly powerless to do anything to have improvements effected.

It appears to be quite clear that this gentleman, Dr. Wollheim, has not the slightest notion of housing schemes or of schemes which are in the process of construction, otherwise he would not have made such comments, particularly not before he had made inquiries. What are the true facts? All the houses in Eersterus are supplied with sewage systems, and this was done at a cost of R188,500, and a large part of the township has already been provided with street-lighting. A number of the subeconomic houses have also been provided with electricity, and further provision is being made in this connection. Up to the end of the previous financial year the cost involved in this was R132,530. Additional funds have already been made available for the next financial year. Some of the streets in that township have already been tarred, and this was done at the tremendously high cost of R146,000. It is true that not all the streets in Eersterus have been tarred, but there is not one white suburb in Pretoria where all the streets are tarred at the moment. In my constituency, close to Eersterus, there is an old suburb, i.e. Eastlynne, and a new suburb which has now been established there, i.e. Jan Niemand Park, where more than half the streets have not yet been tarred, but this Dr. Wollheim wants all the streets in Eersterus tarred immediately. As for the site, it is not the choice of the City Council. This area was indicated by the Group Areas Board. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the soil in that specific township is better than the soil in most of the white suburbs of Pretoria. It is situated on the southern slopes of the Magaliesberg; it is some of the best soil one could find anywhere in Pretoria. I have personal knowledge of that soil. I have visited that township repeatedly. The allegation that the soil is so poor, is absolutely unfounded.

The director of non-White affairs of the Pretoria City Council, Mr. Kingsley, responded immediately to this letter. A letter by him appeared in The Pretoria News of 12th May, 1967, and I quote what he writes—

In this regard we need only refer to the “Cape location”. [Interjections.] Sir, I did not interrupt the hon. member for Houghton continually as she is now constantly interrupting me. She is sitting over there and keeping up an incessant commentary. Mr. Kingsley says, furthermore, that he would not claim that there was no room for improvement, but he continues—

Mr. Kingsley states unequivocally that no municipal houses collapsed, as claimed by Dr. Wollheim, and then refers to the good work done by the Coloured representative on the Coloured Council. In this connection he writes—

And then Mr. Kingsley refers, amongst other things, to the attempts made by this person at present to collect funds from outside in order to build a home for the aged in the Coloured township concerned. Mr. Kingsley also pays great tribute to the good work done by the advisory committee, which, as hon. members know, has been nominated but will later be replaced by a select committee, and then he addresses the following to Dr. Wollheim—

These accusations were uncalled-for and in the main false. Pretoria is a city which has in course of time taken the lead in the field of Bantu housing. It has also played a leading part in the field of Coloured housing and of Indian housing. Here I am referring to Laudium. perhaps one of the finest Indian villages existing at present. But through this fabrication Dr. Wollheim tried to make political gain from his visit to Eersterus. There was more noise than substance in his presumptuous statements. I should like to know since when Dr. Wollheim has been the spokesman of the Coloureds in Pretoria. The Coloureds there are lawabiding people—I know them, because I dealt with them for many years while I was chairman of the Committee for non-White Affairs of the Pretoria City Council. But Dr. Wollheim is now engaged in inciting those people. He is trying to make them dissatisfied with something with which they have always been satisfied.

I think it is time we issued a word of warning from this side. When the debate opened the hon. member for Gardens made two statements on behalf of this side of the House: Firstly, that the Opposition did not intend dealing with the political aspect of the position of the Coloureds in this debate for the simple reason that it was a matter which had been referred to a parliamentary commission for inquiry, a commission on which the Opposition as well as the Government was being represented. Secondly, he paid tribute to the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs for having been able, through their personal attitude, to create a better feeling amongst the Coloured community in their attitude towards the Department. The civilized, considerate conduct of the officials—I want to subscribe to this wholeheartedly—has contributed to a considerable extent in bringing about an attitude of co-operation with the Department amongst the Coloureds. The hon. member for Peninsula adopted the same attitude as the hon. member for Gardens. But what have hon. members on the opposite side concluded from these two statements? The hon. member for Moorreesburg, for example, went so far as to say that “this debate had proved” that not only the Coloureds, but also the Opposition were beginning to accept the policy of the Government. The hon. member for Boksburg went so far as to say that the Coloured community was now accepting the policy of the Government. I want to make it very clear that conclusions such as those are totally incorrect. One most certainly cannot draw conclusions such as those from the attitude of the Opposition. Apparently hon. members on the opposite side expect us to repeat the same arguments in debate after debate and during one session after another, and that should state our well-known standpoints over and over again. If that is what they want, let them say so. Or it appears to me they want us to ignore the commission and for that reason have a repetition of the debate which took place a short while ago between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Well, if hon. members on the opposite side want a political debate like that—because it is in regard to the political points that there are so many deep-rooted differences between us— then we can have one. We shall welcome it.

Order! I want to remind the hon. member that I have made an appeal to hon. members not to refer to that matter.

I concede that you made such an appeal, Mr. Chairman, but we restricted ourselves voluntarily. It is not necessary for us to keep to the restriction if we do not want to. That is why I say that if hon. members on the opposite side want to conduct a political debate in regard to the matters which are at present being investigated by the commission, then we can have one. They need not think that because this debate is a “tame” one, that it proves that their policy is being accepted. Let me tell them that time will show that hon. members opposite will have very little cause to rejoice if they begin to meddle with the principle of parliamentary representation for the Coloureds. But that is a matter for the future.

But my warning does not only have a bearing on this alone. The attitude which hon. members on the opposite side have adopted is not only wrong, but is also going to make the work of the Department more difficult. They are damaging the position of the officials. If co-operation with the Department is going to be regarded as an acceptance of the Government’s principle it is time that the hon. the Minister told us whether he also sees it in this light. We want a very clear statement from him in this regard. He must tell us whether he thinks that if a person co-operates with a State Department, a permanent institution, such a person is implying thereby that he accepts the principle of the Government’s policy? We on this side want to know, because our attitude towards the Department will also depend on his reply. That is why I say that the attitude which hon. members on the opposite side are adopting is damaging to the good work which is being done by the Department. But let us consider the facts of the matter. I am not questioning the right of the Coloureds to accept the policy of the Government. That is their privilege. If they want to accept it—that is all well and good. Any policy which is successful must be welcomed. Our attitude is not that the Coloureds do not have the right to accept the Government’s policy. All that we are saying is that we must not bluff ourselves. We proceed from the assumption that the Coloureds to-day have no other choice but to co-exist with the existing laws and the existing Government. What they want they must try and get within the existing framework. Many Coloured leaders have made the error of believing that if they were to co-operate within the framework of the Act and of the Department, for the good of the Coloureds, they would then be accepting the policy of the Government. We have warned against that very thing and now they see that co-operation with the Department is not necessarily acceptance of the principle of apartheid. But now hon. members opposite come along and make the same error as that which the Coloured leaders made previously. They too want to view the matter in this light: If one co-operates, it is taken to mean that you accept the policy. If that is the attitude of the Government it would become very difficult for many Coloureds to give their cooperation. The Coloureds have come to realize, and I am in full agreement with them, that to co-operate with the Department as it is, and to act within the law as it is, does not in any way imply acceptance of the principle of apartheid. We feel that it will be wise of the Coloureds to improve their position as far as they are able within the existing framework— that is to say, on the basis as it exists at present. They are citizens of the country and are therefore entitled to the same good things as those to which the Whites in South Africa are entitled. Therefore our advice to them js, and always was in the past, that they must strive to improve their position with all the means at their disposal—irrespective of the policy of the Government of the day. That does not affect anybody’s principles. I want to make it very clear that the Government and the Department would be making an error and deceiving the Whites if they were to think that the majority of the Coloureds would ever accept the principle of apartheid. That is quite out of the question. When I say that they will not accept the principle of apartheid, I mean the principle of compulsory apartheid and not the natural differentiation between people which there has been, which there still is and which there always will be. What I mean, is that thing which we call “petty apartheid”, or “sign-post apartheid”.

If you now say that you are against compulsory apartheid, are you then in favour of the old United Party policy of voluntary apartheid?

It is not only the old United Party policy; it was also the policy of the old National Party. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in Russia it is thought that Russia’s history commenced in 1917 when Lenin came into power. Well, according to hon. members on the opposite side, everything in South Africa commenced in 1948—there was nothing before that time. But South Africa is already 300 years old. We had no compulsory apartheid before 1948. Then the policy was based on natural relationships between people. That was the traditional policy of South Africa. When I say that the Coloureds will never accept the policy of apartheid, I mean that the Coloureds will never accept a policy which tells them that they cannot enter the same door as a white man merely because they are Coloureds. [Time expired.]

In my reply to the debate this afternoon I referred to the difficult task which my predecessor had during the years he was Minister of Coloured Affairs. I pointed out that his struggle had been an uphill one; that he had found himself confronted by a wall of prejudice: and that he had had to contend with a campaign of incitement against separate development. I pointed out that my position to day, on the contrary, was a totally different one—instead of prejudice I am experiencing, wherever I go, a spirit of goodwill and favourable disposition amongst Coloured communities. The wall of prejudice which my predecessor had had to contend with was a wall which, to a large extent, had been thrown up by the same people who are to-day keeping silent about it. Here I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He said that we must not accept now that the United Party, by speaking of the goodwill which exists amongst the Coloureds, accepts separate development. According to the hon. member the Coloureds do not accept separate development—they only accept the hard fact that separate development has progressed so far that it has become for them the obvious policy direction in this country. The United Party realizes that a wall of prejudice no longer exists, but does not realize the goodwill which exists towards this policy of separate development. It would be a good thing if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is particularly interested in Coloured affairs, were to take the trouble during the recess of visiting more Coloured leaders and Coloured areas, and not merely certain leftists here in the Cape or Johannesburg. It would do him the world of good.

Who are the leftists?

It would do the hon. member the world of good to gain a general impression of Coloured opinion in this country, something which I have had the privilege of doing and which I have made it my task to do during the past year. If the hon. member would also make it his task to obtain a general impression of the Coloured’s attitude. whether in the urban areas here or in the far North-Western Cape, or in the Transvaal, or in the rural areas, he would find that the Coloureds are to-day, realizing what separate development means for them. He will find that the Coloureds no longer believe the scare (stories, stories which the opposite side have conjured up for the Coloureds in past years. The fact that my predecessor and the Department had to deal with opposition in the past was to a large extent attributable to incitement, not only by the hon. member for Houghton, but also by hon. members of the United Party. It is all very well to learn of goodwill on their part to-day—in fact I have expressed my appreciation for that—but if the hon. member wants to make a political issue of this matter then he will get what he is looking for. I shall then tell him precisely what the position is—for example, that the incitement coming from the side of the United Party all these years against every positive measure which was introduced in this Parliament has contributed towards the creation of that wall of prejudice which previously existed amongst the Coloureds in regard to the work of the Department of Coloured Affairs. It took years for the development of our positive measures to penetrate the minds and understanding of the Coloureds so that they realized that those measures which that side painted in the worst and most sombre colours in this House were not really scare stories but were in actual fact well-intentioned measures.

To-day, now that the developments are taking place in the rural areas, developments which were made possible through legislation which my predecessor piloted through this House and which was fought tooth and nail by that side, now that they are realizing what is being done in those urban areas, i.e. how boreholes are being sunk, camps fenced in, grazing improved, how their entire production is being improved, it is the Coloureds in that area who are expressing the utmost appreciation for the Department. To-day they no longer find it to be a scare story.

To-day the Coloureds at the University College of the Western Cape are proud of that college. To-day they have rid themselves of that scare s ory which that side associated with the college when they described it as a “bush college”. For years the college had to struggle against the propaganda cry with which the United Party had stigmatized it. It has taken us and our officials years of hard work to bring that positive value home to the Coloureds, and to-day it has been brought home and it is being accepted by the Coloureds. To-day there is a good understanding of all these things and there is also goodwill. Because the United Party see that the Coloureds realize this, their criticism in this House has diminished. It is not because they have changed their policy. I readily admit that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not changed his policy. The United Party remains basically what it always was: It cannot change. It only realizes that to-day this policy of separate development is being understood by the Coloureds and is being accepted as such. They realize that within that framework they have an opportunity for their self-realization, development and progress such as they have never had before in this country.

That is the reason why the United Party in this House is perhaps keeping quiet now, and has less criticism. But that party will not succeed in bluffing us, let me also tell you the hon. member is not bluffing the Coloureds any more. They are fed up to the teeth with the United Party. They are fed up to the teeth with that party as a result of this ambiguous, two-faced attitude which the United Party has adopted over the years in regard to them. [Interjections.]

Order

There is little I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton. She has once again in this debate poured out venom on everything which this side is doing in the way of separate development. I can fully understand her feeling very miserable because the Coloureds are happy. After all, that hon. member and her party cannot flourish on the happiness which the Coloureds are experiencing in regard to his policy. No, just as in the case of Communism which can only live on chaos, so the Progressive Party only flourish in this country if the Coloureds were to be dissatisfied. To-day they are satisfied, they are happy and because that is so, that is why she feels unhappy, and in that unhappiness I shall leave her to struggle on.

I now want to come to other remarks which hon. members made and questions which they put. The hon. member for Brentwood referred, inter alia, to the welfare requirements of the Coloureds and he also made an appeal to the Coloureds to come forward and undertake the welfare work themselves. I welcome this appeal whole-heartedly because, as I have put it time and again to the Coloured communities which I have myself addressed: We as Whites with all our good intentions towards them, cannot do all the work which is necessary for them in the field of welfare unaided. I do not know of any group or any nation in the history of the world which has ever been helped or uplifted solely through the efforts of an outside agency. When one talks of upliftment then one must contribute one’s own share. When it comes to welfare work then one is dealing with the most personal type of work which can be done in a society. Experience has shown that one reacts best to service which one receives from a person of one’s own blood, a person from one’s own race group, and not from strangers. However well-intentioned the assistance from Whites in this regard is, however well we shall continue to do this work, it is a fact that we will only achieve proper success in this welfare work amongst the Coloureds if we can rely on an adequate Coloured welfare corps. I cannot subscribe strongly enough to this appeal which the hon. member for Brentwood made because it is the means whereby the Coloureds may really be helped on their road to further progress.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred derogatively to my announcement in regard to the cultural advancement of the Coloureds, the announcement that steps were being envisaged to organize co-ordinate and plan the cultural life of the Coloureds. She described this and alleged that we were puffing the cart before the horse. She said that we should first have introduced compulsory school attendants because the people would not be able to attend performances unless there was compulsory schooling.

According to her they would not be able to appreciate the musical performance if they had not had compulsory schooling. That was the gist of her derogatory remark. Sir, must we wait 20 years until everybody has had compulsory schooling before we can offer them cultural advancement? No, in this country we cannot wait decades for something like that. We must, with the human development such as we are engaged upon, give the people that which we think they are entitled to, which is that cultural advancement.

Why did you withdraw the subsidy from the Eoan Group?

The Eoan Group is still receiving support from the State. If you were here this afternoon you would have heard me say that the Government had contributed R50,000 to the Eoan Group’s cultural centre. Is that not something to appreciate? [Interjections.] The United Party will make no impression on the Coloureds with that kind of sour attitude. Because one is coming forward here with something positive now, it is being belittled. That is the reason why the Coloureds to-day want to have less and less to do with the United Party.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred here to examination results. I am sorry the examination results were poor. That is so; I admit it readily. In the first place we must take into consideration the fact that education has only fallen under the Department of Coloured Affairs for the past two years. We cannot be expected to rebuild Rome in two years’ time. In these two years a tremendous amount has been accomplished and I shall quote some statistics in a moment. As far as examination results are concerned, surely the quality of the teachers also had something to do with them. After all, the teachers we have in this Department to-day are not all trained people. On the contrary. The percentage of graduates is slight. The percentage of teachers who are fully equipped to undertake the task is too small for the entire undertaking. How can one expect excellent results if the teachers are not up to scratch, and does anyone expect us to get these teachers up to scratch overnight so that the results can be good? Let there be criticism, but let that criticism at least be realistic at all times, and if possible, fair as well.

We are doing what we can in this connection. The Department of Coloured Education, the director and his staff are doing everything in their power to enable the existing teachers to increase their ability and their skill by means of part-time classes and conferences. One course and conference after the other is being held. There are orientation courses which are being held to inculcate a further knowledge in the various subjects, i.e. nature study, chemistry, etc., into the teachers so that they can see to it that the percentage of passes is higher. In this coming year it is our intention to hold even more of these orientation courses in order to enable the teachers whom we have to fulfill that difficult task of theirs even better. The hon. member for Wynberg created the impression that we were doing very little in regard to the erection of schools and so on. Let me furnish the hon. member with these particulars. Since the take-over of Coloured education in 1964, up to 31st December, 1966, the following school buildings were erected:35 primary schools, with approximately 759 classrooms; two preparatory schools, with 29 classrooms: five secondary schools with 98 classrooms; eight high schools with 201 classrooms; one technical college; one training college and hostel; and at 24 schools extensions were added by building on approximately 146 classrooms. The hon. member wants to create the impression that we are standing still, that we are doing very little-yes, that we have done practically nothing. I think that in the short period during which education has fallen under the Department of Coloured Affairs, a mammoth task has been carried out. It is expected that we will introduce the following schemes during the following year …

Order. Hon. members must listen when the hon. the Minister is replying to a debate.

In this year we still expect to comp lee the following schemes: 26 primary schools; one preparatory school; one secondary school; three high schools and one industrial school. At 32 schools extensions will be completed and by December 1967 eight schools will be under construction. Surely that is an achievement one may be proud of! Why must the hon. member avail herself of an opportunity like this to detract from the work which this Department is doing, with the utmost dedication. If there were ever people who are doing their work in a dedicated way then it is the staff of the Department of Coloured Affairs, the officials who are on the road from Mondays to Saturdays in order to further the welfare of the Coloureds throughout the country. Consequently they do not deserve this type of speech which has been made here today. The question of the training of teachers falls into the same category. The truth of the matter is that we are not getting the amount of people for training we would like to see trained. After all, there are far more avenues of employment for the matriculated Coloureds to-day than there were five to ten years ago. With the economic development which there has been, which we ourselves have set in motion, surely there are more avenues of employment now. There are opportunities for them for employment as officials, opportunities which never existed before. Years ago education was practically the only recourse for the matriculated Coloured. To-day that is no longer the case. To-day there are a variety of DOS'S he can fill. To intimate now that there is something sinister in regard to education, something frightening, something terribly wrong, is not correct, nor is it fair.

The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the establishment of a medical faculty for Coloureds. Progress is being made with the establishment of that medical faculty. Considerable progress has already been made with the spade work in that connection. In consultation with the Cape Provincial Administration a site for the intended institution has already been acquired. The planning in regard to that matter is well in progress. In addition consultations are being held with the Southern Universities in order to obtain their assistance as well with the pre-clinical training at those universities.

The hon. member for Boland referred to the need for special bursary schools. In fact, he pleaded for them. I am afraid that it is an unnecessary institution because sufficient bursaries are being made available for the promising and clever Coloured pupils at the existing schools. We do not need special bursary schools. All that we need is for the Coloureds to come forward. They will be afforded opportunities through means of bursaries.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort raised a matter which makes one’s blood boil. This is the disgraceful reference made by Dr. Wollheim to Eersterus. That is one of the Coloured townships which I visited recently. Eersterus is a beautiful development of a Coloured town near Pretoria, where the Coloureds are being accommodated. I was in the schools there. I was in the houses there. Why did Dr. Wollheim not talk instead of the hovels out of which the Coloureds of Claremont have emerged? Why did he not talk instead about the squatters’ nests from which those Coloureds have emerged? Why did he not take photos of them and published them in the Cape Times? No, it did not suit his political purpose. A town like this, which looks attractive, one of which the Coloureds are proud, with its educational institutions, such as new schools, must now be belittled and detracted from. Let me say that in that spirit one is not serving the Coloureds of South Africa either. Fortunately South Africa has learnt to judge the Progressive Party by its criticism.

In conclusion the hon. members for Brentwood and Westdene pleaded for the expansion of our information service. The hon. member for Westdene said quite rightly that one should show the Coloured what can be done. One should actually talk to them. That is the correct point of departure in order to make the Coloureds throughout the country realize what is going on with their fellow citizens. I think a development such as that on the Orange River at Eksteenskuil, one of the model settlements, is something of which the Coloureds in the Cape and Port Elizabeth, and any part of the country, can be proud. I regard the Eksteenskuil settlement as a settlement which may be compared with any other settlement in the Orange River area. Under the guidance of the Department of Coloured Affairs they are managing that settlement in the most scientific way. It is being done on a scale which can rouse the pride of the Coloureds throughout the country. That is why it would be a good thing if our information service could be expanded in such a way that films about Eksteenskuil could also be shown to the people in the Cape so that they can see what their own people at Eksteenskuil are achieving. And it is not only Eksteenskuil.

I am thinking of the date plantation which I visited at the mouth of the Orange River, something which is priceless and unique in our country. This is also something which can be pointed out with pride as being the creation of the Coloureds. To the people in the north-west and elsewhere the University College of the Western Cape and the Technical College, as well as the Oudtshoorn training college, which is comparable with the best in the country, can be pointed out. In order to carry this into effect, I want to say that it has been resolved that the Department of Information will expand its information service for the Coloureds considerably in future. It has been agreed that it is going to expand its staff which will concentrate on information for the Coloured population in South Africa. This message in regard to what is being done for the Coloureds will be publicized by means of films and colour slides so that they may know what is happening to their own people throughout the country. But it is not only that expansion which will take place. The Department of Coloured Affairs will also expand its professional section even further so that we will be able to tell the Coloureds by means of professional information what is being done for them in regard to our departmental work so that they may be better informed. Considerable progress will be made with this work in the coming months. In this way we believe that the Coloureds throughout South Africa will be able to know what is going on in regard to their nation throughout the country. In this way we will also be able to make a contribution towards giving them a pride in their own people and in their own achievements.

I want to come directly to an incident which took place in the House before the lunch interval. The hon. member for Piketberg was making a speech and was harrassing the hon. member for Houghton a little, whereupon that hon. member reacted. By implication I was also dragged in then. An accusation was made against me by implication, and I was insulted by implication. The hon. member for Houghton then said to the hon. member for Piketberg that her remark, “every man has his price” was made in the course of a private conversation. I am now going to tell this House precisely what happened, because at that moment a few weeks ago it aroused antipathy in me, and for a very good reason which I am going to reveal to-night. Under the Prime Minister’s Vote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister what Coloured leaders he had consulted or had held conversations with. The hon. the Prime Minister then replied that, inter alia, Dr. Van der Ross had been one of them. The hon. member for Soutpansberg who is seated in the next row of benches to the left made an interjection—I do not know what he said—to which the hon. member for Houghton reacted by saying:“Every man has his price.” I immediately leant forward and said: “I resent that. I know Dr. Van der Ross as an honourable man and I will convey this to him.” With a derogatory gesture of the right hand the hon. member for Houghton said: “You may do as you please.” The hon. member for Soutpansberg has assured me that he has never in his life had a private conversation with the hon. member for Houghton. This so-called private conversation with the hon. member for Houghton was heard by hon. members in the cross-benches as well as by all the hon. members sitting here behind me. They can all testify to it, and I did not regard it as a private conversation.

But the point which aroused antipathy in me, appeared again to-night when the hon. member for Piketberg quoted here from a statement made by a Coloured teacher. The hon. member for Houghton kept on saying: “It is a lie. It is a pack of lies.” She threatened civil action if it was said outside the House. That was being said of a man who cannot defend himself in this House. I happen to know the man. By chance, too, I can inform the House that he is one of those who, after that case had been dealt with, came to me and other Coloured representatives seeking assistance in the sorry plight in which they had found themselves. I went in person to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs’ predecessor to plead that those people should not be thrown out of work and should not be deprived of their careers. I leave it at that. But I want to come to the “pack of lies”.

Immediately after the provincial elections in 1965 I made certain remarks here in regard to what had happened during those provincial elections in the Coloured constituencies. The following morning there was a flutter in the dove-cote. A Press statement was issued, in which my name, inter alia, had been dragged in. Certain prominent members of the Progressive Party had issued this Press statement. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she can tell certain members of the Progressive Party, who were former members of this House and whom she has allegedly described as having given “lustre to this House”, that I am saying before this House, and that I will say it in any other place I am called upon to testify, that they are lying. They do not hesitate to lie. They lie without turning a hair. I want to support the statement by recounting an incident which happened to me. On a certain day in June, 1963, I was sitting in an office in Cape Town with two leading members of the Progressive Party, at whose request I had come to their office. There I was told in as many words as I am stating it here now that, if I would support them in a certain election which was in the offing, I would never again have to worry about my own election expenses. If they deny that, then I say to them that they are lying. I am speaking the truth.

Order! I wonder whether the hon. member must not rather say that it is an untruth, or that it is not true. It is not parliamentary to use the word “lie”.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. I shall then say that they told a deliberate untruth. I hope the hon. member for Houghton will also withdraw or contain her “lies” and her “pack of lies”, which we are continually forced to listen to here. In addition I want to say that I will confirm this statement which I have just made here under any circumstances. I will even swear to it before Chief Rabbi Israel Abrahams on the Talmud. I shall leave it at that. It is of no further consequence.

After the hon. member for Peninsula had participated in this debate yesterday, the hon. member for Houghton stated that a flood of praise had been poured out on the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I want to point out at once that we base our reactions in this House to what appears before the House in regard to Coloured Affairs on our close feeling and contact with our constituency and with the voters which we represent here. If there, as I said when I participated in the debate yesterday, has been a change in attitude over the years on the part of the Whites or on the part of the Coloureds towards the other groups is it my duty, or the duty of the hon. member for Peninsula, to rake up old grievances and take advantage of them, or must we develop the understanding and co-operation which has arisen in the best interests of both groups? But no, that was never mentioned enough. That is what is bruited abroad by the Press to discredit the members who do their duty here in a group to the best of their ability and beyond, as I have had to do on many occasions. It was with a shock that I heard the speech made here this evening by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because I have known that Coloured housing scheme at Eersterus very well, right from the initial stages up to the present. I am also ecquainted with the circumstances in Claremont. I have myself gone to look at Cape Locations, as the place is known, where there are still many Coloureds living. What we are of course expected to do is to arouse people in regard to hypothetical things which do not exist. Then we would of course receive very good publicity as Coloured representatives. I just want to say that our duty here is to obtain the best for our people. Whether this was also in a private conversation or not I do not know, but the remark was also made here: “I have been consistent”. Then the hon. member was talking about the “humiliations of separate amenities”. In 1953 she sat in the House and voted for the Act. In 1953 the hon. member was a member of the United Party caucus and they supported the Act.

I did not.

Very well, if she did not support it, then I am asking the hon. member how many sessions …

Another of your lies.

Another of my lies. Well, at least she refrained from voting.

Order! Will the hon. member for Houghton please withdraw that?

Another of the untruths.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “another of your lies”.

I withdraw “lies” and I replace it with “untruths”.

All very well, but she did not resign from the United Party because it supported the Bill. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Klip River the following. In the case of the Committee on Separate Amenities, who was there who interceded for and tried to get the best for the Coloureds under these circumstances? If it is being complained that the Coloureds did not receive enough closely situated beaches in the Cape Peninsula, who were the instances which opposed it or who tried to convince the Committee not to allocate it? It was white instances. I can say that in my constituency, from Betty’s Bay up to 17 miles north of East London, there was not one sitting of this Committee at which I was not personally present. My conclusion is, after what I experienced, that the Coloureds are going to be much beter off once they receive the beaches which have up to now been allocated to them and which are being properly developed for them than they were in the past when they were sent from pillar to post and never knew where they could go. But that is what happened. There is no practical experience of what is being done. There is no practical experience of what it contains. They are merely exploiting a few who are being consulted, who are satisfied with nothing nor ever will be, and then we in these benches, who keep in touch with our people, have to play a role here which is false and will be to the detriment of our people. I just want to say that if there is anything to say in regard to who has been “consistent” in this House, then I can say that I have never departed from my standpoint that the Coloureds in South Africa should reach the stage of full-fledged citizenship. But what I also realize, and what the Coloured leaders are telling me, and what I find amongst the people whom I represent, is that they can never argue with the white man on an equal footing in regard to full-fledged citizenship …

[Inaudible].

Quiet. I am speaking, not you. Sir, I am not afraid, but I sometimes fear for this hon. member. [Time expired.]

We on this side of the House have just heard a pleasant bit of political sport and we were particularly pleased about the course this debate took. In it was reflected the success which the hon. the Minister and the Department of Coloured Affairs have had in regard to the relations between Whites and Coloureds. We were pleased about this because what we would very much like is a sound relationship between the Whites and the Coloureds, and we have seen that tremendous progress has been made, but then there had to be a few discordant notes. The first discordant note was that of the hon. member for Houghton, who has just been reprimanded here, and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could not lag behind because he wanted to be a little more progressive than the hon. member for Houghton, and he also came along with a discordant note. But the Minister dealt with him very thoroughly. The idea of that dissonance, and this is what is so regrettable, is that those people are at last now beginning to realize that the success which has been achieved is a very major one. [Interjection.]

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member here say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s name is Japie Suzman?

Order! That is not a point of order.

When those hon. members saw what success the hon. the Minister and his Department were having, they were forced as usual to abuse their position in order to mar those race relationships a little. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he was warning the National Party and the Government that if we wanted politics then the United Party would give us politics. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that the National Party is very fond of a little political sport, and he knows that they are always ready for a good political fight, but it is a pity that a political bantam weight such as he had to issue the challenge, because we will most certainly not take any notice of his challenge. His political past proves to us that we need not be afraid of him. He has proved over and over again that he has no political authority which must be taken into account. The Minister also pointed out to him that he had no influence amongst the Coloureds any more, and that is why he tried to outdo the hon. member for Houghton here this evening. [Interjections.] One can only hope and trust that these people will, out of loyalty towards South Africa, stop this kind of thing and not abuse their position in order to mar race relationships. It is not good for South Africa, nor is it good for them, and the voters will reject them more and more, and those people whom they imagine they are serving through their attitude will also reject them more and more.

I should like to refer to the Coloured population of Johannesburg, which is, to an ever-increasing extent, being removed from the white areas to their own areas. We are grateful for that, and even if the hon. member for Houghton does describe it as compulsory removal, we are still glad about it, and I think that, if she wants to be honest, she will also admit to being glad about it. If the hon. member were interested in the Coloureds of the Transvaal I could have invited her to drive with me through the Coloured areas in my constituency one day. Then she would have seen that the removals were not compulsory but that those Coloureds welcome this step because they are now at least being properly accommodated. She intimated here to-night, by way of an interjection, that it was only certain Coloureds who were favourably disposed towards the Government’s policy and she said, “The masses are not in favour of it”. But there she will see that the masses are in fact in favour of it.

But now there is a matter which troubles one, and that is why I do not want to ask the Minister or his Department to-night to rectify these things, but I do want to ask them to use their influence to see to it that certain planning is carried out, and that the Coloureds then do the rest themselves. I am talking about the lack of recreational facilities in those large areas. It is a tremendously large complex, and practically in the centre of that complex it is hoped that the Rand Teachers’ College will shortly be erected and we are also very grateful for that educational institution which is going to be established there. Now we should like to see recreational facilities being developed around that teachers’ college so that that educational institution will also be the centre of the cultural activities of the Coloureds of Johannesburg. But we want to develop those recreational facilities there, and now the site has not yet been allocated. There is as yet no planning and we are only asking for that planning to be done so that we, by means of the Department, can make an appeal to the Coloureds to find a means of recreation there, since they do not as yet have recreational facilities, by developing that site themselves. It will be a monument of which not only the Coloureds but also South Africa will ultimately be proud. We are only asking that guidance be given to the Coloureds, so that they will develop those facilities there themselves. The deficiency is a tremendous one. The Committee must understand that thousands of Coloureds have already been settled there and those people have no recreational facilities of any kind. I do not know of any bioscope hall in the entire Johannesburg which makes provision for Coloureds. There the hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout should rap the Johannesburg City Council across the knuckles. Sitting here in this Committee is a former mayor of Johannesburg, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). [Interjections.] We do not want the Johannesburg City Council to do this; we want the Coloureds themselves to do it, because the Johannesburg City Council will never do it. There are no facilities for those people and it makes the position a very difficult one, and it creates points of friction between the Whites and the Coloureds of Johannesburg because the people have to go elsewhere in their free time, they have nowhere else to go, and I can refer again to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) who has not yet lifted a finger in that connection. Because they have nowhere else to go they penetrate into the white areas and cause friction there. I am convinced that if the Department will allocate areas to them and assist with the planning and make an appeal to the Coloured community, perhaps by means of the teachers’ college there, I am convinced that the Coloureds will roll up their sleeves. I think that they already have enough pride, and have already progressed so far that they on their part now want to do something to make a success of the policy of the Government. I am convinced that they will work to establish those facilities there for themselves. [Time expired.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that it is of no interest to me who is speaking; I am interested in what a man says. For that reason it does not matter to me whether it is the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. member for Langlaagte. If I think the speaker is right, I will not hesitate to say so, and that goes for the hon. the Minister as well. I want to tell him that as far as we are concerned, we will give the Minister full credit for everything he does which is to the benefit of the Coloureds, and I will not mind if they call me Japie Marais, because I praise him for the good which I think he is doing. That is our attitude. But the Minister is not being fair if he says here that the opposition shown by the Coloureds to the Government was due to incitement by this side. [Interjection.] Would the Minister and the hon. members over there say that they do not remember the days when it was said in this House that if one entered the houses of Coloureds “one picks up lice”? Do I have to read that from Hansard? Do I have to read the speeches made in this House by members in those front-benches who said that they found it “revolting” to be in the same room as a Coloured? No, there is only one side which was to be blamed for the feeling which prevailed, and that is the members on the opposite side, as a result of the language they used and the spirit in which they acted.

I am glad that the Government is once again paying a grant to the Eoan group, but do you remember the days when it was taken away from them in a petty wav? No, we cannot accept that argument by the Minister, because it is not true. The fact of the matter is that there has been a change of heart in the Government in respect of the Coloureds, and we welcome that. Now they are trampling each other to tell us how much they are doing for the Coloureds, but in former times the Government attacked the Opposition when we pleaded for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] I do not think the Minister was being fair. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is in fact as a result of the criticism of the Opposition that the Government experienced a change of heart. If it had not been for our criticism, they would not have been where they are at present. It was the years of hammering to show the Government where it was wrong and how much it was harming the white man and race relations which had the result that the Government turned over a new leaf. But I want to say that we on this side welcome that new spirit on the part of the Government.

There is another point that I should like to deal with, and that is the argument we are hearing continually that this Government is the only one which has ever done anything for the Coloureds and that it is doing much more than any previous government ever did. And everything which is now being done for the Coloureds, is attributed to the policy of apartheid.

Of course.

I think we should stop adopting the attitude that whatever we are doing for the Coloureds is a favour. It is a very poor attitude for the Government to adopt, to be always acting as though they were doing the Coloureds a favour. The Coloureds are citizens of South Africa, and they are entitled to the good things of this country just as much as the Whites are. They also have their rights, and it is only the duty of the Government to do for them what is being done. That is why I say that nobody owes the Government a debt of gratitude, because it is only an obligation. To say that they are doing more than the previous government is a frivolous argument. The fact of the matter is that in the material field—and I emphasize the words “material field”—every government does more than its predecessor. It builds more houses, it builds better roads, it acquires better aircraft, it provides better facilities, but that has nothing to do with the race policy pursued by the Government. The reason for that is simply that year after year the world advances technologically, and that methods improve. When I was a boy, it took six to nine months to build one house. To-day building methods have changed so much that one can build rows of houses in one day. One can even buy houses in a factory. But to argue that materially this Government has done more than the previous government is ridiculous, because the basis of comparison is not the same. Mr. Chairman, when I hear the old argument that the Government is building so many houses and that the number of houses built by the United Party Government 20 years ago was so much smaller …

That is a rather far-fetched argument.

No. If President Johnson were to get up in America today and attack ex-President Eisenhower and say: “Your government was bad because it did not succeed in sending a man into outer space”, then it would be just as ridiculous as the arguments advanced by hon. members on that side. Science produces new advantages every year, and as a result every government’s achievements in the material field are better than those of the previous government. The achievements of the United Party Government were an improvement on those of the old National Party Government, and the achievements of this Government are also better than those of the old National Party Government —as far as material things are concerned. I think it is childish to argue: See how many houses we are building in comparison with the ones you built 20 years ago. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must stop their continual interruptions.

The entire basis of comparison is false. Every government has to be judged by the means of its time. In fact, I think that if one considers what is happening in other countries as far as development in these modern times is concerned, as far as the provision of housing and education and social upliftment is concerned, …

Ghana.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side are always comparing Ghana with the white territories. Why do they not compare Ghana with our own Bantu reserves? If one considers what is happening in other countries in the field of housing, education and social upliftment, then I regret to say that the results achieved by this Government are meagre. Through modern means one can perform so many miracles as far as housing is concerned that there should not be one shanty in South Africa at present. But what do we find? Take a drive through our cities and towns; there are still thousands of shanties in South Africa at present, and that while one can build a hundred houses in one day if one wants to. [Interjections.] In South Africa there are still tens of thousands of hovels in which people are living, and nowadays that should not be the position in a modern state, considering that one can buy houses from a factory.

Show me one shanty.

I shall show the hon. member a shanty on the photo brochure which his Party published during the previous election. They published that pamphlet to cast suspicion on the Johannesburg City Council. This Government is not keeping abreast of modern developments. Take the question of education. Why cannot education for Coloureds be made compulsory? The longer one postpones it, the more social problems are created—the very thing one wants to avoid. Why can we not make education for Coloureds compulsory and uplift the people and avoid the creation of new social problems? I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to say that there is a shortage of buildings, because I have just said that that is a weak argument. Nowadays one can erect a school by prefabricated building methods within a few days, if the Government has the will to do so. The hon. the Minister says that there is a shortage of teachers, but that is no excuse either. By means of a convenience such as television one can nowadays teach thousands of people through one teacher. That is a hopeless excuse.

You know nothing about education.

Mr. Chairman, in a country like New Zealand even children on farms are taught by means of television during the snow season if they cannot reach the schools. If one has a Government with a modern outlook, an alert government, which wants to come to grips with the problems of South Africa, then these problems can be solved. [Time expired.]

To-night we have heard the reason why the Government has done so much for the Coloureds. According to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this is to be attributed to the criticism expressed by the Opposition. If ever there was a thin statement, it is this statement that what the Government has done for the Coloureds is attributable to the Opposition’s criticism. Through the years we have seen them opposing measures which this Government wanted to implement, and now we have to hear that it was actually the Opposition’s criticism which helped to bring about the progress that has in fact taken place. We would be the last persons to say that we are perfect; there is still a great deal to be done, but I may tell you that we are perfect; there is still a great deal to be done, but I may tell you that this Government intends to do the things which are still to be done as soon as it possibly can.

A while ago the hon. the Minister spoke about the positive measures taken by this Government, and he referred amongst other things to the rural Coloured areas. To-night I want to say something about that. The development which has now taken place in the rural areas is in my view one of the many fine new developments. Last year the Estimates included R300,000 for the development of rural areas. Water is being laid on; fences are being erected and there is very good progress. Land has also been bought up from white farmers at a cost of R138,000. Mr. Chairman, I saw what is happening in a village like Haarlem, in the Humansdorp constituency. The development which is taking place there is something positive. I am convinced that if more money is asked for rural development, this House will confidently vote that money, because this is the kind of development that we should like to see. We should not forget that in the past the Afrikaner people experienced their greatest cultural development in the rural areas, on the farm and in the small villages. There in the little farm schools the teacher was the man who took the lead and who was instrumental in the cultural upliftment of the people in the rural areas by means of debating societies, concerts, etc. This is the role that the Coloured teacher can also play in the rural areas. I was so glad to see in the newspapers that the Coloured teachers at Joubertina, in my constituency, have taken the lead in providing evening classes to adult Coloureds. The adults meet three times a week to learn to read and write. Mr. Chairman, this is the type of development needed by these people, because many of them are still backward in this respect. For that reason I should like to see further development take place in these rural areas. Then there are also the towns which are developing in the rural areas. I should like to see the Department devote more attention to that, because in my view the towns inside the rural areas will form the core of the future development of our Coloured communities. I should also like to see the establishment of industries in the rural towns encouraged. The rural areas comprise almost 2 million morgen, and more than 40,000 Coloureds live there. I should like to see the towns in the rural areas developed in order that they may eventually form the core of our Coloured communities. I was pleased to see in the report of the Department that the management boards of rural areas are now also regarded as local authorities for the purposes of housing, but I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that financially the management boards in the Coloured areas are not strong, and I just want to ask whether they cannot be given more assistance, particularly as regards the provision of housing. I feel that the towns in these areas should be developed to such an extent that they will serve to attract Coloureds to those areas, and then they will play the part which I envisage for them in future.

Before I conclude I just want to say something about one aspect of the work of the Department which I consider very good and very fine, and that is the monthly publication Alfa, which is issued by the Department to publicize the things done by the Coloureds. I find it a most attractive and enlightening publication, and I should like to congratulate the Department on that publication and express the hope that they will continue with it.

Sir, I wish to return to some remarks made by the hon. the Minister when he last spoke. He referred to the Coloured people in the Cape, and he referred to the Coloured people in the Transvaal, but he did not refer to the 50,000 Coloured people in Natal. I want to remind the Minister that I wrote to his predecessor and extended an invitation to him to come to Natal and accompany me on a visit to meet the Coloured people and to see some of the conditions under which they live. I repeat this invitation to the hon. this Minister and I hope that during the recess he will find time to visit Durban and to come round with me to see how the Coloured people live and to see some of their problems.

I say that this Government has failed to meet the needs of the Coloured people ideologically and in the practical implementation of its policy. When I say that, I cast no slur on the administration, in so far as the officials are concerned, because I believe they are doing their best with the limited resources at their disposal, but I submit that the whole position of the Coloured people is in need of urgent review. I think if hon. members consider some of the statistics concerning the Coloured people, they will agree with me, that the time has come to go into this question thoroughly, from a humane point of view.

Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister of Planning a question last week concerning the number of births and the number of illegitimate births. The figures which the Minister gave me apply only to the white race and to the Coloured race. The figures which apply to the Coloured race are startling, and frightening because 38 per cent of all Coloured births in the Republic are illegitimate. Sir, this is a figure that is increasing. It is 15-times as high as the figure for white illegitimate births. Sir, when one looks at these figures in an attempt to see some sort of pattern or some sort of logic, one looks at the rate of illegitimacy in respect of teenage mothers; one finds that the rate of illegitimacy in respect of white mothers is 35.7 per cent but that the Coloured rate is lower; it is 29.3 per cent and then when one examines the position in respect of mothers under 15 years of age who have given birth to illegitimate children, one finds that the percentage of illegitimate births in the case of white teenage mothers is two and a half times as high as in the case of Coloured teenage mothers under 15 years of age. I think one is entitled under those circumstances to conclude that it is not the home life of the Coloured children that is causing the high rate of illegitimacy but that there must be some other cause. What is it? Is it social conditions? Is it due to frustration? I believe that in many instances this high rate is due to frustration. It is frustration of economic conditions as well.

Let us have a look at the crime figures in South Africa. Here is another pointer to the urgency of this situation, because if one examines the number of convictions per 100,000 of the population of people of the age of seven years and older, one finds regrettably that the Coloured people have the highest rate. It is five times the rate of white convictions, three times the rate of Bantu convictions, and 3½ times the rate of Asiatic convictions. Perhaps if we examined the type of offence it might give us some lead as to what this trend signifies.

Is it arising from frustration? What does frustration usually cause—what reaction is there to frustration? I believe that when there is frustration, one is tempted to escape from realities. I believe that the figures of crime among the Coloured people indicate that this is possibly the main reason. Because what is the main escape from reality that people usually resort to? Dagga and alcohol. If one looks at these particular figures one finds that the convictions for dagga as far as the Coloured people are concerned, represent 5 per cent of the total of all convictions, and there again it is double the white rate as far as convictions are concerned. When we come to drunkenness the picture is even more depressing, because drunkenness among the Coloured people represents 44.5 per cent of the total convictions. This rate is 2½ times the white rate, six times the rate for Asiatics, and four times the rate for Bantu. What is the State doing about this particular problem? That is the depressing story. One has only to look at the Estimates to see that. The Retreat rehabilitation centres and related services this year are receiving an amount in the Estimates totalling R38,000. It is a reduction of R12,000 on last year’s figure. The amount is one-ninth that voted for the white people. The amount for the white people has been increased by the total amount that is allocated to the Coloured people for this particular service, namely R38,000.

Now I come to housing. I realize that the provision of housing falls without the responsibility of this particular Minister: It comes under the Department of Community Development. I know that many houses have been built. But are they of the right type? If one takes the latest figures that are available one finds that in 1960, according to the statistical yearbook, as far as Coloured people were concerned when it came to one-roomed or two-roomed houses, the average occupancy was 5i per one-or two-roomed house. The comparative figure for Europeans was three occupants per one-or two-roomed house. But this surely must concern this Minister, because this is creating the social problems which are leading to the very facts which I have disclosed this evening. I want to point out to the Minister that the back-log in Coloured housing is the highest for all races, and that the shortage on 31.12,1966 was 26,700 houses. I believe that the provision of houses is not even keeping pace with the natural increase of the Coloured people. It is resulting in over-crowding and moral and social degradation.

This particular difficulty is not being improved by the type of housing in which the Coloured folk are asked to live. All over the Karoo you will find two-roomed houses with no ceilings, no internal doors, no ablution facilities. Perhaps there is a tap and a toilet outside. In those houses we find large families living. What sort of privacy can a family have under those circumstances, when they live, eat, sleep, wash, etc. in two-roomed houses with no privacy whatsoever? Is that the way to treat these people?

I want to come back to Durban because here again we have difficulties. I want to point out to the Minister that as far as the illegitimacy rate in Durban is concerned, there is an improvement in the latest figures for the same year 1963. It indicates that the illegitimacy percentage of births among the Coloured is 29, compared with the overall figure for the Republic of 38 per cent. I believe that to a certain extent this lower rate is due to the high character of many of the Coloured people in Natal. That is why I am so anxious for the Minister to come and meet these people and see for himself the standard and the type of people with whom he has to deal in Natal. I believe that, although there are some Coloured people in Natal who are living under fairly normal conditions as far as housing is concerned, there are many who do not enjoy family life as they should. There is overcrowding. There are difficult conditions and these conditions are causing grave concern. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, nobody would dispute that there is still a great shortage of Coloured housing. But even the most severe critic must concede that a great deal has been done in recent years. I find it extraordinary that the hon. member for Berea should level such harsh criticism against the Government because we have not yet provided adequate housing, having regard to all the years the Coloureds were allowed, under United Party City Councils—as happened here in the Cape —to live under Port Jackson trees, without any concern on their part. It was this Government which removed them from under those Port Jackson trees and placed them in houses. They are not big houses. I am quite prepared to admit that. I should like those houses to be bigger. In the interests of social development I should like to see that. But the situation is much better than it was in the days when they lived in bags and under corrugated iron and Port Jackson trees. As long as we keep our perspective in making our plea, a plea which I support with Treasury at all times, namely that more funds be provided for Coloured housing, we shall appreciate that the Government has done a great deal.

As regards the invitation to come to Durban, I just want to say that I have already decided to go to Durban in August to attend a meeting of Coloured leaders there, and of course also to visit the other places. By that lime the hon. member will have been informed about that, and then we shall probably also be able to meet each other there.

I should now like to reply to an interjection made by the hon. member for Transkei a while ago in connection with the Eoan Group, just to present matters in their true perspective. Across the floor of the House the hon. member asked me why the Government withdrew the subsidy from the Eoan Group. For the sake of clarity I just want to state the true position. The Department did not withdraw the subsidy. What did in fact happen was that in 1958 the group themselves said that because policy required that there should be separate halls and separate seating, a subsidy within the framework of such a policy was no longer acceptable to them. It is not we who withdrew it—it was the Eoan Group who said that within the framework of that policy the subsidy was not acceptable to them. Since then it has been ruled by legislation that there must be separate halls and separate seating on such occasions, and since then the group has approached the Department again for a subsidy, and last year the subsidy was in fact paid to the group once again. There is no need to cover the field again which I covered in my previous replies.

As regards the plea by the hon. member for Langlaagte for recreation facilities in the Johannesburg complex, I may just reassure him that work is in fact being done along those lines. The land which I visited in the company of the hon. member, namely the site of the Johannesburg training College, covers 32 morgen. It has been partly laid out and is partly suitable for development. It is the indention that that site should be developed not only as a site for education but also for recreation for the Coloureds in that area. That planning is being proceeded with.

To the hon. member for Humansdorp I just want to give the assurance that the Department is giving very serious attention to the planning of townships in the rural areas. In fact, at the moment the Department is not only planning but also developing 20 such townships in rural areas. An amount for surveying plots in such projected townships is in fact provided for on the Loan Estimates.

Furthermore, I should like to reassure the hon. member that the Department is also contemplating making money available to management boards in order that they may be enabled to launch those necessary housing schemes.

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired last night, I had said the following—

To that I now want to add that we are also concerned with what we can build up and the foundation that we can lay for the future. What I had in mind here was that since Coloured education was taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs, a uniform system of education for Coloureds has been introduced throughout the Republic. Legislation has been passed this year in terms of which a uniform education policy can be introduced throughout the country for the Whites. I feel that, for the sake of promoting self-respect on the part of the Coloureds, the hon. the Minister and his Department should make a positive contribution towards making the Coloured realize, even in his childhood years, that he is not an inferior appendage of the white man, but that he owes his origin to South Africa and that he and his forebears have played a remarkable and an essential part in the development of South Africa, and that he will play such a part in future as well. On the other hand I have in mind that it will contribute a great deal towards better understanding and better relationships if at school the white children are from an early a taught the true facts and the objective history in respect of the part played by the Coloureds in the development of South Africa.

After all, it is a fact that the Coloureds were in existence in South Africa about 150 years or more before the white settlement assumed a permanent character. There is no doubt about the fact that after Bartholomew Diaz had landed at Mossel Bay early in December, 1488, and traded with the Natives there, hundreds of British, French, Portuguese and Dutch ships visited the coast of South Africa. I still remember reading in my history book at school —and this I do not find in the books of my children—that Monica da Costa, the mother of Simon van der Stel, was a native of Mauritius.

I now want to skip quite a few years and refer to the Battle of Bloubergstrand, when the Cape finally came under British control.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing matters which have nothing to do with this Vote.

Coloured education falls under the Coloured Affairs Vote. I am now discussing what I should like to see included in Coloured education. I should just like to state my case. Sir, if you will permit me to do so. I am merely confining myself to a certain aspect of Coloured education, which falls under this Minister.

The hon. member asked that certain facts should be taught at white schools.

Yes, I did include that in my argument, Sir, but I stated explicitly that …

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

Sir, I shall confine myself to Coloured education; I give you that undertaking. I now want to refer to another aspect. In the Battle of Bloubergstrand …

You are going very far back now.

Yes, I am going far back. In that battle the Pandoers, the Coloured soldiers of the Dutch period, acquitted themselves admirably of their task. They formed the rearguard of General Jansens’s forces when he retreated to the Hottentots Holland Mountains. We know that most of the casualties among the British forces were caused by the fact that their boats capsized and they were drowned, as their ships were kept at a great distance by the Malay artillery. We find that subsequently, when the settlement expanded into the interior, the Coloureds of that time went into the interior before the Whites did, and also participated in the expeditions that were undertaken for the purpose of fighting the native inhabitants, the Bantu and the Bushmen. All these things form part of our history, and the school syllabuses do not give the necessary prominence to the part played by the Coloureds. Then there was Sir Harry Smith’s historic ride to Grahamstown with reinforcements. He rode from Cape Town to Grahamstown. The Cape Mounted Rifles was a Coloured regiment up to 1888, and that expeditionary force of Sir Harry Smith consisted mainly of Coloured soldiers. We find that Coloureds accompanied the Whites in the Great Trek. Many of them were liberated slaves who trekked with their masters. At Moordkoppie 13 of them were murdered along with Piet Retief and his men. It is on record that more than 300 Coloureds were murdered at Bloukrans and Weenen. So, together with the Whites, they were the pioneers who trekked into the interior.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer. How many hon. members realize that for a period of 80 years the Cape Corps was the bastion and the military force that stood between the Whites and the Bantu on the Eastern Frontier? The reasons for that are obvious; the red-coat soldiers could be seen a long distance away; in addition they knew nothing about South Africa—they did not know the conditions. The frontier farmers fought when their stock had been stolen, but the permanent garrison consisted of Coloureds. I can go on in this way.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration may find the following fact interesting. How many hon. members know that when the Mantati marched southwards to the Orange River like an annihilating scourge, it was the Griquas who checked that invasion? If we look at the history of the Griqua trek from the Southern Free State to Griqualand East, we find that they established the Christian religion and the Afrikaans language there.

Order! What is the hon. member trying to prove? What does he want to convey to this House?

I am trying to prove that none of these things is included in the history syllabus of the Coloured child at school. I feel it would be advisable to include the true, objective history of the Coloureds in the syllabus at this stage, because in my opinion that would serve to promote self-respect and national pride on the part of the Coloureds, and respect for the Coloureds on the part of the Whites as well.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot write the entire book here now in the way that he wants it to be written.

No, Sir, I do not want to write the book now. [Interjections.] I only hope that the hon. the Minister will consider my suggestion. It can do no harm. It can only serve to do justice to the people concerned.

In conclusion I just want to say this: I hope that as a result of everything I have mentioned here this evening, Sir, you too have learnt a few additional facts about the Coloureds.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to deal with a bit of history, but I do not want to go back as far as the hon. member for Outeniqua. I only want to deal with two or three years, that is all. I want to take the hon. the Minister up on his reply to me about the Eoan Group. I interjected while he was talking about the Eoan Group and the contribution which it was making to culture. He was full of praise for this group and for the opera which we all saw together. It was an excellent bit of work. I agree with him. And he was very proud of it that night. He stressed the fact that the Government is encouraging that group. The Chief Government Whip nods his head too; he says that is quite right.

Yes.

They are proud of it now. The way that they talk one would think it is something which is a creation of this Government! That is the impression one would get; that is the impression one got that night when the hon. the Minister made his speech in the town hall.

You are jealous.

No, I am not jealous. I just want to say a few things. I asked the Minister why they withdrew the subsidy to the Eoan Group. He did not reply to me during his speech. Obviously he was discomfited because he did not know the answer. But he has been thinking, and when he got up to reply he had thought out a reply. It amazed me that this Minister, with his intelligence—because he is an intelligent Minister, make no mistake about that—could have the audacity to get up in this House and tell us here that the subsidy was not withdrawn by the Government but that it was rejected by the Eoan Group. What happened in fact? The subsidy was paid yearly to this group and this Government then said to them: “If you want to keep the subsidy, you must have separate shows.” At that time the law did not require that, but this Government said to them: “Unless you have separate shows, we will not give you the subsidy.” The Eoan Group—quite rightly—said, “We will not take your subsidy.” And what happened? The Eoan Group went on. It did not kill them. They got more and more support. Then the Government altered the law and now we have separate audiences. Now the subsidy is restored. The withdrawal of the subsidy did not kill the Eoan Group, as this Government thought it would. It did not kill them—it strengthened them. I say that this group has for years and years back, long before this Government had any influence with them, been contributing towards the culture of this country. It ill behoves this Government now to pretend that they are fostering culture amongst the Coloured people. So much for the Eoan Group.

I want to ask the Minister about something else, something which I wanted to ask him before he replied the last time, and that is about the Coloured people in the Transkei. The Minister will know that we have nearly as many Coloured people in the Transkei as we have whites. With the development of the Transkei, under the Constitution of the Transkei which has been given self-government, there has also been a zoning of the villages and the towns for occupation either by black or by white. The Coloureds live in these towns. They also live out in the Native locations. When I talk about “locations” the Minister will know that I do not mean locations around the village but out in the country. The zoning only provides for either black or white occupation. There is no provision for Coloured occupation in the zoning proclamations. When I raised this question once before I was told that the Coloureds could buy in the group areas set aside for them. But there are no areas set aside for them under the group areas proclamations. The areas which they had, in Umtata for instance, now fall in those areas zoned for black occupation.

The Minister must realize that the artisans in the Transkei are the Coloured people. If we remove the Coloured people from the Transkei then there are no artisans left. He only has to go to Umtata, as his colleague did the other day, to see all the building operations that are being carried on there. Building on a big scale is taking place and the artisans are all Coloured. It is not only in Umtata that the artisans are Coloured but throughout the Transkei the artisan is a Coloured man.

The majority of these Coloureds, especially those living in Umtata, hire houses. Some own their own houses, but others hire houses. They hire houses owned by white people. With the zoning for black and white occupation, some of the white people are selling their houses to Africans. Of course, once they have sold their houses the Africans can put them out. The Coloureds complain that there is nowhere for them to go. There is no provision made for Coloured people. Where must they go if they are put out of those houses? They cannot go into white houses, in terms of the group areas legislation.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has given thought to the position of the Coloured people in the Transkei and what he intends doing for them. I saw a report in the paper that a deputation of the Coloured people in the Transkei interviewed the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he was up in Umtata. There is no indication in the report that any hope was extended to them that they will be allowed to stay in the Transkei or what future there will be for them there. Well, I do not know exactly what transpired during that interview but I hope that this hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs has had talks with his colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration. Therefore I should like him to make a statement now about the position of the Coloureds in the Transkei and what their position will be under the present set-up. These Coloureds there are not in the same position as the Whites who have to leave the Transkei and are in fact leaving the Transkei. These Whites have practically the whole of South Africa to go to. But the Coloured man is limited to go only to group areas. Therefore they can only go to certain places. I know an effort was made by the Minister of Transport to bring some of those Coloureds down and establish them here in the docks in Cape Town. But we know this was not a successful experiment—they were not happy here and most of them went back, I believe. I feel, therefore, that something special will have to be done for these Coloured people and therefore I should like to know from this hon. Minister what plans he has for them.

The residential rights of Coloureds in the Transkei is a matter which the hon. member should raise under the Vote of my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

But surely it is your responsibility.

I do not want to run away from anything, but it is a matter which does not fall under my Vote. After all, I am not responsible for matters in the Transkei.

But surely you are responsible for the Coloureds.

I shall reply to you as far as the Coloureds are concerned. But as I have said, I am, after all, not responsible for the Transkei. This is a matter which my colleague and I have discussed very thoroughly —in fact, we had an interview with a deputation from the Coloureds in this connection in Pretoria. Accordingly I am fully aware of the problems of the Coloureds there. But, as I have said, this is a matter which does not rest with me. Naturally I am concerned about the Coloureds in the Transkei. There are approximately 10,000 of them. I should like to see that these 10,000 Coloureds are encouraged to come to, for example, the Western Cape. But we cannot drive them out of the Transkei. As the hon. member rightly said, they are engaged in the artisan trades there. They are the artisans there and if all of them are removed from there, the entire economy would be disrupted. We will not do anything as foolish as that. There will therefore have to be a gradual removal from the Transkei. But for that, in the first place, more housing is required in the Western Cape. Earlier to-day we spoke about housing, and I admitted then that we had a tremendous housing shortage, even as far as the natural population increase of the Coloureds here in the Western Cape is concerned. Therefore it will not be possible to provide housing here for 10,000 Coloureds from the Transkei just like that. It is a matter, therefore, which will still take some time, but it is receiving my attention. Only last week I had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Community Development about the Coloureds in the Transkei, especially as far as housing for them is concerned.

I told him that the Department of Labour in collaboration with the Department of Coloured Affairs wanted to start a recruiting campaign to get in touch with the Coloureds in the Transkei with a view to placing them in employment elsewhere, for example in the Western Cape. But of course we cannot do that before we have housing for them. It is therefore not a matter that can be put right overnight. But the way I feel about the matter is that the soundest development will be if they move out of the Transkei in due course, because I understand that the Bantu feel that the Coloureds should leave that area in due course. But their housing there is a matter which the hon. member should raise under the Bantu Affairs Vote, which will be the next Vote to come up for discussion.

I am sorry, Sir, but I cannot accept a reply like this from the hon. the Minister. After all these Coloureds are his responsibility because he is the Minister of Coloured Affairs—no matter where the Coloured man is this Minister is responsible for looking after them. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is dealing with the Bantu there and with the white people there. He has made provision for them through zoning towns and villages. But I want to know what this hon. Minister is doing to protect the interests of the Coloured people. What steps is he taking with his colleague? Can’t he tell us what arrangements he has made for housing of the Coloureds in the Transkei? He tells us he cannot bring them down here because there is no housing for them available in the Western Cape. But the same position exists in the Transkei. If the homes they are living in now in the Transkei are bought up by the Bantu they would have nowhere to go. So, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps he is taking with his colleague on behalf of these Coloureds. He himself admits that we cannot just push them all out; and he can’t bring them down here because there is no housing for them. It is a terrible statement for him to have made. I expect him to make some other statement in future about what he intends doing with the Coloureds in the Transkei. The statement he made here to-night is a most unsatisfactory statement. The Coloureds must now be more desperate than ever, after hearing the Minister who is supposed to be responsible for their well-being getting up here asking us to speak to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development about their interests. I think it is a shocking thing.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 45,—“Bantu Administration and Development, R32,725,000” and Loan Vote N,—“Bantu Administration and Development, R50,280,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the position of the Coloured people in the Transkei with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development at once.

Take it as heard.

I am not going to accept it as being heard. The Minister of Coloured Affairs is relieved because we have now moved away from his Vote. He knows very well that he has neglected his duties towards the Coloured people in the Transkei. He is hoping that the Minister of Bantu Administration will now protect him. He himself would like to hear what is going to happen to the Coloureds—he wants his colleague to tell him that! That is a terrible indictment of this Minister of Coloured Affairs. The Coloureds are now at the mercy of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in the same way as all the white people there are at his mercy, a fact they are very unhappy about. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that according to a newspaper report he had had an interview with the Coloureds in Urntata. I should like him to inform this House what the Coloured people asked him on that occasion, what he told them, what their future is to be and what he intends doing with them. It is no good telling us, as he did once before, that they have not been affected by zoning …

I have never said that.

The Minister said that in reply to me once before. But I should like to know from him what is going to happen to these Coloureds who are living in an area reserved for black occupation and who now find themselves having to leave homes they have been hiring because these homes have now been sold by the landlords. Where do they have to go? Where have they to live? We have just heard of the Minister of Coloured Affairs that we cannot bring them down here because he has got no housing for them. They cannot go to the white zoned areas in the Transkei. So, what is to happen to them?

While on this point I should also like to deal with the position of the white people in these towns and villages which have been zoned. I think the Minister is going to tell me that the policy of the Nationalist Party is one of residential segregation. I think even the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who is listening so intently, will agree that the policy of the Government is residential segregation—the Blacks in one area and the Whites in another area. Is that not right?

Tell us what is your policy.

It is our policy, yes. Is it then not the Government’s policy also? You see, Sir, they are running away from it now. And do you know why? They know they are guilty of something. I would never have thought that I would one day be in a position of standing up in this House asking the Nationalist members to deny that their policy is one of residential segregation and be met with blank silence. Can I. therefore, take it that is not their policy any longer? [Interjections.] Do you know, Sir, why they are denying it now? Because they want to carry out that policy only where it suits them—where it suits them to have residential separation they have it and where it does not suit to have it they don’t have it. Well, that is what is happening in the Transkei. This Government by legislation has removed segregation in residential areas.

Where?

In Umtata and other villages in the Transkei. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that because it is in the Transkei it does not matter if white people live alongside the Bantu. So their policy is for the Transvaal and the platteland and not for areas where votes do not count. In the Transkei votes do not count because the Government knows it can’t win a seat there. So it does not matter. There their principles now go by the board—they mean nothing. By legislation they have now abolished segregation and have altered the position so that a Bantu can now buy a house alongside a white man. You know, Sir, there is a portion of Umtata which is now called Chequers—black and white spots next to one another. [Interjections.] But as far as hon. members opposite are concerned for them it is a checkmate. That is why they cannot reply. While some black people and white people can live alongside one another in amity and may choose to live like that there are others who may not choose to live that way and who do not want to be forced to live in that way. I think the hon. member for Brakpan over there indicates that he agrees with me. So what is now happening in the Transkei is that black and white people willy-nilly are being forced to live alongside each other—whether they want to or not. And trouble is already starting. There are, for instance, fights between the children. The habits of these people are not the same. What is more, you are getting overcrowding now.

Progress reported.