Mr. Speaker, during my parliamentary career I have had occasion to sit through, no fewer than 21 budget debates, the last three of which were introduced by me. When I pause for a moment to-day to glance back at the history of these 21 debates then I must conclude that a Minister of Finance seldom if ever had a more difficult task in replying to a budget debate than I have to-day. It is not difficult because of the extent, the nature and the character of the criticism, but it is difficult because of the complete lack of any fundamental criticism. I think we can state that there has never been a Budget which was accepted so wholeheartedly by both sides of the House. I do not think we have ever had a Budget in which we experienced the phenomenon of responsible hon. members on the opposite side of the House standing up one by one and stating that they agreed with the fundamental principles of this Budget. I want to repeat that there has never been a Budget in which the Opposition stated so openly that they accepted the basic principles of the Budget to this extent.

Let us now see what those basic principles are. In the first instance our friends on the opposite side stated that they agreed with the idea of a basic revision of our tax system. In fact, they say that they are the people who were always the fathers of that idea.

But it is true.

It is very easy to advocate and to make propaganda for new measures if the responsibility of carrying those measures into effect does not rest on you. They maintain that they are the people who have always stood for the elimination of the tax bulge. They agree with that in this Budget. They have always advocated a decreased tax on the working wife. They agree with us that the scale of taxation and the progression of the scale should be modified and reduced. They agree that all these changes would entail a sacrifice of direct taxation and that that sacrifice should be made good by increasing indirect taxes. They agree with the new companies tax, for during the past few days I have not heard a single item of criticism levelled at the increased companies tax. They also agreed with the new tax on the undistributed profits of financial companies; at least, I heard no criticism on that score. They agreed wholeheartedly with the fact that we have not introduced a capital gains tax. They agree with the concessions we have made in this Budget. All the fundamental ideas in this Budget, if one reads through it from beginning to end, the Opposition has accepted without demur. That is why I say there has never been a Budget in the history of this House, or in my time as parliamentarian, which was accepted so completely by the Opposition as this one.

We and the Opposition differ on only two points, firstly in respect of the implementation of the indirect taxes, and secondly in respect of the list of articles on which the new tax will be made applicable. In respect of these matters I want to state briefly, as far as the implementation of the new taxes are concerned, that we knew and expected that there would be difficulties. After all, it is unavoidable when one comes forward with a new tax structure, that initial difficulties and problems will be experienced, particularly when one has a complete reversal from direct to indirect taxation on such a scale as we have now introduced. We knew this, and we accepted it. So far there have been no difficulties which our Departments did not foresee, expect, and have knowledge of.

The hon. member for Constantia suggested that we should postpone these new taxes and first put them on trial for a year in order to see how they should be put into effect. We experienced problems with the introduction of decimilization. We experienced problems with the introduction of the pay-as-you-earn system. But those matters are entirely different to the introduction of new indirect taxation. One cannot, as was the case with decimalization, explain the matter to the nation months and years before the time and educate them gradually so that they could, on the day when that system was implemented, have knowledge of the system and accept it. After all, one cannot reveal one’s taxation system to the nation before Budget day. The hon. member for Constantia, who has experience in this field, will agree with me that it is not possible, as in the case of decimalization, to conduct a trial period in abstracto, in vacuo. If one wants to conduct an experiment in order to see whether the system works, one can only do so when it is actually being applied in practice. Sir, imagine what would have happened if we had followed the suggestion of the hon. member for Constantia, if we had levelled a 15 or 20 per cent tax on luxury commodities, and 2½ per cent on the other commodities. Imagine what would have happened if we had, as it were, come to the nation and said, “Here is a list of goods we want to tax. But we are introducing a tax of only 2½ per cent this year. The other we will introduce next year.” What a buying craze, what a spending spree would not in the meantime have taken place among the public! I just want to say that in the implementation of this matter, which I know will entail difficulties, but which we will eventually solve—the majority of which we are engaged in solving by means of discussion with the organizations concerned—I sympathize with our buying organizations, and particularly with our trading organizations in regard to the almost insulting remarks which have been made by members of that side of the House, implying that the trading community of South Africa consists of a passel of rogues who will allegedly try, at any time, to derive the most benefit from these taxes. I have the greatest regard for our businessmen in South Africa. I do not believe that they will seek out the best opportunity of benefiting themselves. A few will in fact do so, but I would not go so far as the allegations which have been made by that side of the House, implying that this will become a general phenomenon in our trade and industry.

As regards the second aspect, i.e. the list of commodities on which the tax will be levied, I want, briefly, to make two preliminary remarks. The first remark I want to make is that the United Party does not have the courage to effect a radical change in the tax system of South Africa. Year after year the United Party advocated effecting a decrease in the taxation scales, the elimination of the bulge, an improvement in the position of the working wife, and so on. Year after year they asked for concessions, but every time when we asked them how they wanted to do this and where they would get the money from to do so, they did not for one moment have the courage to say that they would recover this amount by means of indirect taxes. They waited for us to do so. They waited for us to rake the chestnuts out of the fire. We had the courage to do so because we believe that this is the correct way, and that it is in the interest of South Africa.

Are you not the Government? Let us try and we will show you.

I do not want to discuss anything with that hon. member now. However, I want to repeat that he virtually dragged this debate, which was being conducted on quite a high level, through the mud by trying to turn this matter into a farce. I want to say to that hon. member again that if their Party had been in power, they would not have had the courage to venture upon this new system of taxation. If they had in fact had the courage to do so, they would have done so in precisely the same way as we did. There is no other way; it is the only way if one wants to effect this change in taxation.

I want to refer to a second aspect in the criticism levelled by the Opposition which I found quite deplorable. It is deplorable that the criticism levelled by the Opposition was not based on actual economic, financial grounds, but that it was clearly inspired by party politics. Although we were dealing with a difficult problem, the Opposition made an attempt to make political capital out of it for themselves. This debate will one day stand recorded in the history of our financial affairs as an event, where the Government came forward with a courageous attempt to make a break-through in our financial system, and where the Opposition not only stood aloof, but opposed it and tried to make political gain out of it for themselves. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition quoted me as having allegedly said that I would be prepared, under certain circumstances, to submit to economic laws. But is that such a great sin? I want to repeat, in the full awareness of what I am saying, that if the life and the existence of a nation is at stake, that nation will be prepared to submit to economic laws for the sake of its survival.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who fought in the last war, will not be able to deny that during that war his Government submitted to economic laws for the sake of their survival. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people do in the course of this debate? Although we were dealing with financial, economic and tax matters, tax matters of the utmost importance to our nation, they did not conduct their arguments like financiers, like economists on a financial and economic basis, they argued like politicians to see how they could win the greatest number of votes. If there were ever a bending of economic principles, that is what they did. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now they are squealing.

It will not help them.

It will not help you either.

It does help me. I have here an extract from a report by some of the greatest experts in the world on the subject “The Budget as a tool of economic policy”. They also spoke about the political influence of the introduction of indirect taxation in various parts of the world. In this connection they had the following inter alia to say—

I want to return now to the sales duty itself. A great deal was said in this connection by hon. members opposite. In this connection there was much conjecture and many guesses on the part of hon. members opposite. They made all kinds of assertions which were without foundation, and which they merely grabbed out of thin air. They also mentioned all kinds of figures here so that at times one was forced to shake one’s head in amazement. These are responsible members on that side of the House, who quoted all kinds of figures here without furnishing any proof for those figures.

The first question concerns the stage at which this tax has to be levied. In this connection the arguments of the Opposition were not clear. As I understood the hon. members for Constantia, Pinetown and Parktown, and other hon. members on that side of the House, they were not in favour of the tax being levied at the initial stage. In any case they did not argue against it. Towards the end of the debate however, there were hon. members opposite, particularly in the back benches, who stated that this tax should be levied at the terminal points, namely the retailers. Of course, we were also accused of not having considered and of not having given proper thought to this matter. For that reason we supposedly levied the tax at the wrong stage. According to them we should have introduced it at the retailing point and levied a tax on all retail sales. As far as I can remember, the hon. member for East London (City) and certain other hon. members argued in this way. I just want to point out to hon. members, who stated that we had not given proper thought to this matter that the Department of Customs and Excise investigated this matter in 1964, and that was five years ago. As long ago as 1964 they found that if we were to introduce such a tax, we would have to introduce it at the starting point and not at the terminal point. I also want to point out that the Chamber of Commerce and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut stated very clearly and emphatically in their evidence before the Commission that it would create tremendous problems if the tax was levied at the terminal point. They all stated that the tax should be levied at the starting point at the importing and manufacturing stage.

What did the Chamber of Industries say?

The Chamber of Industries did not agree with this, and I can quite understand their not doing so. The Chamber of Industries would not like the tax to be collected from the industries.

I want to return to the findings of the commission of 1964 which gave an indication of how all trade organizations felt about this matter. I also want to point out that two eminent economists, i.e. Prof. Reynders and Prof. Pistorius, were appointed to investigate the entire matter of a sales duty. If hon. members had read the report they would have found the report of these two professors as a supplement. It is a very well-considered report which was drawn up by economists who know their subject. They also stated very clearly that the correct point for levying an indirect tax was not the terminal point but the starting point. I also want to refer to what the president of the Federated Chambers of Commerce said to me in a letter. He addressed a letter to me in which he pointed out how incorrectly he had been interpreted in an interview which he had granted to the Press and how things had been imputed to him which he had never said. He wrote as follows—

The same attitude was adopted by the Chamber of Commerce, by the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and by the professors concerned. The following, inter alia, are reasons for that point of view. If this tax is levied at the terminal point, the retailers, we would be dealing with a multitude of collection points in fact, it was calculated that we would then have been dealing with 125,000 collection points The system we advocate, on the contrary, will only require approximately 4/5,000 collection points. If this tax were now to be collected at 125,000 points, it would make the administration of the system so much more difficult. It would not be possible to conduct proper inspections, nor exercise proper control. Nor would it be possible to exercise proper discrimination in regard to commodities. If one wants to exempt certain of the commodities from the tax in a retailer’s shop, say a café, which sells groceries, foodstuffs, cigarettes, tobacco, and so on, or if one wants to make a different tariff applicable, it would be very difficult to do so if one were to impose a uniform tax at the terminal point on all commodities sold—in fact, it would become virtually impossible, administratively and practically, for the shopkeeper and for the Department to differentiate properly among the different classes of goods. Levying the tax at the terminal point would not only result in tremendous administrative and inspection problems, but would also create tremendous opportunities for tax evasions. Rhodesia and other countries have in fact applied this system, but are today experiencing tremendous problems with it, particularly in respect of administration and tax evasion. We know there is the possibility of escalation or a cascade effect when this tax is levied at the starting point, but in spite of this everyone is convinced that this method which we are proposing, is still the best and the only way of applying this principle effectively. In view of the accusations which have been levelled from the other side of the House I want to emphasize that this matter has been the subject of proper consideration by our experts: by varions trade organizations, by economists and by the Franzsen Commission. That we decided to levy this tax at the starting point, at the manufacturing and importing stage, and not at the terminal point, is therefore merely the implementation of a well-considered opinion. I concede that there can be an escalation effect, but at the same time we agree with the Chamber of Commerce and with the Commission that competition will in due course eliminate that consequence to a tremendous extent. In fact, we already see it coming. To-day the position is different from the position three to four years ago. Then there was a scarcity of goods. In the meantime we have lifted import control to such an extent that to-day there is virtually an over-abundance of goods in the country. Because this is the case, competition to-day is more of a possibility and easier than three to four years ago. I know that there are a few dealers who out of ignorance or because they want to make a quick profit will want to abuse this situation. But I also know that their fellow dealers, as well as the public, will soon take note of this and that those dealers will soon be made to toe the line. I have here a report from Durban to the effect that one of the safety match companies has decided to solve this problem by keeping the price of matches at one cent but putting four fewer matches into the box. [Laughter.] Hon. members are laughing, but it is a solution. Let me quote the report briefly (translation)—

Here we even have a case where this match company is paying the bulk of the tax itself, and where there will be no escalation, and this type of action will, I believe, be taken more often in future.

Hon. members on the opposite side said that we spread the net too widely; that we had taxed too many commodities. It seems to me as if hon. members on the other side of the House are too greatly influenced by what they read beforehand in the newspapers, newspapers which stated beforehand that they expected that the new indirect tax would be applied to luxury commodities. I want to ask the hon. members where I mentioned luxury commodities in my speech? One of the hon. members on that side—I am not sure whether it was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or not—said yesterday that he did not know whether he had heard incorrectly, but that he had understood the matter quite differently; that he had thought that I had spoken about luxury commodities.

Non-essential items.

Mr. Speaker, here are my words—

In addition I stated—

There is no mention here of luxury commodities, and hon members can also read the report of the commission and they will see that nowhere is it stated that luxury commodities should, in the first instance, be taxed. Of course it is difficult to say what luxury commodities are. I need not argue this point; my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House themselves said that it is difficult to distinguish between luxury commodities and non-luxury commodities.

And the White Paper?

I shall come in a moment to the White Paper. If we had taxed only the so-called luxury commodities, then the amount we could have collected would not even have approximated the amount which we wanted to collect. It is calculated that if we had only drawn the net about those commodities which are labelled purely luxury commodities we would scarcely have collected half of the necessary amount. The F.C.I., Assocom, the Handelsinstituut and the Franzsen Commission all proposed that the net be spread wider, than merely to include luxury commodities. The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke about the White Paper. If he were to look at page 12 of the White Paper he would see a passage there on the nature of our consumer spending. If we take the year 1967, which is the year which the commission used as a basis, then one will find that the total consumer spending in that year was R5,900 million The first six items are foodstuffs, liquor, tobacco, clothing, footwear, etc., rent, assessment rates, fuel, lights, which are all excluded from this sales duty. Those items amount to R3,379 million, and are not being taxed. Therefore R2,521 million remains. If one were now to deduct services which are not taxed from that R2,521 million, and certain other items such as medicine for example, we arrive at the position that in the end there will only be an amount of R1,150 million left out of a total spending of R5,900 million which can be taxed; and that R1,150 million is at retail prices. If this is reduced to factory prices it amounts to approximately R800 million which can be taxed. Now I want to ask what my hon. friends opposite meant when they mentioned an additional R200 to R300 million which we are supposedly going to receive in the form of additional tax? Sir. they are conjurers, who can obtain R300 million in tax on the basis of less than R800 million. That proves what I have already said, i.e. that the hon. members opposite were simply speaking without their book. They did not know what they were talking about. They did not make a proper study of the matter. The hon. member for Durban asks, “What about the White Paper?” Here is the White Paper. He could have analyzed the matter himself, but he did not do so.

Will you resign if you double the sales tax?

Another important matter which must be noted and in regard to which questions have been put to me is the following. There is an entire series of commodities which should ostensibly have invited this tax, and which are nevertheless not being additionally assessed with this indirect tax. I am mentioning for example cameras, binoculars, watches, projectors, photographic apparatus, etc. I was asked why these things were not being taxed. I can mention other examples as well. They are not being taxed because here in our list of commodities which can apparently be taxed there is a large percentage in regard to which we are bound by an international agreement, by G.A.T.T. The hon. members for Hillbrow and Pinetown will in fact be able to understand that we are in the case of certain of these commodities bound by G.A.T.T. agreements so that we cannot even increase our domestic taxes on them. In other words, there are numerous. commodities which seem as if they should have invited the tax, but which we cannot tax because of agreements with countries abroad.

Hon. members of the Opposition alleged that the poor man would be burdened too heavily by this tax. According to them it is a rich man’s budget. In this respect the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here now, was very characteristic of the attitude of the hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Yeoville said he welcomed this tax reduction for incomes over R5,000, but in the same breath he stated that it was a rich man’s budget. Imagine, Sir, a responsible frontbencher of the United Party using the same argument he used to welcome the Budget, i.e. that it decreased the taxes for certain high income groups, to imply that it was a rich man’s budget. This proves to us the ambiguous language of the hon. members of the Opposition neither fish nor flesh, neither hot nor cold, neither to the left nor to the right of the road. They are the middle-of-the-road party. They drive in the middle of the road which must of course lead to an accident. They are the people who want their cake and eat it, or want to eat their cake and have it. They want tax reductions but they do not want to pay the price of reducing taxes. They want to go to the public and say, “We are the people who have always pleaded for the reduction of the scales, the rate and the escalation of taxation”, but they will also say, “We are not the people who imposed higher indirect taxes on you”.

How much have you got salted away?

I shall come to that. Just remind me of it. I do not want to do what the hon. Leader opposite did, who, in his last speech, said, “I am coming to that”, but never did. I shall come to that, just remind me of it. I shall make my speech as I want to make it, not as that hon. member dictates to me I should.

If disaster should strike our country and that side should come into power, then I wonder how they would have set about things in this connection. If they had wanted to introduce the same tax decreases, and if at the same time they had wanted to do all those things which they advocate here every day without saying how they must be done, then they would not have confined themselves to luxury commodities, they would not have confined themselves to the commodities which we taxed. No, they would have had to go much further than this Government had to go. I want to state in all certainty and quite definitely that if that side had been in power and they had had to do the same thing, South Africa would have paid far more in indirect taxation.

Why do you say that? Why?

Because there is no other way than this one. If we were to incur all that additional expenditure which the hon. members opposite plead for every day, we would have needed far more money; and they would have had to impose heavier taxes than we are imposing now. If one wants to achieve one’s goal by imposing less direct taxes, then one must cast one’s net wider; otherwise you are talking nonsense, and you are doing nonsensical things, as hon. members opposite are doing.

There are certain people who are perhaps going to be prejudiced now, there are probably a few who are going to be affected by the indirect taxes. However, I want to give them the assurance that as soon as this new system has overcome its first difficulties, it will be of such great benefit to the country as a whole that even the poorest man will benefit from it. I want to repeat this: This new system is going to be of such great benefit to the country as a whole that even the poorest man will benefit from it.

Motivate that.

One need not motivate such an obvious statement; any person who is capable of understanding, must surely understand this. Hon. members opposite also state that this tax system is in the interests of the country. I maintain that it is so much in the interests of the country that it will further the prosperity of our country and everyone, rich and poor, will benefit from this.

What must be borne in mind is that although we are going to pay more in indirect taxation, the services which the State is rendering to the poorer classes are constantly increasing. I am thinking here of social pensions. I am thinking of services, of the subsidization of various foodstuffs. I am thinking of social, medical and educational services which all have to be undertaken by the Government to the benefit of the poorer people in our community. I am thinking of the development of a general infrastructure in our country which will benefit exeryone, the rich man and the poor, the white man, the black man and the brown. The Opposition presents this matter in such a way as to make it appear as if it is only the lower income groups who are going to pay this tax. That is of course untrue. Everyone pays this tax. What is more, this tax is progressive, because the greatest portion is going to be paid by the richer income groups, because it has a bearing on the commodities which they purchase the most.

Hon. members on the opposite side overexaggerated the effect of this tax. Even to-day, I received a letter in which a man wrote to me that he had heard, apparently from the Opposition side, that his house rental was also going to be increased by 10 per cent now, whereas I stated emphatically that accommodation would not be taxed.

Vause, Vause!

In this connection I want to make a further communication. Since certain of our people are still being assessed for personal tax in the provinces, I am engaged in conducting negotiations with the provincial authorities, and I believe that we may possibly find a method of bringing alleviation in this respect as well.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a question to me in regard to how this taxation system was going to affect South West Africa. He expressed misgivings about South West Africa now being worse off. I do not know what the hon. member meant, but even with our decreased direct taxation in the Republic, the scales in South West Africa are still lower than ours, and South West Africa itself has control over its own personal tax scales. As far as the indirect taxation of South West Africa is concerned, I can also inform hon. members that we are now holding discussions with the South West African Administration. I am quite convinced that we will find a solution in respect of the minor problems which exist, which will be acceptable to both sides.

Hon. members on the opposite side gave themselves out here as being the great protectors of the Bantu. They alleged that the Bantu would now have to pay far more in taxes. Colossal amounts of R80 or R90 million were mentioned which the Bantu would now have to pay. Hon. members probably did not read the report of the Franzsen Commission. Therein it was stated that in 1964-’65 the Bantu contributed R34 million to the State coffers, directly and indirectly, whereas the direct spending to the benefit of the Bantu had been far more than R200 million.

In point of fact we will, after the commencement of this taxation system, find ourselves more or less in the position we were in before we became an industrialized country. Hon. members will know that in the past our indirect taxation was derived principally from customs and excise duties, and particularly from customs duties, owing to the protection policy introduced in order to encourage industries in South Africa itself. But as we began to develop our own industries and imported less, the relative proportion of customs duties in the total tax income became less. Under the United Party Government, in the year 1938, indirect taxation comprised 56 per cent of the total received in taxes. In the year 1946 it was 51 per cent, and in the year 1947 50 per cent of the total tax receipts were in the indirect form of customs duties. Under the system which we are now going to introduce, indirect taxation is going to be 47 per cent. In other words, under the system which we are now going to apply, indirect taxation will be less than it was in the time of the United Party—R47 million as against R56 million in 1938.

Hon. members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, alleged that this Budget was going to be inflationary. I do not know whether they quite understand what they mean when they say that. As I understand them, they agree with the Franzsen Commission that the high taxation rate and progression for the high income groups is inflationary, because those taxes are often paid from savings, and because this discourages and hampers productivity and initiative. If they therefore believe that the taxation on these higher income groups is inflationary, then surely they must also agree that a decrease of that rate of taxation must be disinflationary. Let me repeat: If it is true that the present rate and progression of taxation is inflationary, then a reduction in that taxation must surely be disinflationary, not so? Surely that is logical, and hon. members will probably agree with that. If it is not logical, then the hon. member for Durban (Point) could perhaps explain it to them. In addition they allege that this new proposed form of taxation will bring about an increase in the cost of living. and is for that reason inflationary. Well, I must say that to my mind that is a very naïve way of interpreting inflation. If it is correct that indirect taxation is inflationary, then we should at times like this rather do away with all indirect taxation and make good the deficit in our Budget by means of loans. But what would the inflationary consequences of that be? Under inflation we understand a process of gradual depreciation in the value of one’s currency, in other words, a decrease in the purchasing power of one’s monetary unit. This affects everything one buys—whether goods or services—everything. Here we are dealing with only a short, small list of commodities which are offered for sale. Here I have a list of goods in terms of the Customs and Excise Act of 1964. Hon. members can see how bulky the volume is, with its many thousands of items which are taxable. Compare this with the short list which was submitted to you for the purposes of this tax, and you will see what a small percentage of goods will be incorporated in terms of this tax.

If you are right, can you give us the assurance that the cost of living will be down this time next year?

I shall come to that now. [Laughter.] Those hon. members are laughing from sheer nervousness. I am following a sequence in my speech which I have laid down. I will in fact come to that point. With inflation we usually have consecutive depreciations of one’s monetary unit. So, for example, we have in our country during the past few years had a gradual increase of 2, 3 and more per cent, of a cumulative nature each year. But this indirect tax is something else again. Here we have nothing to do with a cumulative increase. We are not going to tax the goods which we are taxing this year by 10 to 20 per cent by a further 10 to 20 per cent next year. This is what happens in the case of inflation where the depreciation of one’s money is cumulative. In this case we are dealing with a once-only tax. The purchaser has a choice of buying an item, in the quantity he wants to buy, and as he wants to utilize it. There is therefore an opportunity here for the purchaser of saving. If a motor car is in future going to cost me 5 per cent more, I can decide to use that motor car 5 per cent less in future. Who of us are not able to do this? Which of my hon. friends opposite, and myself as well, our private lives included, cannot save on that and on other items as well? An hon. member opposite is asking, what about soap? Mr. Speaker, I think that a great deal of soap is going waste, not only in our private homes, but also in our hotels and other institutions. But even if we were unable to save on soap, it nevertheless remains a very insignificant item. It is such insignificant things which worry the hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members opposite, instead of the over-all set-up and framework of this Budget. That just goes to show what kind of temperament the Opposition has.

I maintain that this Budget has a strong anti-inflationary character. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was so kind as to mention many of the anti-inflationary qualities of this Budget in his speech. Consequently, that part of his speech was the best part. Included in this there are, firstly, the decreased rate and progression of personal income tax and the greater emphasis on indirect taxation. These are therefore anti-inflationary aspects. We have discussed this before, and I hope that it has gotten through to certain hon. members. These characteristics are therefore anti-inflationistic because saving is encouraged in this way and because consumer spending is discouraged. At the same time it increases productivity, among those very people who are scarce in our country—technicians, doctors, and other professional people, among those people from whom we would like to have increased productivity. In addition there are the concessions to pensioners and to the working wives. These concessions have made it easier for them to keep on working, and in this way to strengthen our labour source. This will also increase productivity and will, for that reason, be anti-inflationistic. Then, too, there is the concession for post-graduate study to scientists and engineers. This is also something which must, in the long run, further productivity, and is therefore anti-inflationistic. Then there is the increased appropriation for education, particularly for higher education. This is something which will result in increased manpower. I myself was a student and a professor at a university. That was under the United Party regime. If I think of the assistance which was at that time granted to universities, as compared with the facilities which are being made available to them to-day, one can really not draw any comparison between the two. The hon. member for Algoa gave us a wonderful sketch of the increase in the number of pupils in the high schools and in the vocational schools, and also of the growth of our secondary schools. I think he also spoke about the tremendous increase in the number of students. He mentioned impressive figures. I hope hon. members on the opposite side will go and look into this in order to see what growth has taken place under the National Party regime in respect of education and the training of our young people.

The fourth point I want to make is the envisaged improvement of the prospect for promotion of our public servants. I hone the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take note of this. At the same time the lower scales and progressiveness of taxation for the high income groups will encourage our public servants to work harder, and will persuade them to stay with us longer. Now I want to eliminate a misunderstanding, which is apparently a deliberate one among members of the Opposition, that we are not doing enough in respect of public servants. What have we done during the past few years? I want to point out that as recently as March of last year concessions in respect of the conditions of service of public servants were granted. These concessions, to a value of almost R25 million, are for the most part untaxable. Towards the end of last year we granted salary increases in respect of public servants, teachers and other officials, to the amount of 6 per cent, and 4 per cent plus consolidation, which will cost the State very nearly R90 million or R100 million over these two years. These concessions are now coming into effect. R25 million and almost R100 million is therefore being spent for this purpose. We have also, in the Estimates, made provision for a possible additional remuneration for certain classes of officials and have set aside an amount of R15 million for that purpose. We have created the possibility for housing allowances and housing assistance for officials, for which a provisional amount of R3.5 million has been set aside Mr. Speaker these are tremendous amounts. Almost R140 million has been set aside for these purposes. This will mean a great improvement in the conditions of service and remuneration of officials.

This Budget, with its decreased taxes, will also promote immigration. Hon. members on the opposite side spoke about the immigration of skilled manpower, and we agree with them to a large extent. We know that there are many skilled workers and other people overseas who would want to emigrate to South Africa if they knew that the tax scales in respect of direct taxes here in South Africa had decreased to such an extent. I am of the definite opinion that we, as a result of these lower direct taxes, will in future attract more of the good type of immigrants, which will increase our productivity in the country.

How many of them are leaving because the cost of living is too high?

The hon. member has cost of living on the brain again. Just give me a chance. I shall come to that in a moment. These indirect taxes, which we have now introduced, will be a valuable instrument in the hands of the State, in order to further its contra-cyclical policy. It is a valuable instrument which the State can use in the combating of inflation or recession.

It is a further form of State capitalism.

Apparently the hon. member did not know what I was talking about at all. Apparently he does not understand what he just said there. It has nothing to do with State capitalism. It is an instrument which one can utilize in any country, and even in socialistic countries, to amend taxes according to the economic cycle. Where one previously relied mainly on direct taxes, one now has this other instrument of indirect taxation so that one has two arms which one can manipulate, so that one can in a time of recession or of inflation manipulate matters more easily. That is all I meant by that; I hope my hon. friend understands it. This is briefly my reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Pinetown who stated that the cost of living index was going to increase as a result of these taxes. I also expect it to happen, and hon. members must therefore not say that they have anticipated me by predicting it. We knew that the cost-of-living index would increase within a month or two by a point or so as a result of these indirect taxes but, Mr. Speaker, it is a once-only increase, because we are not going to levy these taxes in addition to the already existing taxes each year; it is a once-only increase. But now I want to indicate the following point, which is that there is a deficiency in our costof-living index. The cost-of-living index does in fact indicate what a man pays in the form of indirect taxation, but when there is a decrease of direct taxation, then they do not deduct for that. It is a deficiency in our cost-of-living index figure. It is a deficiency which one finds in many other countries and with which we will also have to deal.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Pinetown stated that Government expenditure was very high; that Government expenditure had increased by 10 per cent whereas the gross domestic product had increased by 6 per cent. But hon. members must know that that 6 per cent increase in the gross inland product is a real increase, agriculture excluded, i.e. an increase after we have made provision for price increases. In other words, these are two figures which cannot be compared with each other. We want to concede, if we are arguing on the basis of real figures, that there has in fact been a small increase in Government expenditure, not from 6 to 10 per cent, but a small increase in State expenditure above the gross domestic product.

Six to eight.

Yes, approximately six to eight. But I have already stated in my Budget speech that this is attributable to various factors. It is attributable in the first place to higher salaries for public servants, for which hon. members on the opposite side themselves pleaded. In fact, they have asked for even more. It is also attributable to our provincial system; it is attributable to increased public debt; it is attributable to the need for more money for defence purposes. Hon. members of the Opposition surely do not want us to spend less on Defence. In any case, a great deal of the money which is being spent on Defence finds its way abroad and does not have an inflationistic effect at home. In addition the increase is attributable to the vast backlog which we have to make up, a backlog in services which came about because we did not want to incur too much expenditure during a period of inflation. These are services, however, which can no longer be delayed, and which we now have to supply. When that backlog has been made up, and these services have been rendered, then this will serve to promote productivity in the country again, and it will once again be a factor in the struggle against inflation.

In conclusion I should very much like to come to the proposal by the hon. member for Constantia, to his alternative to this Budget, but before I do that, I should like to refer to a few points which were raised by other hon. members. I am sorry that I am unable to reply to all the questions; it will take me hours to reply to all the questions. I shall therefore reply to only a few questions. The other can then be raised under the various Votes.

†The hon. member for Pinetown asked me if I intended taking away from the provinces the right of taxation. My reply is that this is what the Franzsen Commission proposes, namely the consolidation of all forms of personal income tax. I think there is some merit in this proposal and I am prepared in principle to consider it. But as I have said already in another context, I shall have to discuss this whole principle with the provinces when we enter into negotiations about the general relationships between them and the Government. In this regard mention has also been made by one of the hon. members on the other side of the financing of local authorities. I may answer in this regard that we are drawing up a White Paper on the basis of the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission. The White Paper will set out the Government's attitude towards these recommendations. It is only because of the staff position and the time factor that we have not been able to complete this White Paper. I hope, however, that we shall be able to complete it soon and that we shall be able to have discussions then with the authorities concerned in the course of the year, and that I shall be able next session to introduce legislation.

Will we have that White Paper this session?

We shall do our best. I can assure the hon. member that it is only because of the staff position and the time factor that we have not been able to complete the White Paper. I cannot promise that it will be completed before the end of this session.

The hon. member for Pinetown said that the Minister cannot claim that foreign countries have confidence in the Government when he feels that a relaxation of exchange control will result in a flight of funds. I maintain that it is indeed a sign of confidence in the country when we find that money is flowing into the country in such large amounts in spite of exchange control. It is just possible that if we were to lift exchange control completely, we might be faced with such a huge inflow of money that we shall hardly be able to cope with it, especially hot money which we do not want. Sir, this is not only my idea and that of my Department, it is also the idea of bankers with whom I discussed this matter in other parts of the world. They feel that if South Africa were to free the rand completely and to lift exchange control completely, we might be faced with a huge inflow of unwanted money.

Why do you not allow the money to go out?

There are some limits to the amount of money that can be sent out of the country. It depends on the demand for and our ability to send out money. At the present moment we cannot send out too much money because we do not have the necessary foreign exchange because we have a gold problem. Sir, several members have referred to the question of gold. The hon. member for Mooi River, who has explained that he cannot be here this afternoon, stated that when Special Drawing Rights are activated the role of gold will diminish. But, Sir, this does not necessarily follow. On the contrary, it is the view of international monetary experts, such as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, that S.D.R.s are not replacing gold but that S.D.R.s are supplementary to gold. This is also the view of the most important countries in Western Europe and I have no reason to believe that the present American Administration holds a contrary view. The hon. member for Mooi River also asked whether I should not propose that gold be deposited with the International Monetary Fund in return for S.D.R.s Sir, I do not think there is any possibility of such a proposal being accepted by the international authorities. Special Drawing Rights are regarded as an addition to international liquidity and this purpose will not be served if an equivalent amount of gold were to be deposited with the I.M.F. in return for S.D.R.s. Suggestions have been made by economists in various parts of the world, particularly in America, that all countries should be induced to deposit all their gold with the I.M.F. and that in return for their gold they should receive some international payments medium, but very few countries, particularly in the Western world, will accept or agree to this proposal. We in South Africa will surely not readily agree to hand over our gold to any international monetary authority and to accept paper money in return for it.

*This brings me now to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who stated that he found it disturbing that such a great proportion of our reserves were in the form of gold. It is of course the normal custom in South Africa to have our reserves consist to a very large extent of gold. It is also fitting for South Africa, as the most important gold-producing country in the world, to keep a high proportion of its reserves in the form of gold. Surely the hon. member ought to know that our present situation is attributable to the fact that we were not allowed to sell money to monetary authorities and that we refuse to sell all our gold on the free market. Now I wonder whether the hon. member—I hope he did not mean this—thinks that we should yield to international pressure and that we should release our gold freely into the market in order to decrease the gold content of our reserves in that way and to increase the exchange content, and in that way force down the price of gold on the free market. The hon. member also made another suggestion, a suggestion which he made during the recess already, and which received quite a good deal of publicity in the Press, namely that we should lend some of our gold to Britain.

To other countries as well, like France.

France as well. Let me deal with the case of Britain first. France has enough gold; it still has a great deal of gold, and it is not necessary for us to lend gold directly to France. But let us come to the case of Britain, and then the other cases will perhaps become clearer.

In the first instance Britain has never asked us for a gold loan. Secondly, I do not know whether it would help Britain to any extent, because it would merely increase her debts, which are already tremendously high. Thirdly, Britain is one of the countries which fell in with the policy of the former American administration in terms of which monetary authorities refused to purchase gold from South Africa. Britain is one of the countries that refused to purchase our gold, and now I simply cannot see how we can offer it to Britain, and how Britain can accept it; how, since she has refused to enter into a gold-purchasing transaction with us, she will agree to a gold loan agreement with us. I simply cannot see how Britain can do a thing like that, and even if she were able to do so, I cannot see how the other countries like America would allow it, because all it amounts to is that one is obtaining the gold on deferred payment, which is almost the same as buying it directly.

We have in fact made loans of gold in other ways. We have made loans of gold by allowing other countries to draw on the South African rand at the I.M.F. and then convert those rands to gold. In this way we have increased our super gold tranche at the I.M.F. We have already lent out an amount of R51 million in this way, which we could draw at any time. R51 million has already been lent in this way to New Zealand, Peru, France and Britain by means of the I.M.F.

The hon. member also asked me whether the time had not arrived for us to allow the trust funds to invest abroad on a larger scale. I would say yes, there is a great deal of merit in our allowing South Africans to invest abroad on a larger scale under the present circumstances, but I cannot do so until we have greater certainty in regard to our gold marketing.

†The hon. member for Kensington asked me whether it was still worthwhile to retain the non-resident bonds. I can reply to the hon. member that most immigrants are free, of course, to make use of the Stock Exchange to realize their assets and so to withdraw their money from this country to another country. But there are numbers of them who do not wish to make use of the Stock Exchange, and for these foreigners who do not wish to make use of these facilities we still keep these bonds available.

It is only R3 million a year.

It is, but even if it is a small number there are still people who want to avail themselves of this facility. The hon. member also asked me a question which other members have been asking me often during the last year, why old people of 70 or 80 are forced to pay the loan levy, because most of them can never live to receive it back. The reply is that this loan levy was introduced as one of the measures in the fight against inflation. The idea was to curtail spending, to channel the money to the coffers of the State and to sterilize that money. However much sympathy I might have for some of the older people in our country, all spending, whether it be spending by the old or by the young, has the same effect and must be controlled and dealt with in the same way. I must point out that this savings levy earns an interest of 5 per cent tax free, which I think is a fair return, and I must also point out that under the present Budget the loan levy is only 5 per cent, where it used to be 15 per cent.

How does a man of 80 get interest on his levy?

In the same way as anybody else gets it, while he lives.

The hon. member for Karoo, who I am sorry to say is not here on account of illness, asked a few questions about building societies. I wish to say that much has already been done for the building societies and much more will be done in the legislation which is still coming forward this session. But I must announce here that I intend appointing a technical committee to consider all legislation in regard to building societies and financial institutions. However, this technical committee has to await the second report of the Franzsen Commission. I am sure that all these points that have been raised by hon. members in regard to building societies will be dealt with by this technical committee.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) had a few complaints. His first complaint is about the growth of financial institutions and about the way in which some shares have been issued. In regard to the first complaint, I do not agree with the hon. member. I think this development of new forms of financial institutions is a reflection of the development of our country, as you find it in other developed countries. These different forms of financial institutions are all specialized institutions which reflect the degree of financial and economic development of the country, and in no way can I see how they could be regarded as unproductive. If they were unproductive, the hon. member might just as well have said that the banks are unproductive, although they play a very important role in our whole financial structure. In regard to the issuing of shares, I think this is a matter to be dealt with by the Stock Exchange itself. They are a body of responsible people and I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is unwise for the State to legislate about everything it finds undesirable.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp wanted to know whether it was not possible to earmark indirect taxation for a certain purpose only, i.e. water conservation. We do not like the idea of using a particular tax for a particular purpose only, since that particular purpose for which one uses it may require more or less than is collected by means of that tax. But, in any case, if one wanted to use certain kinds of taxation for certain kinds of expenditure only, one would soon find oneself in very great difficulty. That is why we do not like the idea.

What did we do in the case of petrol?

That is the only exception we have made up to now, and I hope we shall not go any further, for to do so would land us in great difficulties.

The hon. member for Waterkloof wanted to know whether we could not indicate the tax on the article which is purchased. My technical people, the Chambers of Commerce and the Handelsinstituut, say that in practice this would be an extremely difficult task and that administratively this would be virtually impossible. However, I am nevertheless prepared to discuss this matter once again with the organizations in question.

Now I come to the alternative the hon. member for Constantia put forward. I do not think it is necessary to dwell on this matter for any length of time. The hon. member for Constantia proceeded on the assumption that, if I did not levy indirect taxes, I would have a deficit of R98 million. He wanted to know where I would in that case find this R98 million. His solution was that I should take R53 million out of last year’s surplus on the Revenue Account; that I should take R10 million out of the Loan Account, and that I should, for the time being, borrow the balance of R35 million from the Stabilisation Fund, which would then give me R98 million. With all due respect I want to say that I refuse to be a party in such a Budget. I simply fail to understand how the hon. member for Constantia—for whom I have a great deal of respect; he is a responsible member—can in fact come to this House with a proposal to the effect that a Budget such as this one should be financed in this way. What does the hon. member really want to do? He wants to take money out of the balances and surpluses on the accounts of a previous year in order to finance the Budget of a following year. Any expert on budgetary politics and monetary policy would tell the hon. member that by doing that, inflation in the highest degree would be promoted. One does not do such a thing in a time of inflation, i.e. to bring forward the balances or surpluses of the previous year’s accounts to the next year. When one does, in addition, borrow money from the Stabilisation Account, as proposed by the hon. member, it would be an inflationary budget in the highest degree, as inflationary as one can possibly imagine. If this amount of almost R100 million is not collected by means of taxes or taken out of savings or not withdrawn, but taken out of other sources, inflation in the highest degree would be promoted. I cannot understand how the hon. member could come forward with such a proposal in a time like this. This would cause prices to rise and inflation to increase to a much greater extent than would be caused by these indirect taxes.

I now want to deal with what the hon. member for Durban (Point) and Hillbrow said in regard to the Stabilization Fund. These hon. members tried to create the impression that this Stabilization Fund, which stands at R431 million at present, is the result of overtaxation. They said that I had over-taxed the nation by R341 million and that I had hidden that money under my mattress. That money was not derived from over-taxation; it was derived from loans and it is money that has to be paid back eventually. I should like hon. members opposite to understand this very clearly. At the moment this money is being used to finance the Foreign Procurement Fund. The money in this Fund is being used to finance the importation of strategic goods from foreign countries. In other words, this money leaves the country and does not circulate in South Africa. Instead of the Foreign Procurement Fund borrowing the money from the Reserve Bank and paying interest on it, this money is for the most part being used for financing this Fund. This loan money which has to be paid back eventually.

Are there no revenue surpluses in that?

There may be some, but I doubt whether these are amounts of any significance. In this Budget we left the surpluses on both the Revenue Account and the Loan Account in those accounts, i.e. they are in the Reserve Bank as redemption of our obligations to the Reserve Bank. An insinuation has also been made, which I repudiate with contempt, that at election times we are using this money for the benefit of the National Party. Apparently the United Party is quite obsessed with the coming elections. They are so afraid of no longer being here after the elections that they are already looking for reasons why they are going to lose them. On a previous occasion I made it very clear here that this money was going to be used for contra-cyclical purposes. I used this word a moment ago and I hope my hon. friends understood it. If there were to be a downward trend in our economic cycle, such as a depression or a recession, it would be the appropriate time for making use of that money and pouring it into the economy in order that such a depression or recession may be prevented. Hon. members opposite are always referring to “a lack of foresight”. Here we have foresight. We are making provision right now for a possible recession which might come, and that it might come is not merely theoretical. Something of this nature has in the past few years occurred in countries such as America and Germany, and if several recessions occur simultaneously in other countries, they may also affect South Africa. In the meantime we have, by means of a Stabilization Fund, which consists of loan money, made provision for a method of combating depressions, which in turn is to the advantage of the poor. After all, it is the poor man who suffers most during a depression. However, hon. members opposite are opposed to this and they Want us to spend that money right now.

I should now like to conclude with a brief summary. In the first place, the Opposition have made it very clear that they accept the general principle of this Budget. If they do, they should also accept the consequences of this Budget. Secondly, I want to add here that if the Opposition had been in the position and had had the courage to introduce tax reforms, they would have had to do so in exactly the same way, otherwise they would have set about it in an injudicious manner. Thirdly, I want to say that the way the United Party acted was purely negative. Where they did to a certain extent put forward positive proposals, it became apparent that these so-called positive proposals of theirs were totally unacceptable and in conflict with all economic principles. In the fourth place, I pointed out that it was clear that the criticism levelled by the United Party did not rest on facts and careful study, but on mere conjecture and unfounded premises. I pointed out that the United Party’s criticism did not rest on financial and economic grounds, but that it was merely politically inspired with a view to deriving party political gain. I also pointed out that this Budget was not to the advantage of one group and to the detriment of another group, but that this Budget was to the advantage of our country as a whole. Since it is to the advantage of our country as a whole, I feel free to move the Second Reading of this measure.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping we were going to get something from the hon. the Deputy Minister regarding the wording in this Bill. Perhaps if he is going to reply now, he will tell us something about it. I do not know if he is going to deal with it in the Other Place, but I should not like it to go to the Other Place couched in this language. Perhaps the Deputy Minister can tell us something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with the legal draftsman the words bothering the hon. member for South Coast. He said that the word “establishment” might be open to criticism, but he felt that the use of the word made no difference to the contents of the measure, and so we are rather retaining it in its present form.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order: I am unable to accept the amendment as it is similar in substance to an amendment previously disallowed.

Thank you, Sir, I just wanted to hear you say so.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday when we were discussing other clauses during the Committee Stage of this Bill I discussed with the hon. the Minister the question of allowing Coloured graduates of this university some say in the affairs of their university. The Minister indicated to me that he would permit—indeed, it was his intention and his wish to do so—such graduates to partake in the activities of this university. He said the university would have the benefit of their experience and their learning. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to make a gesture to graduates that we have …

That is the convocation theme you are raising now, which has already been ruled out or order. The essense of what you are saying now is the convocation; that is my point.

With respect to the hon. the Minister, I am not advocating now that a body such as a convocation should be established. I am not advocating that at all. Looking at the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg which has been ruled out of order …

Order! The point the hon. member is making now has nothing whatever to do with this clause.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to lead up to suggesting to the Minister that here he has an opportunity of drawing these graduates in …

In what form?

… by consulting with them on the question of the election of a chancellor.

Order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

But that is what we are dealing with, Sir.

How must they be consulted in connection with the appointment of a chancellor if they have not got a convocation?

This is what I want to ask the Minister.

But there are no other means.

With respect, yesterday when I was speaking about graduates of the university the Minister interjected and said he was in favour of what I suggested. Let me quote from the Hansard copy of the proceedings. I said—“I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he wishes graduates of this university to give to the university the benefit of their experience at the university and afterwards.” The Minister then interjected—“The answer is a positive ‘yes’.”

Yes, in time to come they will be formed into a convocation.

This is what I want to get from the Minister. Will he give us some indication of whether or not he will call them in or consult with them in the appointment of a chancellor and in what other ways he thinks he might consult with them?

Mr. Chairman, in the course of time we shall naturally want the interest of the graduates of the university in its activities, but for that to happen the necessary development first has to take place. When we reach the convocation stage they will be brought in, and that will be the moment when one will be able to make use of their services.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. member for Newton Park, who unfortunately cannot be present here to-day, I move the following amendment as printed on the Order Paper—

1. (1) The rector of the university shall be appointed by the council in the manner prescribed by statute, and his powers and duties shall be as thereby prescribed.

The amendment virtually speaks for itself. I should like to put the following to the hon. the Minister. Whereas he is now establishing this new university, whereas he wants to give these people self-respect and wants to make them feel that they have some worth, why is it necessary for the hon. the Minister to appoint the rector? Why not rather the council in conjunction with the Minister? Can he not simply put this the other way round? If he reads the clause as it stands, he will find that “the rector shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the council”. The end part of subsection (1) reads as follows—

Could he not rather have moulded the first part in this form as well, i.e. that the rector shall be appointed by the council, if need be with the approval of the Minister, because in that case he would at least have been giving them something which would have made them feel that theirs was a university with authority, without losing the co-operation of the hon. the Minister as a result.

The plea made by the hon. member is in complete agreement with what we want. When we started the negotiations which resulted in this Bill we indeed wished to give this university institution more powers. We felt that the time had arrived when one wanted to give this university institution greater responsibility. This plea is in complete agreement with what we wanted and still want. But it was felt that at this stage of development this was in fact the furthest we could go. As the clause stands, the rector of the university will be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the council. In other words, there will be full consultation with the council. I readily admit that as yet this does not correspond to the position in respect of autonomous universities. But we have the same procedure also in respect of the University of Fort Elizabeth, where the appointment of the rector is also made after it has been submitted to the Minister for approval. I assume the University of Port Elizabeth also feels that it wants to have more autonomy. The time may arrive when they will be given this. The same argument is valid in this case. The time will arrive where we shall also in this connection give more freedom and autonomy. But at the present moment, where the State virtually pays the full amount and must accept responsibility for the entire financial management of the university, we feel that it is fair and correct for the clause to read as it does. Therefore, I unfortunately cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the government and executive authority of the University shall be vested in the council, which shall consist of—
   1. (a) the rector;
   2. (b) three persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) two professors of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) two persons chosen by the Coloured Representative Council; and
   5. (e) three persons of whom the University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Port Elizabeth shall each choose one.

In moving this amendment, I hope that the Committee will note that the number of persons proposed for the council does not exceed the number specified in the Bill, namely 11. So I take it that on those grounds the amendment is not out of order. Secondly, we move also for the right of the council, as I have said, to elect its own chairman, which I think is surely a reasonable one. It is recognized procedure in all other cases where universities are concerned.

As far as paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of our proposal are concerned, these differ only very slightly from the present Bill. As far as paragraph (d) is concerned, without repeating all the arguments which hon. members have already heard in other debates, the right of the Coloured Representative Council to appoint two members to the university council seems to us to be eminently reasonable, for various reasons. The first reason is that this Representative Council, we have been told, is to have a large measure of control over education for the Coloured people. This is specifically to be one of their tasks. They must be deeply interested and concerned. The second reason is that the Coloured Representative Council, as we know, is to be representative of the Coloured community as a whole throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. Thirdly, I think that this amendment surely should be acceptable to the hon. the Minister, if only because, if he chose to accept it, we would thereby help to prove our own bona fides, by giving the Coloured Representative Council this particular right.

Paragraph (e) for our amendment concerns representation by other universities. As I made quite clear during the Second Reading debate —other members on this side dealt with it as well—we consider this essential. Since the Coloured student population will come mainly from the Cape Province, although there will be some from Natal and the Transvaal, we submit that there should be properly balanced representation from outside institutions on the council. That is why we propose that representatives from the three existing Cape universities, namely Cape Town, Stellenbosch and Port Elizabeth, would help to maintain that balance. The newly appointed council, with respect to the Minister, seems to us to be top-heavy with people from the Western Cape alone and almost exclusively confined, if I may say so, to Afrikaans-speaking people. We would like to see, as I said during the Second Reading debate, a certain number of English-speaking people represented on that council. As the English-speaking universities have helped to train so many Coloured graduates during this interim period, and are still doing so with special dispensation from the Minister in that regard, it seems only fair that they should be represented and have some interest in this council as well. I would like to impress on the Minister that our amendment allows for responsible control to remain in the right hands. There is no question of attempting anything irresponsible here, whilst allowing for a far broader and a fairer representation for those who are most interested and most involved.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member in regard to the election of the chairman by the council itself. I think that it is a fine and essential development and an improvement on the existing measure.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the other amendment in connection with the constitution of the council. We must take the fact into account that this university is a national university; it is not a regional university. Therefore, as far as appointments are concerned, one must allow for freedom for the country as a whole to have representation on that council. Consequently, to limit the choice to the Cape universities alone, is, in the first place, not right in view of the national character of the university, and in the second place, we shall also be overlooking the Cape universities that have a right to be represented. For example, to grant representation to the University of Port Elizabeth and to overlook the University of Rhodes, is something which is beyond my comprehension. If one confines oneself to the Cape Province, one surely ought to include them. We feel, however, that the provision as it stands, affords the Minister a very wide choice in appointing the right persons to the council.

I agree with the hon. member that one should like to have more English-speaking persons on the council. In appointing the council this time, I myself did my very best to find a suitable English-speaking person, one I eventually found in the person of Mr. Justice Banks. I am very grateful that he was prepared to serve on the council. The fact that there are not more English-speaking persons is not attributable to our unwillingness to appoint English-speaking persons. On the contrary, I shall always be only too keen to appoint English-speaking persons to this council who show an active interest in this institution. I hope such English-speaking persons will be available in future.

As regards the question of the Coloured Representative Council and that Coloureds should have representation on it, I think the hon. member expressed a very meritorious idea in this regard. I myself should like to see the day when the Coloured Representative Council will receive a great deal of authority. At present, under our pattern of parallel development, the Coloureds do in fact have proper representation on the advisory council. Hon. members are in fact fully aware of this. Mr. Tom Swartz and Dr. Beets are amongst those who are serving on the advisory council, where they are doing very useful work. It is obvious that the time will arrive when the Coloured Representative Council will receive greater authority in and over the university. At this juncture, however, I want to assure the Committee that the time is not ripe for that as yet. This Coloured Representative Council is going to have an enormous task to administer this R60 million per annum in the field with which the Committee is fully acquainted. This is such an enormous challenge, such a gigantic task, for them that I do not think it will be fair to them to burden them even more at this stage with responsibility for this university. Let us give them the opportunity of first developing their managerial efficiency within the present set-up of the representative council. The time will come when this Parliament will indeed see its way clear to grant the Coloured Representative Council these greater powers. At this moment, however, the time is really not ripe for that. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I would like to ask him whether he can see his way clear to-day to give us some further assurance with regard to the representation of representatives from faculties from other universities? In reply to me just now, the hon. the Minister said that the implication of the clause was that these appointments would be countrywide. Therefore, it would be a mistake to confine representation to the universities merely from the area of the Cape. That being the case, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to say so unequivocally. In which case we would be very happy if, when he makes these appointments, he will consider appointing people from a really representative cross-section of the universities, not only in the Cape, but representative of the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, this will definitely remain our attitude. In fact, it is a pity that the hon. member did not include this in her amendment as well. Take for example the University of South Africa. We know that the University of South Africa has meant a great deal to the University College of the Western Cape, and still does. In this respect I may just mention the name of the representative of the University of South Africa, i.e. Professor Van der Merwe, If one wants to mention the names of universities, one should have mentioned the name of the University of South Africa as well, because of the important services it rendered and will continue to render by way of its representative in the council. But to give a specific answer to the question of the hon. member, I can assure her that we shall always endeavour to make this representation as wide, as fair, and also as representative as possible of those people who are interested in this university.

Mr. Chairman, I want to revert to the question of the say of the Coloured Representative Council in this university. As I understand the position as it has been legislated for and as it has been announced by the hon. the Minister, one of the functions of this council will be education of the Coloured people, within a Budget which is submitted to this House and then approved. With education being in the hands of the representative council of the Coloured people, surely one of the aspects of that education in which they should have a direct say, should be in this university. Surely there can be no reason why they should not. Or are they as the chief legislative body, and after all this is a Coloured parliament, to have no say except in so far as the Minister might by exercising his discretion under one of the other clauses of the Bill invite one of them to serve on an advisory council. In the case of the council with which we are dealing at the moment they have no powers of election. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I sincerely believe that the reason why he will not allow them to elect persons to the council is because it will mean that this will then become a mixed council as they will elect Coloured persons to represent the Coloured Council. The only way to avoid having a mixed council, thereby conforming to the Government’s approach to these universities, is to keep these powers of appointing members to the council in the hands of the Minister. Surely this is going backwards as far as the idea of allowing the Coloured persons to have their own council is concerned. The whole idea has been that the Whites should say to the Coloured people: Look after your own education. They will have the power to control the expenditure of the money which will be voted to them for the purpose of Coloured education. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not legally have some direct and responsible position and not the position they might have because the Minister merely chooses to use one of them to serve on an advisory council. I cannot see why they should not legally, subject to an Act passed by this House, have a say in the university which is situated here in the Western Cape to serve their own people. I appreciate the fact that the Minister is in a difficult position because in the case of the other Bills which established universities for non-Whites the Government set its face against a mixed council. I cannot for the life of me see how this university is ever going to pass into the full control of the Coloured people as it is envisaged that it shall, unless at some stage or other it has a mixed council during the transition period. Why should that stage not be now as far as the Coloureds are concerned? Why can they not have two representatives which can sit on the council of this university and be elected by the Coloured Representative Council itself? I think that the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly move in this direcion and give the Coloured Council more say in these affairs. Undoubtedly the hon. the Minister will move in this direction but why does he not take these steps at this stage so that they will feel that this institution is part of the responsibility of self-government which is being offered to them?

Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member who has just sat down, one may say that a word to the wise is enough. I do not know how wise those hon. members are, because the hon. the Minister has repeatedly given explanations in this connection, but in spite of that they still do not understand this matter. The clause which makes provision for the establishment of this council should be read together with the next clause which makes provision for the establishment of an advisory council. When it comes to this institution within the Coloured community one must accept that a process of growth will be set into motion. The difference between the United Party and the National Party in this connection is that what the United Party wants to give the Coloured population is like a dry stick with no vitality, while what the National Party wants to give them with this institution is like a small tree. It is like a small tree which is being planted, and which will subsequently be tended and watered by us. The sticks the United Party wants to plant among the Coloureds will rot and die, but this institution will grow. That hon. member has no idea of what is going on here. This council is being established as we are maintaining a guardianship in respect of these people. Consultation with the Coloureds will take place, because the advisory council will be established for this purpose. Therefore the hon. member need not have any misgivings about this.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. member who has just sat down, was here when the Minister addressed the Committee just now and told us why he could not accept members from the Coloured Representative Council. The Minister did not mention the reason given by the hon. member for Rissik; he did not deal with the difficulties of having a multi-racial council. The reason which the Minister gave was that this representative council was going to have difficulty in administering the R60 million which is being put at its disposal for the benefit of the Coloureds. He said that they would be too busy; the reason which the Minister gave was that they would not have the time and the opportunity to give their attention to this university and he looked forward to the day when they would be able to take a fuller part. Sir, I submit that the answer given to us by the hon. the Minister is not an adequate one. Surely part of their duties is to look after education and the Minister cannot tell us that the Coloured Representative Council are going to be so busy that representatives of theirs cannot spare the time to serve on this council. I do appeal to the Minister, although he may not accept the rest of our amendment, to indicate at any rate that he is prepared to accept the suggestion that representatives of the Coloured Representative Council should serve on this council. He himself can move such an amendment at a later stage. We ask him to give this matter much more thought than he has given it so far.

I want to follow up what the hon. member has suggested, and that is that the reason why it was not necessary for the hon. the Minister to have members of the Coloured Representative Council on the university council was that he had the advisory council which consisted of Coloured people and who could be used for this purpose. As we know from the personnel of the advisory council, there are members of the existing Council for Coloured Affairs serving on the advisory council. I wonder if the Minister could give this Committee a little information: How many times, since the university college has been functioning, has the council consulted the advisory council? On what sort of matters does it consult the advisory council? How does it consult the advisory council? Does it meet with the advisory council; does it consult the advisory council by letter? Are there objections to the two councils sitting together, in other words, as a mixed council, even if it is only on an ad hoc basis? Sir, I think we are entitled to have a little information about this before we decide whether or not it is necessary to have members of the Coloured Council on the university council, and indeed before we vote on the next clause which relates to the advisory council itself.

It is clear that this plea by the Opposition is in fact a veiled plea for a mixed council. It may not be so veiled either, because the hon. member for Transkei asked why the Coloured Representative Council could not have representatives on this council. I think I understood the hon. member correctly. He is therefore advocating a mixed council. But surely we have completed the fundamental discussion on that issue. Do we have to discuss the same thing a hundred times in this Parliament? If one has settled a matter of principle here, is it not settled until such time as the Opposition can bring about a change of Government at the polls? We have put our point of view clearly, i.e. that this council should not be a mixed council. We have thrashed this matter out time and again, and therefore I am amazed that we should come back to that once again; and if it is necessary to come back to this, let me tell the Opposition that it is not in agreement with our policy to have a mixed council. According to our policy there should be an advisory council which at this stage of the development of the university can advise the council. It is not fair to this advisory council to suggest by implication that they are useless. The advisory council will be summoned to meet twice annually to discuss matters affecting the university, on which they will be duly consulted by the council. I mentioned a number of matters here yesterday on which this advisory council had given advice in the past, and I do not deem it necessary to repeat them. In the past they fulfilled their function very effectively, as they are doing at present. Therefore there is no point in hon. members trying to get round this decision by asking, by way of an amendment such as this, for a mixed council. Hon. members of the Opposition are asking that the Coloured Representative Council should elect representatives to serve in the council. I think the time may come when they will be able to elect representatives to serve in the council, but as long as this is a white council they will have to elect Whites, and there will be nothing wrong with that. The Government has to appoint non-white members to the Representative Council, as the members of that Council are non-Whites. The people we have appointed up to now to serve on the Coloured Representative Council are Coloureds. We do not appoint Whites to that Council. At the moment the Coloured Representative Council will be so busy doing the other work it has to do, that it will not be able to give attention to this matter as well. As the hon. member for Green Point said, it is true that education has been assigned to the Coloured Representative Council, but do you know what this means, Sir? This means that nearly 500,000 Coloured children, who are at school at present, will fall under their administration; this means that the almost 15,000 teachers who have to teach those 500,000 Coloured pupils will fall under their administration. This places an enormous burden on them. They have a gigantic task to perform as far as education is concerned, and this Coloured Representative Council is indeed fulfilling the function provided for in the Act, i.e. that it should concern itself with education. We feel that the time has not arrived as yet for it to concern itself with university education as well, but I foresee that that day will come, and then we shall bring this change about in respect of this council so that it may pass into the hands of the Representative Council, but until such time arrives, this council will be a white council. Therefore the pleas of the Opposition do not fall within the framework of the development envisaged in this regard at the present time. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept this amendment.

Question put: That subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and first amendment dropped.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 9:

I move the following amendment—

This is in line with the earlier amendment moved by the Opposition.

I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister and say that we are very glad that he has seen fit to propose it. I only hope he will meet us on the other issues also. On behalf of the hon. member for Karoo, who is not here, I would like, the hon. the Minister’s amendment notwithstanding, to move the amendment standing on the Order Paper in his name, namely to negative this clause.

The hon. member cannot move that amendment. The rules do not make provision for an amendment to negative a clause.

With respect, Sir, we are dealing with clause 9 and I am, surely, entitled to say why we intend voting against the clause.

The hon. member may do that.

I want to confine my remarks to saying briefly that I do not believe that this hon. Minister really considers in his heart that a mixed council, during a period of transition and growth and development of this university, could possibly be harmful at this academic level. I just honestly do not think he believes that in his heart. The political realities, unfortunately, the pre judices, of such a large section of people in South Africa to-day, have forced him into this position which, in dealing with a University Bill, is most unfortunate. The Minister did not deny previously that there is co-operation of a very successful kind at departmental level between the officials of his Department and Coloured bodies of various kinds for purposes of training and yet, illogically enough, he refuses it here. I just want to say that we on this side of the House are not afraid to advocate a council representative of both Whites and Coloureds in this instance.

Amendment put and agreed to.

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

Clause 10:

I move the following amendments—

1. (a) In respect of each faculty of the University, one or more persons who shall be professors in a corresponding faculty at other university institutions, and who shall be chosen by the Committee of University Principals established in terms of section 6 of the Universities Act, 1955 (Act No. 61 of 1955), shall be appointed as members of the senate.

This clause deals with the composition of the senate and also with the Minister’s power of appointment of one or more persons who shall be professors in a corresponding faculty at another university institution. It is correct that the council has the right to designate these representatives and the institution from which they shall come in consultation with the Minister. But I would say that, since in the first place, his appointments in this field today, in the opinion of this side of the House, have been very prescribed, to put it as moderately as that, and secondly, because we do not believe, with respect to the Minister that a party politician, who is for a limited period of time in charge of a Government portfolio, should have the right of veto or appointment to academic bodies such as this, particularly to the senate, we want this whole right of appointment of these people linked with the Committee of University Principals in terms of the Universities Act.

This question of the appointment of the senate should be a matter of concern to the academic leaders in the country only. That is a matter of principle as far as we are concerned. It is surely not the task of a Cabinet Minister or anyone involved in the political field to deal with this type of appointment. The Committee of Principals as established under the Universities Act of 1955 is representative of all the universities in the country, as the Minister knows, and they certainly would have no objection whatsoever to sitting in consultation with the representatives of this particular university for this purpose, for the obvious reason that the Committee of Principals functions in a world in which academic disciplines are paramount and all other considerations are left aside. We think that the Committee of Principals, together with the heads of this university, should be free to discuss these matters, to help this university to find its feet in the first place, and to maintain the highest possible academic standards in the second place. We do not consider that the Minister should be in any way consulted or involved in appointments to the senate, which is essentially an academic body. In terms of the amendment, we also wish to ensure that other institutions represented will not be merely those for whom the Minister or even the Minister’s appointed council have a particular affection. This choice, we think, should be left in the competent hands of the university principals who will be motivated entirely by academic considerations and no other.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Wynberg wants to imply with this amendment that the hon. the Minister, when set the task of choosing people from other universities to serve on this senate, and this in consultation with the council of the university, will choose them because they hold particular political views; because this would surely be far beneath the dignity and responsibility of a Minister. The measure is far more accommodating than was the case in respect of the white universities which were recently established. There was a similar measure in regard to the University of Port Elizabeth and the R.A.U., but in the case of these two white universities the representatives on the senate were appointed from other universities by the Minister without consultation with the university council concerned. In other words, here such appointments take place after consultation with the council of the University of the Western Cape. This is a very great and a very reasonable concession. But it would be altogether unpractical to entrust such a task to the Committee of University Principals, a body which meets once a year at the most.

Here a senate representative from another university must be appointed to serve on the senate when a new faculty is established. It may happen that new faculties come into being more frequently and then it would be much easier to do it administratively if the Minister concerned, after consultation with the council, can appoint someone from the University of Stellenbosch or of Cape Town, or wherever, with experience in that particular faculty, to serve on the senate. If such an appointment had to wait for the Committee of University Principals, it would take a long time, because the Committee’s programme is such a full one and they have so many matters of an academic nature to deal with that they would not have time to make such appointments. And whom would they appoint? Would it be someone from Pretoria and then again Bloemfontein or Port Elizabeth in turn? It is altogether unpractical, and I think the hon. members actually ought to be very grateful that the Minister does not, like the Minister of National Education, simply appoint people to the senate, and that the Minister will, in this case, consult the university council.

For the hon. member for Algoa to suggest that the Committee of Principals would be too busy and that they would not be seriously concerned with the appointment of people to the senate of a university of this kind, is completely ridiculous, because, with respect, half the universities which would be represented on that Committee of Principals are universities which have been training non-white students during this transitional period at the request of the Minister himself. Of course they are interested. They are very vitally interested because they have seen these people right through their university training and a lot of them are still there. To suggest that the university principals would not have the time to deal with it, nor the interest, is quite irrelevant. I cannot agree with it.

This clause contains a very important principle, and that is the principle of maintaining the standard, a matter which weighs very heavily with one. If one would like this university to have a standard which is also recognized beyond our borders, that consideration weighs heavily with one, and in view of that this clause has been worded in such a way that we may choose these faculty representatives on this council from a very wide field. The hon. member’s proposal is also well meant, but it limits that choice. While we are so bent on maintaining this standard and having it recognized, I feel that as the clause is worded it actually does much greater justice to that object of ours, i.e. to have a wide choice, much wider than even the white universities, as the hon. member for Algoa said. In this clause we therefore obtain a very wide choice, which can really contribute to that.

The remainder of the clause is actually concerned with the mechanism. As far as the mechanism is concerned, I think it is the position that this Committee of University Principals should not be unnecessarily charged with matters of this nature. They have long agendas. They cannot meet all day and every day. I think they only meet twice a year, and then one must not burden them with work which can be done as effectively by other bodies.

As regards the other amendments moved by the hon. member in connection with the university institutions, which she want to have in the plural, I can only say that although it appears in the singular here, it should actually be read as being in the plural, i.e. where it states that in this case the council shall consult with the Minister in the case of every separate university institution concerned. It actually boils down to the fact that it refers to more than one.

In lines 35 and 36 the hon. member wants the words “after consultation with the Minister” to be omitted. It is not possible for me to accede to this either, because the object is not to overload this senate with too many representatives. This was one of the matters to which we gave very serious consideration when we drew up this Bill, i.e. that one wants to protect the standard by a choice from these universities, but one does not want it overloaded to such an extent that the senate would become quite cumbersome, and one does not want to entail unnecessary expenses for people who must come from near and far to serve the same purpose. This provision is therefore in the Bill solely to ensure that this senate will not be overstaffed. Under the circumstances I shall unfortunately not be able to accept the amendments that have been moved.

Mr. Chairman, I can, understand the argument of the hon. the Minister, that he does not wish to complicate this too much. I understand that at the present time members from another university institution are usually from the University of Stellenbosch. Is that correct?

Members of the University of Cape Town have also served as members of the senate.

This is my point. I think that is why the plural, namely “other university institutions”, was suggested in the amendment.

I believe the University of Stellenbosch is not represented on the senate at the moment.

I think the intention of substituting the word “institutions” for the word “institution” was to ensure that the Minister’s choice is not confined to only one institution. When the University College of the North came into being ten years ago we suggested that the University of Pretoria and the University of the Witwatersrand should work together to support the University College of the North. That is where the idea of the “institutions” came from. We felt that in the case of the University College of the Western Cape, the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Cape Town could work together to assist the University College of the Western Cape. I think that is why the word “institutions” was suggested in this amendment. This suggestion is not of vital importance, but I think it is a constructive one.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to repeat ad nauseum the arguments that have already been put forward by this side of the House.

Hear, hear!

I do want to draw the attention of the House, however, to the fact which I feel cannot be emphasized enough, namely that when we put a question on the Order Paper asking the hon. the Minister who in fact constituted the advisory senate at the present moment, the advisory senate of the present university college, he gave us the name of the only Coloured lecturer on the staff of the university college, namely Mr. Adam Small. We want to place it on record that we on this side consider it to be absolutely ridiculous and an insult to the Coloured academic community that when a man is academically suited to lecture to students he is not considered suitable to sit with the senate in consultation over the affairs of the university, particularly on matters regarding academic affairs for which he is obviously qualified. If he was not, he would not have been appointed to the advisory senate in the first place, nor would he have been appointed as a lecturer for the students. We wish to record our objection to the whole concept of an advisory senate and want to say that under no circumstances can we accept the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarity I should like to say that although we have only one Coloured lecturer there and while it is not practical to have only one person in an advisory senate, this person is most definitely consulted by the rector, and the senate definitely takes note of his opinions. It is customary for the rector to call in this Coloured lecturer before every meeting of the senate and to discuss matters with him and to learn what his opinions are. Therefore the necessary contact with him does exist.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is not the wish of the hon. the Minister that this distinguished member of the Coloured community should be ostracized, but this is in fact what is happening. He is being ostracized by being told that he may not sit in the senate, but that he can form an advisory senate alone. Why should we humiliate an individual in this way? Surely he can become a member of the senate seeing that he is the only one. The hon. the Minister, however, has no power under this Bill to make him a member of the senate.

Are discussions with the rector a humiliation?

Of course it is. The rector has no discretion over the other members. Why should this man not be treated in the same way? He is the only one.

He will not remain the only one.

If the hon. the Minister does not agree with what I say it is better not to have an advisory senate at all. It is better to have none than this. I do not see why there should be an advisory senate. I know that the Minister has now changed his opinion and that he thinks an advisory senate is desirable. If the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance that a senate is not advisable under these circumstances I will accept his assurance.

You have that assurance.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) The establishment at the University shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister.

Clause 14 deals with the matter of the staff of the university. Subsection (1) provides that the establishment at the university shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the council. Subsection (2) deals with the power to appoint persons as members of the staff. When one looks at corresponding and applicable clauses in this Bill one finds that in so far as salaries of any member appointed to the staff are concerned, the final say is in the hands of the Minister, as is contained in clause 15. In other words, the salary scales, allowances, leave and other privileges shall be determined by the council with the approval of the Minister. Under clause 34 the application of the finances that is available is subject to conditions laid down by the Minister, apparently to prevent the council from going on a spending spree. I mention this to clarify the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. If the council is tied as to the amount of money that is available, and it is tied in so far as salary scales are concerned, why should it also be deprived of the obligation of determining the establishment at the university? It seems that this is a power which could well be vested in the council. It is an entirely domestic matter within the limitations of the finances available. For this reason the first portion of the amendment standing in my name is to amend clause 14 (1) of the Bill so as to read that the establishment at the university shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister.

The second leg of my amendment is in regard to the appointment of the staff. The Minister has quite rightly said that this is not aimed at giving complete autonomy to this university. He said that he was aiming only at academic independence for this university. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that one facet of the academic independence of a university should be the right to appoint its staff. We have the members of the teaching staff, the clerical staff, and so on within the University. Surely, that is a right which can be given to the council within the control already in the hands of the Minister, namely the financial control he has and the terms of employment. For that reason I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept the second leg of my amendment and that is to delete the proviso so that academic independence vested in the University will in fact be factual independence so far as the council is concerned.

There is the transitional period. The Minister has correctly mentioned that this institution will be going through a transitional period of development. At the moment he has the further safeguard that the council in fact is nominated by him.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is really to empower the council to determine what the establishment should be. The Minister will give them advice, but they will make the final decision. Even if the hon. member says that clause 15 gives the hon. the Minister full control over conditions of employment, over salary scales and salaries, etc., he should realize that the establishment as such deals with numbers. Therefore the way the establishment is determined could also affect the finances. The Minister might be confronted with an establishment which may be changed from time to time and which may embarrass him. If the council is given full powers in this respect, the Minister will be deprived of some of his powers.

Concerning subsection (2), I want to say that this provision is fully justified because it corresponds with the principle mentioned initially, the principal of financial control and the appointment of particularly the senior staff. The Minister does not have full powers in regard to the less senior ranks, but he does have full powers in regard to the teaching and administrative staff in those positions determined by the Minister. The clerical and other ranks are irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, I am still not sure why it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to create two kinds of posts. The one set of posts will be determined by the council and the other set of posts will be determined by the Minister. Of course, he has complete control over these, so the members of the staff who are appointed to these posts really have no proper security of tenure at all. That is my first point. Also, I want to add an additional amendment to this clause. I have not bothered about amendments to the other clauses because I knew perfectly well the Minister was not going to accept any. Indeed, I do not think he is going to accept even this one; I am quite sure he will not. I am moving this amendment in any event because I want to highlight this particular aspect of the Bill which I object to very strenuously. That is one of the major reasons why I object to the Bill. It does not contain any sort of protection against discrimination when it comes to the appointment of staff on the basis of religious grounds. In other words, I am complaining about the absence of any form of conscience clause here at all. We keep on talking about tradition in South Africa. When it suits the Government, it maintains traditions; when it does not suit the Government, tradition becomes “the dead hand of the past”. In every single one of our universities, with the exception of Potchefstroom, we have a conscience clause. Even here, as far as students are concerned, there can be no discrimination on religious grounds. In every other case, with the exception of R.A.U.—the Rand Afrikaans University which was established last year—there is a conscience clause. I want to know why in this Bill the Minister has omitted any form of conscience clause, either with regard to the admission of students or the appointment of staff. This particular clause refers to the appointment of staff. I raised this point during the Second Reading debate but I got no reply from the Minister on this score. He did not explain to me why he did not consider it necessary to include in the constitution of this university a conscience clause. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment—

Order! I am unable to accept this amendment as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary that I reply to that amendment. I hope other amendments coming from the hon. member will be more actual, more relevant and of greater assistance than that proposal.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, one should bear in mind that the State is responsible for virtually all the financial obligations of this university. That is our point of view. That is something which we shall still have to take into consideration for many years. It determines the mechanism of this legislation. When dealing with this establishment, I may draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the councils of autonomous universities have the right to decide on establishments, but they have to submit those establishments to the Department of Higher Education every year. In other words, there are methods of control and supervision available to the State in this matter. The amendment proposed by the hon. member is basically the same as the provisions laid down in the measure at present. I feel that the difference is so insignificant that it is not worth our while to accept it in place of the existing wording. After all, the purport of the present wording is the same as that of the amendment. It is obvious that the Minister will consult the council to a very great extent in this connection and that he will not act in an autocratic or overbearing way. Therefore I really think this amendment unnecessary. This also applies to the other aspects which were raised here, and therefore I really cannot accept these proposals.

First amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray, put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Question put: That the proviso to subsection (2) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The first paragraph gives the council the right to dismiss a female member of the staff, whether she is an administrative member or an academic member, on account of her marriage. We have had this argument with regard to the other Bills and I do not think it is necessary to repeat them this afternoon, except to say that it is quite ridiculous at this stage of our affairs to force a woman to give up her post at the university, particularly if it happens to be someone who is trained in an academic sense, merely because she gets married. This is something that should be left, as I have said before, to the woman concerned. If she wishes to go on working in this capacity, she should be allowed to do so. The clause also definitely states that these people shall be permanently appointed. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister has seen fit to include this provision in this Bill, as well as in all the other Bills.

We have already stated in other debates that paragraph (e) is considered to be very unfair indeed. It says: “If his discharge will in the opinion of the council facilitate improvements in the organization of the university by means of which greater efficiency or economy will be effected”. This could lead to considerable hardship. We dislike the whole tenor of that particular paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, this clause was taken over virtually unchanged from the other legislation. It was still written into the previous legislation in this form, and I am surprised that there are objections to it now. However, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that it is a permissive provision. The clause reads: “A member of the staff of the University who has been appointed permanently may … be dismissed”; in other words, it is permissive. In the case of a female there can be a change. She undergoes a change of status. The authorities may perhaps, if they deem it necessary, effect a change there. One should at least credit them with having the necessary appreciation of the good services rendered by women, and one need not assume that this council will act in an unreasonable way.

As far as paragraph (e) is concerned, it is, of course, also at the discretion of the council whether they want to act. Sometimes they do have to deal with very difficult people; not only at non-white university colleges, but also at other institutions they sometimes have to deal with highly undesirable persons. Then it is only right that the council administering that institution should be able to exercise that power, but always in a reasonable manner, as I believe this council will in fact do.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s explanation about paragraph (e) I must say does not carry much weight with me. The fact that there are other institutions which have a similar provision surely does not make this provision any more suitable than it is for a university. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether there are any other universities in this country that have a provision where, if in the opinion of the council, the discharge of a person will facilitate improvements in the organization of the university by means of which greater efficiency or economy will be effected he can be discharged? I do not believe that staff members of other universities will put up with terms of employment like that. It gives them absolutely no security at all. It means that at any time the council, without giving any other reason, may simply say that they are invoking subsection (3) of section 17 and that they have decided that they are going to dismiss that person because it will be better for the university. I think that that is a ridiculous proviso to have affecting university employment. The other point is the dismissal of a female on account of her marriage. I had a great deal to say about this during the Second Reading debates of all these Bills because mutatis mutandis this is also in all the other university Bills we have considered. It is a ridiculous clause. Again I do not believe there is any white university in this country that has such a proviso in its constitution. If I am wrong I have no doubt the hon. the Minister will not hesitate to tell me. The explanation of the hon. the Minister was that this proviso is contained in the University College constitution. But we are supposed to be promoting the university college to full university status. Therefore, I can see no reason to advance that as an explanation for perpetuating something which was silly then, in the University College Constitution and making it silly now. I must say that it seems to me to be in direct conflict with the policy, which we have been discussing over the last week, of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance has decided that he will make the first R500 per annum of the earnings of a married female non-taxable in order to encourage the employment of women; to encourage more women who are married to stay in jobs; to encourage women who are about to get married to continue with employment. Yet here we have a clause which actually may result—I agree it is permissive, but why should it be there at all?—in the dismissal of a perfectly competent woman lecturer of whom, let me tell you, there are mighty few anyway in this country as far as the Coloured people are concerned. We are short of lecturing staff in every university in this country. Whether it be White, Coloured, Indian or African, there is a great shortage of lecturing staff. So, why we should have this permissive clause at all making it possible for a council to dismiss a woman simply because she gets married, is quite beyond me. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not change his mind in this regard and show that he has moved ever so little into the second half of the twentieth century where clauses like this just do not play any part at all in our thinking.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has just been pleading for the employment of more women to cope with the manpower shortage. I want to support her in this. I want to say that I cannot wholly agree with what the hon. the Minister has said in his reply a little while ago. He mentioned that this is a permissive clause. We accept that. However, if it is a permissive clause, why is there this provision about members of the staff of the university, who have been appointed permanently? Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to employ women only in a temporary capacity? If this is his intention then he must say that it is his intention only to employ women in a temporary capacity. Then of course, no trouble arises with regard to paragraph (b) and then he must accept the amendment by the member for Wynberg and delete paragraph (b).

The question also arises as to whether there is perhaps a precedent for including this provision. The hon. the Minister said that there was a precedent in other legislation but the fact that there is such a provision in other legislation makes this provision no less abhorrent to us. I have mentioned the question of a precedent because I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has had to deal with a case in regard to which he has perhaps had difficulties with a married woman.

A gentleman will never talk.

The hon. the Minister could perhaps advise us in this regard. Of course I make no inference at all regarding the personal integrity of the hon. the Minister.

In regard to clause 17 (e) I should like to say that our greatest objection is that we are laying down conditions of employment in what will become a statute. Every person that will be employed by this university will be employed under a contract of service. Since provisions such as these are laid down in the Act, they will also have to be written into the conditions of employment. I submit that the common law recourse of an employer in regard to the retrenchment of staff where he thinks it will lead to greater efficiency or greater economy is sufficient. It should not be necessary to include this provision in an Act since these provisions will again have to be included in the conditions of employment of a lecturer or even a professor at an institute of higher learning such as this university.

Mr. Chairman, in order to change the tune of the debate I want to say that my personal objection to clause 17 (b) is to the use of the word “vrouspersoon” in the Afrikaans text. I only realized what the word “vrouspersoon” meant when I saw the words “huwelik” and “female”. As far as I am concerned, the words “vroulike persoon” sound better. We are gradually moving in the direction of the greater employment of women. There is definitely a tendency to ensure to an increasing extent that the married woman is not discriminated against. Although I largely agree with this sentiment, I do want to say that while we are moving in this direction, it is not necessary, in my opinion, for provision to be made for this drastic change in the clause, on the grounds of the provisions existing in other acts. This principle has already been accepted in the case of all four the other universities. I can see no reason why we should not accept it now too. We are moving in that direction, but there are sometimes special reasons why a women provides less security in her profession than a man does. I do not even want to go into those reasons at this stage. As a result of those special reasons it is necessary for this provision to be made in this Bill. As the hon. member for Houghton observed, this clause is a permissive one and therefore I do not think she need be concerned that in a time of limited manpower resources we shall not make full use of all the female teaching staff that we have.

Mr. Chairman, this is an anti-social clause and it can only lead to a great deal of unhappiness, as possibly the unfortunate woman who forgets her pill one morning will find out. It is also going to be very difficult because it may lead to, shall I say, sin and secretiveness. What is the hon. the Minister going to answer when a woman comes to him and asks his permission, because that is what it is going to amount to, to get married. This is permissive and it has been emphasized that it is a permissive clause. In other words, the hon. the Minister, may permit her to marry. If she then quietly carries on with her life as it was, takes extended leave occasionally perhaps to elude detection, it would be much simpler if the women were left alone and in the employment which they are able to do. In most countries it has been recognized once and for all that as university lecturers women class themselves in so far as ability is concerned as being as able as men. I think the hon. the Minister is assuming to himself a power, namely that of being a marriage agent which he should be glad to dispose of and get rid of.

This is a provision which appears in the Act of 1959. Perhaps I should read it to you here. In the Act of 1959 it reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (a) on account of attaining the pensionable age;
2. (b) in the case of a female member of the staff, on account of her marriage …

It is therefore in the first place a provision which has been taken over from the Act of 1959. When this Bill was discussed the college councils asked that this provision be retained, for very good reasons. You need not be perturbed that the councils will not duly appreciate the women. It is a fact to-day that women are absolutely indispensable in education. If women were to leave the teaching profession to-day, the whole of our education would collapse. At universities, too, women are being employed more and more, and I simply cannot imagine any university council being so shortsighted as to dispense with such valuable services. Practically speaking, there is therefore no need for concern in this regard.

As far as the hon. member for Gordonia is concerned, I share his doubts about the use of the term “vrouspersoon”. It is a term which I took up with the law advisers. They assured me, however, that it had to be written in this way, and who am I to quarrel with those people? If they have given a matter due consideration, I think we as laymen should accept it. I shall therefore be glad if the hon. member will bow to superior knowledge, as I do.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 21:

Sir, this constitutes one of my major objections to this whole Bill, as I explained during the Second Reading Debate, and I simply want to reiterate very briefly why this is a very objectionable clause as far as I am concerned. I do not agree with university segregation, as I have made quite clear over the years, from 1959 onwards, and I still do not agree with university segregation. To me this principle is important, whether it is segregation by means of closing the open white universities to non-white students or whether it is segregation by means of closing the non-white universities to white students. In the case of the white universities, the hon. the Minister of Education has the permissive right to allow certain non-white students to attend those white universities, and indeed over the last ten years large numbers of non-white students have attended what were formerly open universities, that is to say, the universities of Cape Town, the Witwatersrand and Natal. But in the case of the non-white universities—and we are dealing now with the University of the Western Cape—the hon. the Minister does not even have the permissive right to admit a white student. This is complete segregation as far as university education is concerned, and, as I say, this principle is as objectionable to me in clause 21, under which no white student may attend a nonwhite university, as it is in the 1959 Act, in terms of which non-white students may not attend white universities. For that reason I object strongly to clause 21.

In my opinion the hon. member for Houghton discussed a principle here by advancing the plea that white students should also be allowed to attend the University of the Western Cape. Of course, we on this side of the House support this clause and also the principle contained therein. Sir, while this clause is under discussion, I want to ask the Official Opposition to tell us whether they support the clause as it stands here or whether they support the hon. member for Houghton in this connection. The Official Opposition have always pleaded for autonomy for the universities, and therefore I again want to ask the Official Opposition to state clearly whether they support this clause, as printed, or whether they support the hon. member for Houghton in her attitude.

Clause put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, clause declared agreed to.

Clause 22:

I rise to move the amendment as printed in my name—

Sir, after having listened to the hon. the Minister talking about this particular university I think he has forgotten that this is a university. It is true that it is a Coloured university but it is nevertheless a university, notwithstanding the fact that the State is going to subsidize it 100 per cent. The Minister has told us about the status of this university and the degrees to be awarded by it. We agree that degrees conferred by a university should be recognized not only in this country but all over the world. The Minister is most careful in exercising control over this university. He appoints the members of the council because, as he says, the State is meeting the full cost of running this university. He has full confidence in the council appointed by him but when it comes to the admission of students, he has no confidence in the council; they have to refer these matters to him. The proviso says—

The council, therefore, does not have full authority to decide who can attend that particular university. First admissions must be referred to the Minister. This casts a doubt upon the whole integrity of the council. If the Minister wants to create this university for the social upliftment of the Coloureds, surely he should give it the status of a university. We want to feel that when these young Coloured students receive degrees from this university, those degrees will be recognized as degrees conferred by a university with some sort of status. We would like visiting professors to be able to teach at this university; we would like to see this university go ahead, but when you see this sort of thing you feel that the Minister has no confidence in his own council. It is for these reasons that I move that the proviso be deleted.

Sir, as you refused to accept an amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton to clause 14 earlier on and this clause seeks to give the Minister the right to veto the first admission of any student to the university, I would like to ask the Minister point-blank whether he will give us an assurance, in view of his powers in this regard, that he will not discriminate against any student on the ground of his religious beliefs. Sir, this is very relevant in this particular clause and in relation to this particular university because the students who are to belong to this university are people whose race is defined in terms of the Population Registration Act of 1950. The hon. the Minister knows very well that that definition does not only cover Coloured people; it covers people whose religion may be Christian or not Christian. It may be any one of the Christian denominations. It will also cover Malays and other groups whose religion may well be Islamic and entirely different, and it seems to me that if ever there was an instance where some sort of guarantee was required from the Minister on the question of the admission of students, particularly on religious grounds, it is in this instance. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would be prepared to give us some reassurance that no student will be kept out of the university on religious grounds.

I am afraid I want to go a little further than the hon. member who has just sat down. I am going to submit an amendment to this clause again on the basis of the religious test. You did rule the earlier amendment out of order as far as staff was concerned, but I am prepared to give it a go as far as the students are concerned, and I am going to move the following amendment for your consideration—

Provided further that no test of religious belief shall be imposed on any person as a condition of his becoming or continuing to be a graduate at the University nor shall any preference be given to or advantage be withheld from any person on the ground of his religious belief.

You want to add the conscience clause?

Of course. The hon. member is very quick on the uptake!

Order! I am unable to accept the amendment as it is similar in substance to an amendment previously disallowed.

Sir, I am not very interested in the other Bills. I am interested in this one before us now and I thought that possibly you, Sir, might have changed your mind in the meantime.

My ruling is still the same.

Well, I am entitled to discuss this amendment because this is another Bill. I must say that I must congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on his quick-wittedness. He actually grasped the point. As you have rightly said, we have had five of these Bills and we had five clauses similar to clause 22.

He is always quick.

He may be quick but he is very frequently wrong. In this case he was quick, and he was right because that was exactly my intention. The idea was to get some form of conscience clause written into the Bill, and here I was proposing the form that applies to every university with the exception now of the Rand Afrikaans University, The University of Potchefstroom also has this part of the conscience clause. That is to say it excludes any discrimination on the ground of religious beliefs as far as students are concerned.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that now. It is out of order.

Sir, I am not moving the amendment.

The hon. member cannot discuss it either. It is not under discussion at all.

May I not put the point that I am objecting to clause 22 precisely because it does not give any guarantee of any kind whatsoever that there will be no discrimination against students on the grounds of religious beliefs?

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the question of the conscience clause under any clause of this Bill.

But we discussed it on all the other occasions. You have not accepted amendments, but you have allowed one to give the reasons as to why one objects to the clause.

I have given my ruling that the conscience clause is not at issue at all in this Bill.

Well, that is exactly my objection.

Then the hon. member should have raised it in the Second Reading debate; she cannot raise it now.

I did raise it at the Second Reading.

The hon. member did not ask the House for an instruction to consider it at this stage. It cannot, therefore, be considered now.

Am I not even allowed to advance any arguments about it?

No, not at all.

Surely, the hon. member is entitled to say why she is opposing a clause. She cannot move an amendment, but surely she is entitled to say that she does not approve of this clause because it does not provide for a conscience clause.

Order! I have given my ruling on this point under four Bills, and I am not going to repeat it.

With reference to the question put to me by the hon. member for Wynberg, I should like to give the assurance that, as in the past, there will be no discrimination against any student on the grounds of religion. This assurance will perhaps also partially satisfy the hon. member for Houghton.

No, it does not satisfy me.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River, who moved that the proviso be omitted. The reason why it is provided here that the Minister shall be consulted at the first admission is very clear; it is because the Minister and the Department often have at their disposal information which the council does not have. I make no bones about this fact. We may perhaps have at our disposal information indicating that the disposition and attitude of a student are such that it would not be in the interests of the institution to have him there. The Minister therefore has to retain this power in the interests of orderly control.

I must say that I am extremely glad to hear the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister that there will be no discrimination against applicants or students on the ground of religious beliefs. I am disappointed, however, to hear from the hon. the Minister that he cannot accept the amendment to delete the proviso. The effect of this clause is that the only persons who will be freely admitted to this university will be Coloured persons. Sir, I accept that it is the responsibility of the Minister and his department to look after the welfare and well-being of all the Coloured people in South Africa. This university is going to be sited here in the Western Province. There are Coloured people as far away as the Northern Transvaal and Natal who will seek university education, and the effect of this proviso is that the Minister is precluding them from attending any university other than this one. I submit that this is not in the best interest of the Coloured people. If the hon. the Minister were to accept the proposal that this proviso be deleted from the clause, in other words, if he were to accept that this university, which will be under the control of himself and his department, should be open to all non-Whites in the Western Province, then I am sure he could use this as a quid pro quo with his colleagues in the Cabinet to allow the free admission of Coloured persons to the universities in the areas in which they live, the University of the North, the University of Zululand, the University of Durban-Westville and the University of Fort Hare.

The Coloureds will not like that.

How does the hon. member know that? And what about the Indian College? Has the hon. member any basis for making such a statement? There are Coloureds in Natal at the moment who are attending the Indian University College.

How do you know that?

I know it. It is a fact which has been established by answers to questions in this House, that there are Coloureds attending Fort Hare. This should be a reciprocal arrangement between the departments. I put it to the Minister that if he really has the interests of the Coloured people at heart, he should consider this matter. If he cannot accept it now, he should consider it further and perhaps move such an amendment in the Other Place, to allow the free admission, as a quid pro quo, of the other people in the other provinces, those people whose interests he has at heart, to make it easier for them to obtain the university education which they all seek.

Question put: That the proviso stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout. P. H. Torlage, H. J. van Wyk and M. J. de la R. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 23:

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Section 32 is a new clause which we intend moving.

I cannot understand at all what the hon. member means by this amendment.

The Minister would know to what the hon. member for Salt River was referring if he would look at the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper to insert a new clause to follow clause 31. But I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to the whole of this clause. As it reads, the council may refuse admission to any person who applies to be a student of the university if the council considers it in the interests of the university to do so, and the council shall not be obliged to give any reasons for any such refusal.

Order! I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying when hon. members converse aloud in this way.

I am at a loss to understand how this clause ties in with the one we have just dealt with. Is this in fact a contradiction of the Minister’s powers in regard to the admission of students contained in the proviso to clause 22, or is it another way of saying that the Minister will make the decision but the council will carry it out, or does it mean that the Minister may decide one thing with regard to the admission of a student and the council another thing? I am at a loss to understand the wording of the clause.

This clause relates to all students in all years, in the first year and subsequent years. It is therefore not the same as the previous proviso, which related to first-years only. I may just say that this is the recognized practice at universities. The status quo is merely being maintained. This is common university practice.

I must say that this amendment does not make sense to me.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 26:

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Karoo, as follows—

All this means is that we consider that the most suitable body to determine what fees shall be payable by a student shall be the council and not the Minister. We have said this to the Minister before, but I am afraid we must say it again: All the members of the council are his own nominees. To refuse them the right to decide on an ordinary administrative detail of this kind seems to us to amount to a vote of no confidence in his own nominees. I would like to remind the House of the type of people the Minister has already appointed to this council. Their names appeared in the Press fairly recently.

There was Mr. Justice Banks of the Cape Supreme Court, Dr. J. D. du Plessis, formerly Secretary for Coloured Affairs, Mr. H. L. Greyling, General Manager of the Coloured Development Corporation, Mr. J. F. Louw, Director of Coloured Education, Mr. M. H. Pienaar, Mayor of Bellville, Dr. A. M. Ralbie, formerly a member of the Provincial Council, the Rev. J. H. Steenkamp, the Moderator of the D.R. Mission Church, Professor Erica Theron, Professor of Social Work at the University of Stellenbosch, Mr. J. G. van der Horst, Managing Director of the Old Mutual, Professor H. J. M. van der Merwe, Dean of the Faculty of Afrikaans-Nederlands at the University of South Africa, Professor Sieberhagen, the Rector of the University College of the Western Cape, and Professor J. de Jager, Professor of Education and member of the senate of the University College of the Western Cape.

Those are the Minister’s nominees. They are people involved in big business and in academic affairs and other occupations; there is a representative of the Bench. They are people who have been actively in touch with the Department itself. It seems to me that they are a very representative lot. That is the council appointed by the Minister himself within the last few weeks. It does seem to us on this side of the House extraordinary that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to allow people of that calibre, of his own appointment, to decide upon what fees, purely a matter of administrative concern, these students should pay on admission to the university. We dislike the provision in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the reply I want to give to that is one I have given on numerous previous occasions in regard to similar matters. Because the Government is providing this whole amount to the university and I as Minister have to account to this House in regard to the expenditure of that money, this clause cannot be worded differently. The consultation with the Minister of Finance is also necessary, because he is in fact the man who has to provide us with the money. Therefore I am very sorry that I cannot accede to the request.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name, as follows—

1. 32. No preference shall be given to, or advantage be withheld from, any person by the University on the ground of his religious belief, and no test of religious belief shall be imposed upon any person as a condition of his becoming or continuing to be a student or research worker at the University, of becoming or continuing to be a graduate of the University, of becoming or continuing to be a professor, lecturer or other teacher at or a member of the administrative staff of the University or of holding any other office therein, of receiving any emolument from the University or of exercising any privilege thereat.

I am afraid I am unable to put the proposed new clause to the Committee as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main tasks entrusted to the Community Development Board by the Community Development Act, 1966, Act No. 3 of 1966, is to develop proclaimed group areas or to assist with their development, and to promote community development in any of those areas. In order to be able to execute this task, Parliament invested the Community Development Board with certain powers contained in the above-mentioned Act.

However, as the Board makes progress in the execution of that task, certain situations are encountered which necessitate the powers of the Board to be supplemented or more closely defined. The Bill at present before this House deals with such situations and I shall, by way of explanation, deal with each clause separately.

Clause 1

Section 15 of the Community Development Act, 1966, defines the objects and powers of the Community Development Board. Subsection (2) (c) provides that the Board has power—

But in terms of subsection (4) no ex gratia payment, refund, donation or remission may exceed the amount of R1,000 except with the approval of the Senate and the House of Assembly.

It sometimes happens that circumstances do change after the proclamation of an area for a certain community, and this makes it impossible to continue with the development of the area as proclaimed. Eventually a deproclamation of the area will have to take place. An example of such changed circumstances is, as is already generally known, the decision—

This broad policy is, as I have already remarked, generally known and I therefore need not elaborate on the merits of the matter.

However, in the past group areas for Coloureds were proclaimed at Transvaal rural towns where there are isolated communities. Similar areas were also delimitated in towns to the east of the Fish-Kat/Aliwal North line, i.e. in the Bantu priority sphere. As a result of the changed circumstances resulting from the resettlement of Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Eastern Cape, certain local authorities, where Coloured areas were proclaimed, find themselves in the position of having incurred expenditure in connection with the initial development of those areas. The local authorities were keen, and were also encouraged, to provide in the housing needs, and in some instances, after the proclamation of the areas, incurred costs in connection with the planning and surveying of townships as a result.

It has been found that the preparations already made, cannot be applied for any other purpose, with the result that it will not be possible to recover the expenditure incurred. Therefore it is felt that if such fruitless expenditure was incurred by a local authority in good faith, such an authority should be compensated for it, otherwise it would be an unfair burden on its shoulder.

As the provisions of the Act read at present the board may compensate a local authority to the tune of R1,000 by way of an ex gratia payment. Indications are, however, that there are amounts which will come to the fore in this connection and which in the majority of cases will exceed R1,000. Instead of Parliament being approached each time for its approval of amounts in excess of R1,000 in order to be able to make ex gratia payments in this regard, a general authorization, as contained in clause 1, is being requested. As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, it is a specific provision that payments in this connection should be reported to Parliament, whereupon hon. members will, of course, have the opportunity of discussing the payments.

It virtually goes without saying that where two Ministers have to take a joint decision on such payments, one of whom is, what is more, the Minister of Finance himself, this House cannot have the slightest doubt about the responsible manner in which such decisions will be taken. It is, in point of fact, an administrative matter, and the Act must therefore be brought into line with this.

Clause 2

I now come to clause 2 which for some mysterious reason or other is described as an extremely contentious clause. As far as clause 2 is concerned, I want to say that section 17 of the Act as it reads at present, provides that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette in respect of a certain defined area, vest any or all of the powers, functions and duties of a local authority in the Community Development Board and charge it with such powers, functions and duties, and thereupon the provisions of any applicable law relating to the exercise of such powers or the performance of such functions or duties by a local authority shall apply to the Board as if it were a local authority. Where the powers, functions or duties have thus been assigned to the Board, the local authority concerned shall not, so long as the proclamation remains in force, be competent to act with reference to the area concerned. This section also provides that the State President may repeal or amend the proclamation so issued as he may deem fit. This section does not appear in the Act without its having any justification, because circumstances do occur which make its application absolutely essential. For example, there is a group area here in Cape Town which was proclaimed 11 years ago already, but in which the local authority has not yet provided the necessary services up to this day so as to make it fully inhabitable.

What group area is that?

It is an Indian group area.

Is it the Rylands Indian group area?

Yes. In other cases local authorities have also failed over long periods to perform certain duties, or otherwise they have obstructed or complicated the task of the Department of Community Development.

Local authorities simply must, when these things are urgently required, get on with the provision of services, water-borne sewerage and road-building in an area in which development for housing purposes is absolutely essential and already long overdue. It is not only the Department which is being hampered by such delays as regards the tremendous resettlement task it has to perform, but private owners also find that they cannot utilize their properties in the case of existing premises.

In this way the provision of housing by the private developer is also being retarded. It also happens that a local authority deliberately allows squatting in a newly developing area. It appears, however, that the application of section 17 in its present form, may have certain consequences which may give rise to points of dispute between the Department of Community Development and a local authority. For example, at present it is not clear whether the Community Development Board will be able to dispose of land which the local authority owns. However, when the Board has to act in an area in terms of section 17, it will necessarily have to develop such land as well, together with other land, if any, and will subsequently have to be able to dispose of such land as it may deem fit and as if it were the local authority. In addition it is obvious that the Board must be able to lay claim to the services which the local authority provides, such as the provision of water, electricity and water-borne sewerage, but this is not laid down clearly enough in section 17. That is the reason for this proposed amendment to section 17. Furthermore, prior to proclamation the local authority may have concluded loans in respect of the area concerned, or concluded contracts for the partial development of the area, and the Board should unquestionably be empowered to utilize such loans subsequent to proclamation as well as to continue the contracts. A clear indication is also necessary in respect of monetary obligations incurred by both the Board and the local authority. Section 17 was obviously written into the Act so as to enable the Board to act without delay and efficiently when the local authority fails, or is unwilling, to undertake essential development or to provide services in the interests of community development. The Board can therefore not be placed in a position, when it takes the place of the local authority, where it is frustrated due to arguments or even court cases as a result of obscurities in the Act.

Clause 2 (a) is therefore intended to establish beyond any doubt the Board’s position vis-à-vis that of the local authority concerned, so that no avoidable delay need take place in the efficient implementation of essential community development. I have already pointed out that the State President may repeal or amend the issued proclamation. It is then a logical consequence that the Board, after its task has been accomplished, and the area has been restored to the local authority through the repeal of the proclamation, should not continue to be held responsible for certain aspects as if it were still acting as the local authority. I have in mind, for example, the maintenance of streets, sewerage works, etc., for which the local authority does, after all, collect its service levies and taxes. The development which the Board has brought about is undeniably also in the interests of the local authority and its citizens and, on top of that, the local authority still becomes the owner of the assets when the Board withdraws. But the present section does not mention clearly either where the two parties stand after the repeal of such a proclamation. Clause 2 (b) has therefore now been drafted in such a way as to clarify the matter and to leave no room for uncertainty and doubt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the whole object of the amendment of section 17 is to define procedure more clearly and to streamline and simplify the implementation of the section. You will therefore also notice, Sir, that the amendment of section 17, as contained in clause 2, does not in fact contain any new principle whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, one can understand why the hon. the Minister should present this Bill to us with the attitude that it is not very important as it is purely an administrative detail and that this Bill will not change the principles contained in the 1966 Act. I suppose that the hon. the Minister would use this excuse for not having followed the normal procedure in the case of an amending Bill of this kind. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor and other hon. Ministers have followed this procedure in the past. They always laid a White Paper in regard to the purposes of the Bill before the House. We feel that we are entitled to expect the hon. the Minister to have let us have such information in regard to the objects and principles of this Bill.

Another point which arises is the question of fruitless expenditure. The wastage of the odd thousand rand which has taken place because of variations and changes in proclamations is not sufficient to cover up the wastage in regard to changed views and changed determinations. Now the hon. the Minister must have wider powers to deal with fruitless expenditure. There are many such instances. The hon. the Minister has attempted to confine us to one or two cases where isolated Coloured communities have had to be brought together. I will however during the course of my speech refer him to some other cases of waste which have occurred. It is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister of Planning was to-day unable to reply to a question which had been put to him. The reply to this question would indicate to this House how many proclamations, deproclamations and reproclamations have taken place as a result of his application of the Group Areas Act. This of course affects the hon. the Minister of Community Development as a result of the provisions of the Bill which is before the House now.

I now want to come to a point raised by the hon. the Minister, namely that this Bill does not change any principles. I want to say quite categorically to him that we do not agree with him and that we cannot accept that that is so. I say this because in terms of section 17 of the Community Development Act the board has been established with the powers of a local authority only within the defined area which comes under its jurisdiction. It is a local authority; it assumes the powers of a local authority only within the defined area; and if that defined area happens to be within the area of an existing local authority, whether it is in the City of Bloemfontein or in the City of Johannesburg or the City of Cape Town, the board has no say, no power, and no control under the law as it now exists over the municipality outside of the defined area in which the board operates as a local authority.

Thirdly, the most important change which I will elaborate on also at a later stage is that at the present moment the development of the defined area by the board under the existing Act is a responsibility of the board. The board is bound to utilize, to plan, to develop, build, to expend moneys, and the cost is for the board, not for the local authority under the existing law. The board is responsible for and has to finance and adjust the finances within that defined area. That is a very different picture to what the Minister has offered to us to-day. He says there is no departure from the law as it now stands. I think the truth of the matter is that the Minister, in his anxiety to deal with the Stellenbosch municipality which did not see eye to eye with him, caused a proclamation to be published and now, utilizing almost the same words as those of the proclamation, tries to have his proclamation legalized by this particular Bill. However, that will be examined in some further detail later.

There is a further aspect and a further principle of this Bill which have caused great concern to those who have become aware of what is involved in this Bill. Our Republican Constitution provides for a three-tier form of government, namely the Central Government, provincial government and local authority government. This is now to be swept aside by the Minister and his department. It is important that we should understand why we have this three-tier form of government. In each tier, we sitting in this House for instance; are elected by the persons who are concerned with the election of representatives to this Parliament. They are the voters of the country as a whole. When we come to the second tier, namely the provinces, the people who are concerned with the interests of the province as such elect their representatives to the provincial council. When we come to the third tier of government we find that the persons concerned directly with an area elect their representatives to serve on their city council, their town council, village management board, health board, divisional council, and so forth. That is basic to our form of government. It is basic that these tiers will exist. It is basic because it is basic to a democreatic process of government which requires the government to convince the lower tiers, and not to coerce them to comply with government policy.

And if they do not want to be convinced?

I think that is really what has happened—the Minister has not been able to come to terms with Stellenbosch, and so he says now: “Because I have not convinced them, because I have not been persuasive enough, I must ‘dwarsboom’ the whole structure of our democratic form of government.”

Reading this Bill, and hearing the Minister to-day, including his interjections, one becomes convinced that this basic concept of government in this country means nothing whatsoever to the Nationalist Government which is in control of the country to-day. This Bill, which I will deal with in detail at a later stage, undermines the whole concept of local government within a local area. It is a strange thing to me that the Government should be presenting us with this, when at the present time as part of its policy it is creating Coloured municipal councils with expressions of pride and glory as to what it is achieving in giving the Coloured people local authorities, giving them control of their local areas. This Bill, on the other hand, completely annihilates the control of white councils over their areas. The Bill has an approach which is totally inconsistent with an effective system of local government. When I read this Bill I wondered why the Minister did not just put a one-clause Bill in front of us saying, “From a date to be proclaimed I will be the town manager of any municipal area in South Africa”, because that is what it means. [Interjection.] No, it was not. That is what it means. It means the Minister is being placed in the position of a town manager who can overrule the citizens, the ratepayers, the ratepayers’ associations, the town councils, and the provincial councils themselves.

I must ask whether this is designed, whether it is intentional, whether it is part of the pattern. I hope the Minister will be frank with the House and tell us whether this is a pattern which is being followed now by the Government in terms of which they will consistently and persistently whittle away the powers not only of local authorities but also of the provincial councils as well, or is there only the particular problem facing the Minister, namely his inability to come to terms with the Stellenbosch municipality? One has heard rumblings from different directions that this is part of a process of whittling away the powers of the lower tiers of government. If that is so, then the Minister and his colleagues cannot complain if we say that they are heading us towards a sort of one-party state of government in South Africa. This can only be consistent with that policy. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Parow is now participating by way of interjection. No doubt he will have a chance of making a speech at a later stage. Perhaps when he gets up a little later he will tell us whether he would like to preserve and extend the powers of the local authorities. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is in favour of the retention of our provincial system of government or not.

Yes.

He says “yes”. I hope he will say so in a clear voice, because that is not the policy of some of those who sit with him.

Why is the hon. member for Stellenbosch not here?

No doubt he will be apprised of the fact that we are discussing a Bill because the Stellenbosch town council does not agree with the Minister.

I want to go further and say this legislation is foolish because …

Foolish?

It is foolish because it is folly, if I may put it that way, to proceed in this manner of overriding the interests and the decisions and the wishes of local authorities. First of all, it is necessary I believe that the provinces should continue with their function, which is an important function, namely of having over-all supervisory powers over local authorities. They do ensure systematic development within a province. Also, through the provincial administration there is a close and consistent liaison between the central authority of the province and the local authority. Why cannot that liaison exist between the provinces and the Central Government? As I say, there should be more convincing and less coercing as far as the acceptance of Government policy is concerned.

I say it is also unwise that the Minister should seek to assume unto himself and the board powers as far-reaching as those mentioned in this Bill. There is a great deal to be said for local knowledge, and for local consideration. I should like to give an example of how the ignoring of local authorities and the usurping of powers by the Central Government can misfire. I refer to the question of the demarcation of beach areas in the Cape Province. The Government took over those powers from the Province. The hon. member for Klipriver was chairman of a commission which got the whole matter into such a mess that the Government said, “Give it back to the provinces”. That is what is going to happen here when the Government attempts to assume powers which are purely of a local or provincial nature.

We on this side are not the only ones who are concerned about this legislation now before us. It has been reported that a member of the Executive Committee of the Cape Provincial Council is also concerned. I want to read from a report which appeared in the Cape Argus on the 29th March, 1969. There was a later report in another paper in which the gentlemen concerned varied what appeared in the first report in some respects, but not in the respects in which I wish to quote him.

Why don’t you read the later report?

It was merely a short report to the effect that he had not been reported correctly. I want to read from the Argus report which states that Mr. Conradie said the following—

Mr. Conradie was speaking as a true democrat.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.