Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Mr. Speaker, I think at this stage of the discussion on this Budget, we are in a position to formulate certain conclusions, certain basic charges against the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on account of the handling of his department, charges which so far have remained unanswered, charges which in fact, neither he nor his Government is able to answer.

The first charge is that these increased tariffs which have been imposed on the people of South Africa—-increased tariffs for telephones, letters, telegrams and other services—are totally out of proportion to what is needed to run the Post Office as a business concern. It is something unheard of to make such profits out of your ordinary telephone users while the Minister and his department exercise a monopoly in this field. An additional R50 million being taken out of the pockets of the users of the Post Office is not necessary in the light of the fact that the Post Office this year had a profit of R31 million. Why then come with increased tariffs to the extent of an additional R50 million? I say, once more, this huge amount is not necessary. At the same time I am not denying that certain increases are acceptable, but not on a scale and to an amount such as this.

Sir, there was no financial crisis in the postal division. It is true that postal services are being run at a loss. But that loss has been coming down and is less in this financial year than it was in the previous financial year. Why then put up tariffs? The question is whether the hon. the Minister has properly analysed all facets of the expenditure on postal services, such as letters, newspapers and other items. Has he struck a proper balance when he decided to increase these tariffs? We must remember that throughout the world postal services are run partly as a service, an essential service, to the public and hence it is accepted that these services are run at a loss. For instance, in the United States postal services are a government responsibility and as such are being run at a loss while the telephone services are being run by private enterprise at a large profit. So, it is recognized in all countries that not all these services can be run at a profit, that it is not essential that a large profit need to be made on, for example, the postal services.

*I was particularly impressed by the plea of the hon. member for Newton Park with regard to the agricultural parcel post service. It is true that this parcel post service includes gift parcels of cake and biscuits to friends and children, but I see it as being something more than this—I see it as being an institution and at the same time as a form of savings for people who have used the service. I have worked out the new tariff—the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong—and I have found that whereas it cost 25 cents in the past to forward a parcel of 10 lbs. by agricultural parcel post, it will cost 75 cents in the future—300 per cent more expensive. Is there any justification for discontinuing the special tariffs for the agricultural parcel post service and now forcing the users thereof to pay the tariff applicable to the ordinary parcel post service?

†The second charge I want to level at the Minister and his department is that not enough is being done effectively to alleviate the huge telephone shortage in South Africa. At the end of last year this shortage amounted to 114 000. The Minister mentioned another ominous figure, i.e. that at the end of this month that shortage will have climbed from 114 000 to 121 000—an increase of almost 6 per cent in three months’ time. Sir, this is galloping inflation with reference to the shortage of telephones. One may wonder whether this shortage is not getting out of the control of the Government. One of the basic problems of the hon. the Minister is to build sufficient telephone exchanges. I say that sufficient are not being built.

Where will the money come from?

There the hon. member goes again! I have told him how the money can be obtained—get a decent Government and that Government will be able to find the money. The Minister mentioned that 63 new exchanges and extensions to existing exchanges will be brought into operation during the current financial year. This may sound impressive, although I submit it is not. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the position is in Great Britain, according to a report I have here on the Post Office’s prospects there? In Great Britain there are only five times more telephones than we have in South Africa. Yet three new exchanges or extensions to existing exchanges are brought into operation every day. This means 1 100 exchanges in a single year. And here we have only 63. Surely, it ought to be clear that, proportionately speaking, enough is not being done here by the hon. the Minister and his department. I wonder, Sir, whether you noticed in the figures which the hon. the Minister gave us, that there was no increase in the number of new telephones over the last financial year. As a matter of fact, there was even a decrease of a coup le of hundred. Sir, that is not an indication of growth; that is not an indication that the problem is being met. There are too few exchanges and there is no acceleration in the provision of new telephones.

The hon. the Minister has told us that during the coming year the number of new telephones will be increased from 85 000 to 100 000. Even that rate of increase is still not enough. The Chief Engineer of the Post Office, Dr. Boyce, has estimated that this country will need at least five million telephones by the year 2000. Today we only have 1 500 000. At the present rate of increase there will be a shortage in the year 2000 of between 500 000 and 1 000 000 telephones. I know it is a fanciful figure, Sir, because this Government will no longer be in power then; there will be a United Party Government and we will see that there are sufficient phones, but I mention this figure on the basis on which the hon. the Minister is working and the way in which we are thinking ahead on this side.

The sad thing that stands out clearly from this debate is that the labour policies of the hon. the Minister and those policies that he has translated from his Department of Labour to the Post Office Department are still not meeting our problem. He cannot explain away the large proportion of the 14 000 turnover annually out of a total personnel of 55 000. I do not think in any other department, in any other section of government or of industry is there a turnover of 25 per cent.

*We should like to learn more from the hon. the Minister about the position in connection with technicians and the shortage of technicians, particularly in the postal service. We know there is a shortage on the establishment, one which is possibly not so extensive, but I am interested, and he ought to be interested in the real shortage, apart from the figures on the establishment. In this respect, too, I take cognizance with interest of the figure mentioned by the Postmaster-General at the end of 1969, i.e. a shortage of 2 000 technical people in the Post Office, a shortage which by far exceeds the shortage the hon. the Minister is prepared to admit to today. I agree that fine work has been done in connection with the Post Office’s structure of posts, but in my opinion there still are certain parts of the structure of posts which are unsatisfactory. These are particularly in the engineering department and in the technical department. I believe there are not sufficient higher posts in these divisions. In this modern world one must get accustomed to the fact, whether it is in an industry, in a business, in a mine or in a Government department, that one’s highly qualified scientists and engineers are in many cases entitled to an even higher salary than that of the head of the department. This is accepted by industry. For that reason I want to emphasize once again that I believe that there is room for further changes to be effected.

†The hon. the Minister is not making full use of the manpower resources available in this country. He knows that there are manpower resources that he can use. He is trying to use some of them via a backdoor. He is following a very commendable policy in making use of private enterprise to assist him in expanding the Post Office, but to what extent is private enterprise making use of non-White labour today, which he dare not or will not or does not want to use in the Post Office? Surely, Sir, if he allows non-White labour to be used in one aspect of the activities of the Post Office, why cannot he also consider it to be used in other aspects?

Sir, the fourth thing that has been shown —and I repeat this—is that basically the financial policy as followed in the Post Office is not sound. It is utterly incomprehensible—and I do not accept any of the arguments that we have heard from the other side—that 62.1 per cent of your capital requirements must be financed out of your profits. Here, Sir, I am at odds with the hon. the Minister in connection with certain figures that he mentioned. He mentioned that in Great Britain more than 50 per cent of the capital requirements is met out of the profits of the British Post Office. Here I have the latest figures. The total capital requirements of the British Post Office in the latest year for which I have the figures were £411 million. This is being financed by internal resources, depreciation allowances, which appear here in the Revenue Vote, and out of profits only to the extent of £66 million out of £411 million, i.e. 16 per cent. The hon. the Minister tells us that the British are financing their capital requirements to the extent of 51 per cent out of profits, and here I have the figure as 16 per cent.

What are you reading from?

Post Office Prospects, 1969-’70, Command Paper No. 3959, issued by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, and if the hon. member gives me two shillings I will buy him one.

Fifthly, Sir, it is clear that this Budget is going to lead to increased production costs and to a worsening of inflation in this country. Here I need not elaborate, because here we have the words of the hon. the Minister himself that his Budget can have and will have those results, in the short term, as he says, and in the long term, as I believe.

The sixth point that is now very clear from this Budget is that basic business principles as demanded by the Post Office Act are not being adhered to the extent that we had hoped for and asked for originally. I wish to repeat that I think the greatest sin is that the Post Office is misusing its position as a monopoly. As monopoly can be an evil in regard to a price policy, and I refer to price policy whether it refers to tariffs or whether it refers to telephone charges. He knows the well-known statement that under a monopoly price policy, the price is the highest you can get, but under free enterprise it is the lowest you can accept. We admit that the Post Office is essentially a monopoly and we cannot do anything about it, but please do not let us adopt those evils of a monopolistic system, as has been done. Sir, we believe that there are certain things which should be added to business principles, which should be included in the term “business principles”, and which we made very clear to the hon. the Minister when we moved an amendment in 1968. I want to say again that this is an amendment which the whole of the Government voted against two years ago. In this amendment we said that business principles should include the following—

That is part of our definition of how the Post Office should be run on business lines. That is the amendment we proposed in this House, and this is what the whole of the Government voted down, namely the necessity to lower tariffs when it is economically feasible to do so.

*I do not have a great deal to say about the hon. the Minister’s speech in reply to the Second Reading, became I do not think he said overmuch in that speech. We hope to hear further replies from him in that connection today. However, I should like to emphasize one thing, in case there is any misunderstanding whatsoever in this regard. That is that we appreciate the making available of statistics to both sides of this House on a larger scale, I think, than this has been done in the past. We appreciate this. We have found the statistics useful and I hope the hon. the Minister, too, has actually been assisted by them in that these statistics possibly prevented a large number of questions being placed on the Order Paper, ones which otherwise would possibly have had to be put.

†I do support the claim made by the hon. member for Houghton, namely that in some respects the Post Office is not adhering to the 50-50 language principle. I want to point out another instance which has come to my notice. A couple of months ago the Post Office decided to issue a house magazine called Postel. I have it here. It is a new paper and quite well written. I do not think they pay any postal charges on it. It is being sent to all staff members and distributed free. It costs the taxpayer R36 000 per year. I am not quite convinced yet of the justification for it, but for the purpose of my argument in regard to the 50-50 principle, in this paper the one language is used 70 per cent of the time and the other language 30 per cent, a clear negation of the principle of 50-50. I do not accept the excuse given by the hon. the Minister that these articles are received in the one language and not in the other. Even if one looks at the articles which are not received but are contributed by the Editor himself, particularly in issues previous to this one, one will see that the principle of 50-50 was not adhered to.

Concerning these concessions, which I do not think are so substantial, but which the hon. member for Houghton thinks are more significant than I would like to give them credit for, I wish to state that we must realize, firstly, that the concessions that give people, who do not have a telephone at all, the right to have a telephone between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., cannot help business too much, because if they did not have these phones, they would have had nothing at all. They would not have interfered with the ordinary calls during the daytime. Then there was another significant statement made by the hon. the Minister in which he said that this would apply only to certain telephone areas. Perhaps he could give us an indication of what those areas are and whether this concession is really so extensive that we can almost say that it will apply to the whole country, or whether it will only apply in some of the larger urban areas.

The next concession is that there will be half-tariffs after, I think, 5 p.m. in the afternoon. We must realize that those half-tariffs will apply only to trunk calls, and not to the ordinary local calls. A local call at 11 o’clock at night will still cost 4 cents. Comparatively speaking, how many trunk calls does one make in comparison to one’s ordinary calls? I do not think that it is really going to make a great deal of difference. Again, these half-tariffs for trunk calls are only going to be applied to certain metered areas. So, indeed, it is by no means as significant a concession as the hon. the Minister tries to make out.

I want to mention another small matter. The Prime Minister is opening the J. G. Strydom tower, and I think that we are all looking forward to a pleasant function later next month. I wish, however, that he would keep a close watch on the charges which the public will have to pay for some of the services in that tower. I have here an article which says that people will have to pay R1 for a cup of tea. I do submit that that is a rather high figure. No matter how wonderful the view is, R1 for a cup of tea is too high, if the article is correct. I can let him have that article. But I would like him to go into that.

There is another matter I want to mention quickly in passing. [Interjection.] No, they are going to get a licence. I hate to think what a glass of beer would cost.

The other matter I want to mention concerns the new contracts which have been handed out for telephone directories. I am not at all satisfied with all that has been done in that respect. I have been comparing the prices. If one looks at the cost of the Transvaal Volume 1A and IB in 1968 and one compares the printing costs with what they are today, one will find that for these two directories alone the printing costs have jumped from R750 000 in 1968 to R3y million today. That is a five-fold increase.

Who is the printer?

An hon. member has asked me who the printers are. The hon. the Minister gave me the particulars in his reply. The printers are T. W. Hayne Ltd. (Hayne & Gibson), Johannesburg, and the publishers are an entirely new body, Maister Directories (Pty.) Ltd. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us who Maister Directories (Pty.) Ltd. are.

There are many other matters I could raise with the hon. the Minister. But I trust that he will take the opportunity when he replies, at least to reply to some of the accusations and some of the statements made by hon. members on this side of the House during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. Otherwise the hon. the Minister stands accused that he has not satisfied the Opposition, that he has not satisfied the House, that he has not satisfied his own followers, that he has not satisfied his supporters in the country. I am afraid that we will now sadly be facing that rather gloomy future in regard to Post Office matters that he has sketched for us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove said at the beginning of his speech that he was going to summarize a few basic charges made by hon. members on his side of the House again. But the hon. member struggled so hard to find basic complaints that he was in fact forced, at the end of his speech, to make a wide detour to get through his allotted time.

What I find so strange about the hon. member and the Opposition is that they are people who hear without hearing and see without seeing. The hon. Minister and other hon. members on this side of the House pointed out time and again that although there is a telephone shortage, that telephone shortage had been alleviated tremendously. This is something which hon. members of the Opposition do not take into account. The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to the labour shortage. I shall return to that.

In an attempt to find enough arguments, the hon. member pointed out that the concessions which the hon. the Minister had mentioned were not being made for local calls, but only for trunk calls. But that is why the hon. the Minister stated it in that way in his Second Reading speech and drew it up on that basis in the Budget.

In this Third Reading stage of the Bill I want to say that the Budget, about which so much was said in the Second Reading stage, is in fact a balanced and very well motivated budget. To my mind it reflects the Department’s determination to keep pace with the already …

You like it. You condone every increase in taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. He is making such a racket that I cannot see you.

I maintain that this reflects the Department’s determination to keep pace with the ever-increasing demands the country is making on its telecommunications systems and postal services. Hon. members of the Opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove, came forward in the Second Reading debate with destructive criticism. They came forward with miserable—that is the word which he used —criticism. They made a negative contribution to the debate. They came forward with mere generalizations. Where they were more specific, it was in respect of isolated complaints or grievances. In one case an hon. member on the Opposition side had to go to his neighbour to borrow a few grievances which he could submit to this House.

The Opposition was not specific. This afternoon I want to be much more specific in my arguments. I want to say that tremendous demands have been, and are being made, on the Department. I want to use my constituency as an example. My constituency, Koedoespoort, is one of the growth points in the Pretoria complex. I think it is a very good thing to use this constituency as an example.

In Silverton, in my constituency, a new Post Office is being built at a cost of R75 000. There is a new automatic exchange building in Meyerspark under construction which will eventually cost R105 000. True, Meyerspark does fall in my neighbouring constituency, but thousands of my voters will benefit from the construction of that new telephone exchange. An automatic telephone exchange is being built at Silverton at a cost of R190 000. The cost of extending the Queenswood automatic exchange, on which the Department is now working, amounts to R50 000. In addition, money is being appropriated for new works on the boundary of my constituency, at The Willows, where a telephone exchange costing R170 000 is planned. My voters will benefit from this as well. This means that in a period of approximately five years R590 000 in costs will have been incurred by the Department in my constituency. Then, too, I just want to mention in passing that in this constituency a supply depot, which is essential, is being built at an amount of R900 000. I challenge hon. members of the Opposition to tell me that the works which are being constructed for these amounts, are unnecessary and that it is not essential that those services be rendered.

The Opposition levelled the accusation here that there is a lack of planning. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke in his Second Reading speech of “the failure of past and present planning”. This accusation of his in an unfair, unjustified and nonsensical accusation against the higher officials of the Post Office who are involved in this planning. There has been no lack of planning and I am saying this on the basis of knowledge I have acquired in my own constituency. Work which had to be carried out was slowed down however, because of a lack of funds. We know how funds were curtailed and restricted by the Treasury before the Post Office became independent. During the whole period of 10 years I have been here, I have never heard hon. members on the opposite side of the House come forward with arguments to say that too little is being done for the Post Office. They have always come forward with the argument that too many taxes are being levied, and that as a result too much is being spent.

I want to refer to the telephone services, a topic which has been raised here many times already. The demand for telephone services as everyone knows, has soared. In my constituency it is also the case that there are many people on the waiting lists, because this is a growth point. I obtained a list from the Postmaster-General which indicated to me what the shortage of telephones in the various sectors of constituency was. However, these people are satisfied because they see what is being done. For that reason I am not continually receiving complaints, such as those to which those hon. members referred.

Are they satisfied with the fact that they are not getting telephones?

The hon. member can just wait until I have finished my argument. These people are satisfied to know that they are going to get their services, because the work is in progress at the moment, or will be completed, as I have already said. The Post Office is grappling with the task of providing these services, which have resulted from shortages created by the burgeoning economy of the past few years. The Post Office, however, cannot keep up with this demand, particularly because it is hamstrung by two physical limitations. The first is, as has been mentioned more than once, the manpower shortage. This is of course a worldwide phenomenon. This shortage is particularly perceptible in those services where there is a shortage of technicians. The second physical limitation, and now I want hon. members to take note of this, is the production capacity of the factories manufacturing telecommunations equipment. One must bear in mind that the equipment can only be supplied at least two years after it has been ordered. In addition it takes approximately a year to install.

At this stage, with the conclusion of this debate, I should like to put a few specific and cardinal questions to the Opposition in regard to this entire matter. It seems to me the hon. member for Simons-town or the hon. member for Jeppes is going to speak after me. Whoever it is going to be can reply to what I have said. I want to put a few simple and straightforward questions to the Opposition. Is the Opposition opposed to the improved posts and salary structure and to the salary increases given to the Post Office staff?

No.

The hon. member must wait until I have put all my questions. Is the Opposition opposed to the expansion of telecommunication services, which includes, inter alia, the establishment of new exchanges and the expansion of existing exchanges, in order to find a rapid solution in this way to the telephone shortage? My third question is closely bound up with this. Is the Opposition opposed to the modernization and automation of the Post Office? At present, as a result of the installation of automatic exchanges, 30 000 additional people would at this stage have been necessary for that service. Now I want to ask the Opposition where these workers were to have been found? My following question is whether the Opposition is opposed to the construction of buildings, post offices and the purchase of land needed for the construction of these buildings? There is a long list of automatic exchanges under construction, and the hon. member for Orange Grove has also referred to this already. In addition, the Opposition must be more specific and tell us on what items and services, mentioned in the Budget, less money should be spent. If the Opposition agrees that this expenditure is essential and the hon. member for Orange Grove has done this already by way of an interjection, they must support the Budget of the hon. the Minister. Then they must also agree that the need for tariff adjustments does in fact exist. Then the Opposition must also inevitably agree with the paragraph in this illuminating memorandum which deals with the need for tariff adjustments.

If the hon. Opposition does not agree with this, however, there is a further important question I must put to them. Where must the Post Office, as an independent establishment based on business principles, get its funds from for the current and operating costs in respect of expansions? The policy of the hon. the Minister is very clearly set out in the memorandum to which I have just referred, specifically on page 5 under the heading “Needs for adequate self-financing”. Hon members on the opposite side, including the hon. member who spoke before me, criticized this policy of course and found fault with the Post Office wanting to finance approximately 15 per cent of its expansion capital from ordinary revenue. However, those funds must be acquired. The Opposition is advocating larger loans with which to tackle these expansions. Hon. members on the opposite side did so yesterday, but surely they know that one cannot simply go and make loans, but that it can only be done through the Treasury.

I want to point out to hon. members on the opposite side that at this moment the Post Office already has a great burden of debt. When one studies the statement of estimated revenue and expenditure, one finds that the interest on loans in regard to expenditure on postal services, amounts to R1 183 000. The interest on loans in regard to the expected expenditure on telecommunication services will amount to R18 817 000, a total of R20 million. This interest must be paid and the capital redemption must take place. From where and out of what must this then be done? The conclusion any sensible person comes to is that as a result of this tremendously increasing curve of salary and price increases, it has become impossible to avoid telephone tariff and postal adjustments. This will to a greater or lesser degree affect every person who makes use of the telecommunication services and of the Post Office as such. But surely it is essential that these services be supplied and expanded in order to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. What was the general reaction of commerce to this matter? As a whole commerce did not react at all unfavourably to this Budget. I think our public are prepared to pay more, because they believe that they will in that way also obtain greater efficiency, and that the expansion of services will take place where there are none. The increased postal and telecommunication tariffs create a major challenge for all involved. I think firstly of the Department. When the Post Office now has sufficient money, there is a moral obligation on every official to render even better services in future. This is a challenge which is being issued to everyone from the Postmaster-General down to the most humble messenger.

Sir, my time has expired. I just want to conclude by referring to another matter. Arising out of what the hon. the Minister said yesterday, as well as recommendations which have been made in regard to the after-hour services, I thought that, since we are people who are fond of animals and birds, we could perhaps use the term “the night-owl service”, because the night owl is a bird which wakes up in the evening, stays wide awake all night, and goes to sleep again after the break of day.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member who has just sat down, I want to say that it is quite obvious to anyone—I do not think it required the hon. member to point it out—that every service must expand as time goes on. The salaries of the employees of a big organization must continue to be improved. Obviously we go along with that. But why must the year 1971 pay for the inhibited, backward policy that has been pursued by this Government with regard to the postal services over the last 10 or 15 years? That is the answer to the question. What has happened is that the Minister and his department have woken up to the fact that you cannot carry along at an ox-wagon pace. Something has to be done. They realize that in the course of years there has accumulated a backlog with regard to services, telephone installations and telecommunications in general, simply because they never had the courage, and perhaps not even the interest, to face up to this problem satisfactorily. But I want to say that I need the mouthpiece of the Government itself to support what I say, because their own newspaper, the Transvaler says:

Everybody realizes that unless something is going to be improved, this Government is going to get itself into a bigger and bigger mess as time goes on.

At the Third Reading of this Bill we are facing the fact that Parliament has by its acceptance of the Bill at its Second Reading and the various clauses at the Committee Stage, decided that the country is going to be taxed to the extent of 25 per cent of the expenditure that can normally be expected, i.e. another R49 million or R50 million. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister, and I do so with the backing of the entire country, his own Press and followers, that a very important responsibility rests on his shoulders to ensure that in a business where all one has to do is to ask for more money and make people pay more for services—and they have to because there is nowhere else to obtain these services—that business is run satisfactorily and well, that it renders service to the public and thus alleviates the problems under which they have been suffering. He must ensure that the country will not be subjected continually during the next couple of years—as he has in all probability implied in an earlier speech—to the further difficulty under which this country has suffered in regard to its postal services almost ad nauseam because we cannot deny the fact that a bill which doubles itself because of wrong numbers and overloading, is not falling upon the shoulders of someone. It is all very well to increase a telephone call to 4 cents only to find that in actual fact one is going to pay 8 cents for that call whereby the income the Minister and his department will receive, will almost be doubled. Every newspaper in the country has protested on one ground, i.e. if you are asked to pay more, then improve the services. This is important and vital.

The manpower position has been neglected over the years—hence the difficulties in which the Minister finds himself. It is very easy to say that the same problem exists in other countries but other countries do not have problems to the same extent with telephone services in so far as the public is concerned, because there are adequate services. There they do not suffer from the shortcomings and the gaps we are suffering from because they deal with their services realistically and progressively.

You are talking nonsense now.

It is nonsense only in the ears of the hon. member. Of course, he does not want to acknowledge the neglect of the last 10, 15 years. Unfortunately there is no one here now to answer for that neglect. Yet the hon. the Minister ought to be well aware of what has happened because one of his predecessors was a former colleague of his. He ought to train people. I am not suggesting the type of labour. Coloured or otherwise, which the Minister ought to use. Europe is full of technicians. There they are in an advanced field of electronics. One has only to offer attractive opportunities in order to attract people to come here to render these services. I know of a person from France who was here on a temporary visa. He was to fill a post for a year but at the end of the year he was asked to leave the country. I do not know the reason therefor, although I believe he was a first-class technician. [Interjections.] I am demonstrating some of the short-sightedness that goes on. Thousands of electronic experts and qualified artisans in France, in Italy, in Germany and in Britain are willing to go to other countries if sufficient opportunities are being offered to them. Why is Australia full of these people? Why does Australia take in 220 000 immigrants per year? Why does Australia manage to get 100 000 recruits in the field of labour? Does not the Minister see his way clear to call upon the tremendous reserve of labour in South Africa—unskilled labour it is true—but labour which can be trained as it is being done in the field of motorcar assembly and building, a tremendous untapped source of labour which can be trained without sacrificing one principle in our way of living in South Africa. The Minister must not come along and tell us that we want him to take unskilled labour. The Minister is intelligent enough, believe me, and does not need advice from his backbenchers. He understands what labour means, he understands how to handle it and I am sure that if he applies himself sincerely and genuinely to the problem he can easily do it.

Let me now come to automatic exchanges. The hon. member for Orange Grove also dealt with this, and it was also raised by me last year. The crux of the trouble we have with overloading, wrong numbers, with shortages and other problems is due to the fact that we do not have sufficient automatic exchanges. I read a report that in 1968 it had already been realized that there was a shortage of automatic exchanges in the country. All that was needed to be done was that proper provision should then have been made not to build only two or three automatic exchanges but to launch a vast programme for the provision of these exchanges. This lies at the base of the problem which is ¡facing us. With the exchanges there are, we have overloading and all its attendant troubles. In August, 1970, Dr. Boyce gave expression to it, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Orange Grove. This then is the field on which the hon. Minister must concentrate. I pointed out to him during the Second Reading debate and would like to reiterate it now that it is sound and wise to separate telecommunications, which are being used mainly by the business community, from the telephone services, which are to a large extent being used by the domestic users. There can then be some variation which can alleviate the tariffs which are falling so heavily on a section of the community that can ill afford to bear it. In the business field these charges will admittedly be passed on but there it is spread over a very wide field and, consequently, we can discount this. In the domestic field, however, it falls directly on the shoulders of domestic users. The Minister says that in the coming year he is going to provide 100 000 new telephones. What I would like to know is whether he is going to provide these telephones strictly in order of priority —in other words, whether the present actual backlog of 100 000 odd telephones is going to be wiped out by this 100 000 he is going to provide so that by the end of the coming financial year we shall have a backlog only in respect of the current period. It is important to know that. I am not satisfied that that is going to happen. Already there are a number of people who have been waiting a considerable time. Consequently I should like to repeat my appeal that the hon. the Minister ought, from a public relations point of view, to tackle this in a certain manner. I would suggest that first of all we ought to have a complete reassessment of the present backlog; secondly, publish in the Press and advise applicants and subscribers of areas where telephone services are not available and what time-lag there is.

I would also like to know whether the so-called sundowner services on party lines will be offered as soon as possible in an attempt to catch up with the current applications and to ensure that some sort of service is provided. After all, Sir, it is very easy to hide behind the defence that there is a tremendous backlog that will take a few years to wipe out. Sir, problems are meant to be overcome. They must not constantly be placed before the public and used as a defence against charges of lack of action and lack of proper planning. Furthermore, I would like to know whether new applicants will constantly be informed of the problems that exist. We have a certain obligation towards the public, an obligation which cannot be discharged by giving a network of service only to the vast concerns. We also have an obligation to provide services to the ordinary member of the public. Does the Minister know that only approximately 7 per cent of the population of this country are telephone users, and does he realize that this compares very unfavourably with the position in countries in other parts of the world where the percentage of telephone users is very much larger? Does he know that in August, 1970 when an assessment was made, it was found that nearly every telephone exchange in the Cape Peninsula was closed and that no further telephones could be added to those exchanges? Does he know, for instance, that the number of closed exchanges in the country, that is to say, exchanges with no more lines to offer, increased from 41 in 1966 to 114 in 1970? Does he know, for instance, that all over the country there is an ever-increasing shortage of facilities? Does he know that until recent years the rate at which the backlog was being met was 20 per cent below the average rate which should have been maintained by the postal services in order to keep pace with the development of the country.

Sir, I think that this Budget indicates only one thing and that is that over a number of years this Government has failed the country in this important field. It is only now that the hon. the Minister has come to grips with the problem that he has realized how the country has been let down. Unfortunately the public have to pay for this. Unfortunately the man in the street will have to bear the brunt of this. There is no point in hiding behind the Act. The Act merely says that you cannot ask for more revenue than your capital requirements warrant, but it does not say that you must finance your capital requirements out of current revenue. There are many methods of financing, and it would have been fair and reasonable if the Minister had come to the conclusion that he should finance his capital requirements in stages. In a serious situation such as the present one he could perhaps have tried to get more loan capital and spread the burden of expenditure over the next seven, eight or ten years instead of providing now for his capital requirements over the next ten years and imposing this tremendous burden on the public. Whilst this Budget is conceived financially as any monopolistic business would, that is to say, it is taking money whenever it wants it and from wherever it wants it and in the easiest way that it can get it, I say it is ill-conceived, because although it is a business undertaking in terms of the Act, it is nevertheless a State undertaking. It has to take into account the financial position of the taxpayers; it has to take into account the services it renders to the taxpayers and it has to take into account the fact that the taxpayers are its only source of revenue. Therefore it has to deal with them much more kindly and much more lightly and leniently than what I think is this harsh manner in which such a globular sum has been placed on their shoulders to meet the commitments of the Minister and his department for the next 10 years.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

The chief critic on the Opposition side started off his speech by saying that he wanted to formulate his charges against the Post Office, against me and against the Government; he wanted to summarize the basic things for us. But what came of this formulation or summary? We heard insignificant references such as that tea might now cost R1 in the J. G. Strydom Tower. I do not know whether it is going to cost R1 now. As you know very well, Sir, that is a private undertaking and if people are so stupid as to pay R1, they must go ahead and do so. It is a private undertaking which will have to decide whether it must charge less or not. But this is the type of criticism we have had.

The other question was in regard to the telephone directory. He wanted to know by whom it is printed, in spite of the fact that in the course of this session the hon. member asked me a question running to two folio pages about this matter. But in spite of that, time was spent on this occasion to ask me about the telephone directory when basic things should have been discussed. It is not surprising that the United Party’s opposition is as hopeless as it is. I personally, who am new to this task, expect criticism from the Opposition side, but then I hope it will be material criticism, criticism which is well-founded and has some substance. In that case they would be helping me, but if they raise insignificant matters of this type, I am afraid the Opposition can contribute very little towards the proper functioning of the Post Office. I shall now point out some of those aspects. I am going to point out the absolute blunders that were committed here.

By saying that he appreciated the White Paper that was issued, the hon. member did in fact try to rectify what the hon. member for Newton Park said yesterday when he wanted to discredit this White Paper by labelling it as a piece of propaganda. I am very glad he did this, because there is nothing in that White Paper that he can refute, since it contains facts which are of use to everyone in this House and in the country. They will receive these White Papers in future for their edification, and these may help them perhaps to make contributions here which have more substance than what I have heard thus far.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said, in his own words, “that the loss in postal services is coming down and therefore there is no need to increase tariffs”. Yes, it has come down in recent years, but the hon. member should at least know that in 1969 the loss was R4.3 million, in 1970 it was R12.1 million and this year it decreased to R11.3 million. But the hon. member, who is an expert on postal affairs, should know why it decreased.

As a result of the tariffs.

That is correct. It decreased as a result of the tariffs, but surely that is not an accurate picture to present. If these tariffs were not introduced in this Budget now, the loss on postal services at the end of the year we are now entering would be R14.8 million. I was further regaled here with what the British Budget contribution to capital investment allegedly was. I was told here that it was not 54 per cent as I had stated; no, it was 16 per cent. Now I should like to read to the hon. member from the actual British document. I have here the “Telephone Progress Annual Report, 1969-’70” of the British Telephone Service. I shall first read from this and then

I shall read from a subsequent document of the British postal service. It is stated here—

Does that include depreciation?

First listen to this—

Let me come back to that percentage. I have here a subsequent document of the British Post Office, namely “Post Office: Cost of Communications”, issued by the British Department of Posts. This contains a schedule: “Where the capital will come from”. They indicate the previous percentage here, i.e. 40 per cent. A card is included which reads as follows: “Self finance—54 per cent; Borrowing 46 per cent”. This is the 54 per cent to which I referred as being charged by the British Department of Posts. Then the Opposition said in the same breath that we were in fact supplying fewer services now as a result of all our capital utilization. Let me give hon. members three figures. They are not in terms of telephones, because I have given more than enough in that regard in this Budget. I am going to give these figures to hon. members in other terms now, namely in terms of the number of call units made over three different recent years. In 1968 the number of call units made in South Africa was 1 604 million. At the end of this month the number for the present financial year will be 2 700 million call units. By the end of next year, when we shall again present a Budget here, it will have risen by 600 000 to 3 300 million for the ensuing year. In other words, there will be an increase of 22.2 per cent in call units in the ensuing year. Can one still say, then, that nothing is being done?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Do the number of calls mentioned by him also include wrong numbers and crossed lines? This is a serious question.

The United Party will not be able to make out a case against this development project by means of these insignificant matters such as that one has to pay R1 for a cup of tea. These facts of ours speak for themselves. The services established by us are the points that count and I am going to refer to them in a moment.

The hon. member also asked me a question in regard to the part-time service. He asked where it was applicable. It is being offered mainly in the big cities, especially on the Witwatersrand. The intention is that it can be expanded as the variable time interval system expands. Incidentally, as regards the name, in regard to which I asked for suggestion yesterday, the hon. member for Koedoespoort called it the “night-owl service”. I want to say that until such time as the public has given us a clear indication in this regard, it would perhaps be a good idea if, for the purpose of the proper official name, we stick to “part-time service” in English and “deeltydse diens” in Afrikaans. I think these terms describe it very aptly. Until such time as we find better terms for it, I should like to leave it at these terms.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he wanted to formulate his charge against us. He wanted to outline the basic matters to us. I should like to do the same in regard to this debate. We have listened to this debate. We have listened to press comment from outside this House. On the basis of this debate and of reactions in responsible circles outside this House, I now wish to put it to you that it is the considered impression that these tariff increases are regarded as justified, that the private sector accepts them as such, and that organized commerce and industry in fact welcome them, because they realize that their purpose is better service. My impression is also that there is very wide appreciation for the balanced way in which these tariff increases have been introduced. What is particularly appreciated by commerce and industry is the way in which they were informed about them in good time. For the first time, organized commerce and industry were informed four months before the time in regard to the tariffs that will be applicable from 1st April. This was highly appreciated by them generally, as a deputation of the consultative committee of commerce and industry intimated to me the other day. This appreciation exists outside this House because the considerable concessions that have been made have definitely met with a favourable reception.

In regard to the question of the utilization of the trading surpluses, in respect of which I mentioned the British example by way of substantiation, I want to say that there can always be difference of opinion in this House on a matter such as this. There will be difference of opinion on the question whether capital expenditure should be covered to such an extent by the trading surpluses. But I think I have provided more than sufficient proof that this is a basically sound principle, that it is in accordance with business principles and that it is a principle which is in accordance with what is done in other leading countries, such as Britain, in respect of which I quoted official documents as well. I have also furnished proof that it is the right principle in our case.

In regard to the important question of telecommunications, I think it has also been proved that the Post Office, as I indicated a moment ago on the basis of call units, is in fact making a tremendous attempt to master the situation. Even the less popular steps which are being taken in the short term, are generally welcomed because they are being taken with understanding, in the knowledge that they will be the most beneficial in the long run. In regard to their unpopularity, it has always been the attitude of this Government that if it believes something to be in the best interests of South Africa, it is obliged to do it.

In regard to staff matters, I want to say that since the Post Office staff is the department’s greatest asset, it will no doubt encourage them that so many members in this House, not only on my side, but also on the opposite side, have expressed appreciation for their hard work, their dedication and the selfless service rendered by them.

In regard to labour in general, I want to say that in this debate, as they have done in so many other debates, the Opposition again spoke very glibly, superficially and irresponsibly about the utilization of various types of labour. The hon. member for Orange Grove once again spoke about the great “labour force” which is allegedly available and which we do not want to use. The hon. member for Jeppes spoke about the “tremendous labour force” which we simply do not want to use. According to him, if we were not so obtuse and would make use of this “tremendous force”, everyone would have a telephone and South Africa would be a Canaan.

In regard to labour matters, I should perhaps say in the first place that the Post Office is very fortunate in having a very happy and contented labour corps. This voluntary action of theirs in spontaneously offering to work longer hours is probably the best proof of this. One sees this in their official magazines, which also endorse this. Although the latest salary increase of R18 million certainly contributed towards this spirit, I want to say that it is my considered opinion that this is not the only reason for this healthy spirit. No, I think the truth lies in the healthy employee-employer relationships existing in the Post Office. My department and I attach value to conducting an open and constant dialogue with our Post Office workers by means of their postal associations. Therefore we shall continue doing so. This dialogue and this contact also have special significance for us in handling the entire labour situation. In regard to the question of labour, about which the United Party speaks so lightly, I want to say that any change in the practices or policy in regard to labour that are introduced in the Post Office, will as far as possible be introduced in consultation with the Post Office staff associations concerned.

That is right; that is what we expect.

In regard to the

supplementing of labour, which we need in the Post Office as any other developing institution does, I just want to say that a great deal is being done to eliminate those shortages. The intensive recruitment campaigns launched and still being launched in our own country, have borne fruit in the past year. They have been particularly successful. Our overseas recruitment campaigns have not been entirely fruitless either, but we do have problems in that regard. The problems cannot be solved as easily as the hon. member for Jeppes, who says that “Europe is full of technicians”, thinks. According to him a multitude of them are sitting there waiting to be picked up. This is of course not true. Surely this is an absolutely ridiculous view of the matter. After all, there is no large accumulation of technicians in Europe waiting to come to South Africa. Are hon. members aware of the position met with there by our recruiting teams? They find that they are not allowed to operate in West Germany, because West Germany simply does not want to part with one single person.

They do not want to come.

It is not a question of their not wanting to come, but they do not want to go to any other country. If the hon. members could only rid themselves of their anti-South African attitude, they would be able to make a greater contribution in South Africa. The question is not that they do not want to come to South Africa, but West Germany does not want them to go to any other country, because they themselves need them in West Germany. This is precisely the point. The position is the same in the Netherlands. The feeling there is that they do not want to allow their technicians to go to South Africa or to any other country because they themselves need them. Therefore it is ridiculous to assert that there is such a mass of technicians in Europe for the taking. I can tell hon. members that we are doing what we can in this regard. In the last recruiting campaign, we recruited 280 persons. Our next recruiting team has already gone out and we hope it will obtain a larger number. However, it is a complete illusion to think that one will obtain many more than this. We are supplementing this shortage by means of recruitment in our own country and also by developing the capabilities of our own people by offering better courses. Furthermore, attempts are being made to improve matters by the introduction of bonuses. To say, as the United Party does, that one must simply introduce Black labour and start tapping the “tremendous labour force”, and that this would solve all the problems, is quite absurd, because our needs in the field of telecommunications are not on the level of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, but on the level of the professional and technical staff. This is where you need the people, and if you cannot obtain the professional and technical staff, the “tremendous Black labour force” will not be able to do anything for you. We have a limited source from which we can draw these technical or professional people. There is no instant solution to this problem. No United Party solution will be any use either. All that is needed, is that we get the technical and professional people at the right places and retain them.

I therefore want to say that as regards non-Whites and the “tremendous Black force” of the United Party, we are making use of non-Whites. We are training them on the lower technical levels so that they may go and work in their own areas. I have mentioned this very frequently in this House. We shall continue to train non-Whites on these lower technical levels to work in their own areas and for their own people. Experience will have to show what progress we will make in this regard. Time will tell to what extent the non-Whites and the Bantu are able to perform these professional and technical services. Until now our experience has been a different one, different even from what the hon. member for Houghton would like to know. This morning a major industrialist who came to see me spoke about the same matter, i.e. the large shortage of skilled staff. Although he is no supporter of my party, he had to admit that Black labour is good for unskilled and semi-skilled work, but unsuitable for technical and professional work. It is in this respect that the United Party is labouring under an illusion. They think that if the policy were changed and all the labour sluices were opened, we would be in Canaan. That is merely an illusion. On an occasion such as this, I therefore wish to repeat that we shall continue using the non-Whites in this country and training them so that they may serve their own people in their own areas on those lower technical levels, but time will have to tell us how far we will go with that. In this process we shall consult the staff associations, so much so that we will not disturb the labour peace we have in the Post Office.

Harmonious employer/employee relations are an important factor to us, and it is also important to establish a high morale and a happy labour corps. I therefore want to give this House and the officials the assurance that I as Minister will do nothing—outside of the broad policy of the Government—to disturb these relations in any way. I accept my new task in this spirit, and this is also the spirit in which I shall tackle my new task together with the officials in order to enable the Post Office to perform its important function for South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, last time I was explaining to the House that I had found the amendments of the hon. member for Transkei to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3 (1) acceptable. In addition I also said that the new subsection (1) (e) proposed by the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Houghton was simply not acceptable. ·

I have not moved it yet, but I will.

Yes, but it is already in the Order Paper. I want to leave the matter at that and first say a few words in regard to the other amendments on the Order Paper. In the last section of his amendment the hon. member for Transkei proposes that members of that body be nominated. The local authority, as the Bill now reads, shall submit a list of names to the Minister and from that one or two members must be nominated to this Administration Board. The hon. member for Transkei proposes that the local authority should nominate some person from the local authority to that board. Unfortunately, I do not find this acceptable. I want to make it very clear why this is not possible, so that we do not misunderstand each other in regard to this matter. We are trying to establish a board here, which must consist of experts for a greater administration area, as I have emphasized more than once. These must be experts in the field of Bantu labour and in the field of Bantu persons as individuals.

They must all be Broederbonders.

The hon. member must not try to be funny now when I am being serious. We should like to appoint experts to those boards. Thus, if I were now to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member there, I would be destroying the entire object and aim, which is very important, of this entire matter. That is therefore my first consideration. I am now asking the hon. gentleman on the opposite side to understand this matter and to help us to establish boards which are really expert.

I have said we are living in an era of specialization. In respect, too, of this burning and extremely important, delicate matter of Bantu administration in White areas, the time has arrived, and I believe there is a need for, true expertize and specialization. I am asking: Give us a chance to do so, against the background of fair practice, which I have said on more than one occasion to hon. members, and also proved, I think, in respect of the implementation of this matter as well. Give us this chance now, so that those who are prepared to fall in with this, can see whether establishing such a board of experts will not be very successful. Thus, in order to comply with this request now, I would have to detract from a very important principle and objective which is being stated. I do not see my way clear to doing so. But there are other reasons as well.

Could you perhaps tell us what kind of people will serve as experts on the board?

When I come to my second point now, I will perhaps be able to explain. What we would not like either now is that that board should consist of representatives of trade, industry, agriculture and the local authorities. If those people are appointed as representatives of these sectors, one is in fact then projecting the problems of those sectors into that board by means of representatives, if they are present there in that capacity, while we now want to make this a statutory board of experts. I want to mention another example now. If one has ten local authorities on the Witwatersrand in a greater administration area and the representative of each local authority who is going to be appointed to the board, is regarded as a representative, for example one from Bakpan, one from Johannesburg, one from Benoni and one from Germiston, and if in addition to that there are representatives of commerce, who have to report back, and there are representatives of industry, who are accountable to industry, one would be transmitting all these problems of those sectors to that board. What we actually want to do now, surely, is to rise above that position.

We want to have the commercial people there, not as representatives of commerce, but as people who have the necessary background, knowledge and experience in the field of commerce, of Bantu labour and of the Bantu as individuals. I would like to have people there from industry, not as representatives of industry, but as people who are appointed on account of their background, knowledge and experience in the field of industry as far as Bantu labour and Bantu individuals are concerned. The same applies to agriculture and other spheres.

What about the city councils?

I am coming to that. I hope I have expressed myself clearly now. As far as the local authorities are concerned, the city councils, the position is precisely the same. Why am I conceding that “one or more” should be appointed from, the local authorities? I want to say at once that in discussions we have had, we mulled over this question of “one or more” at great length. The reason why we did not accept it at that stage already, was simply because the local authority people themselves felt that the board would then become very large and clumsy. But to accommodate them, I decided as I have now explained, “one or more” therefore. Why do we want them there if I say that we do not want them there as representatives of a local authority? The fact of the matter is that we would like to have them there; in fact, we need them very badly there, and I shall prove this when we come to a discussion of the other amendments. We want them there by virtue of their background of local authority matters and by virtue of their specific knowledge of the Bantu and their labour. That is why we want them there. But if they were to be there to present a separate local authority, such as that of Brakpan, or that of Johannesburg, then nothing is solved, we would only be creating new problems. I am therefore asking again that hon. members should be reasonable and must try to understand that we are not specifying that a local authority may not nominate its own people for any other reason than the reason I have just mentioned now.

There is still a third and last reason I want to mention. Now I must express myself carefully. Hon. members will realize that this legislation is not being made merely with an eye to the city council of Johannesburg. I notice that there is too much of a tendency among hon. members opposite to approach the entire matter only from the viewpoint of the city council of Johannesburg.

No.

I am not levelling any accusations, but am merely pointing out a very irksome problem. The actual position is that Johannesburg is only one local authority out of more than 450 in the country.

But one million Bantu are living there.

I want to emphasize that this legislation has not been drawn up simply for the Johannesburg City Council—absolutely not. But I want the co-operation of the Johannesburg City Council here; I can assure you of that. If the hon. members opposite have not yet realized this, the Johannesburg City Council does. But in many rural towns, in small communities where the one person knows the other, local authorities consist of so many United Party members and so many National Party members. If they were now to allow local authorities to make nominations, what is going to happen? As certain as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, a city council, if it has a National Party majority, is not going to nominate a United Party member even if that United Party member is the greatest expert in the field. [Interjections.] On the other hand again, where you have a council on which twelve United Party members and five National Party members are serving, surely it is expecting too much to think that that town council will appoint a National Party member. [Interjections.] I know both the United Party and the National Party too well for that. Never, never will it happen, never, particularly not in the rural areas. The hon. members know that as well as I do. That is why I am asking hon. members to understand the logic of our arguments. There are no ulterior motives. If I had the certainty that by giving town councils the power to make nominations we would be getting the right experts, I would not hesitate for a moment to concede. But in the light of this practical problem, I do not see my way clear to doing so. That is why I am making an appeal for cordial cooperation here as well.

Despite the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has already indicated that he was not prepared to accept the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I am going to move it nevertheless. Maybe I shall be able to persuade him to change his mind. The amendment is as follows—

more”; and to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (1):

(e) one or more shall be appointed from the membership of the urban Bantu council, if any, in the area of each urban local authority the whole or part of whose area of jurisdiction is included in the board’s administration area.

You move it as a matter of principle.

No. I move it because I very much hope that I shall be able to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister to change his mind. He has a very engaging way in putting his case and pleads with us to accept his bona fides, to accept that he is trying to be reasonable. Well, I hope to be able to persuade him of the same thing as far as I am concerned.

I have asked for this “one or more” because although the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated that it is not the intention …

That I have accepted.

Order! That amendment was moved by the hon. member for Transkei.

Well, I am very glad to hear that it has been accepted.

It is the same as yours.

Is it? Well, it is not on the Order Paper. I wish they would leave these things on the Order Paper until the clause has been disposed of. In any event, I am glad to hear that it has been accepted.

I still feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument that people are not there as representatives of a particular municipality is very peculiar because whether he likes it or not these people are going to act as representatives. I cannot imagine a man appointed by Brakpan, for instance, not considering that he is there to represent Brakpan’s interests. It seems to me that the light in which this man is going to regard it is that he is appointed from the municipality of Brakpan by the hon. the Minister. Incidentally, I must say I like this idea that he is not going to appoint a Nationalist. He is going to be absolutely impartial; he is going to be absolutely objective about the political affiliations of his nominee. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are going to watch him very carefully indeed and he had better put at least one non-Nationalist on that board from some little municipality or other, otherwise everybody is going to ask him, “What about the undertaking you gave in this regard?” I must say, Sir, that I do not believe that a man from Brakpan is going to consider himself to be anything but the representative of Brakpan and the man from Johannesburg is going to regard himself as the representative of Johannesburg. I must say it is ridiculous, although the Deputy Minister said that there were 450 little municipal bodies all over the place, to try to class some of the small platteland dorps with an enormous metropolitan area like Johannesburg, or with Cape Town or Durban; it is absurd. Their interests are different and those men are going to represent the interests of the area from which they come.

What worries me more particularly is that there is absolutely no distinction drawn between the man who is supposed to have a wide knowledge of Bantu labour matters in agriculture and other representatives. Right throughout the discussion of this Bill we have been talking about urban administration, but at the top of the list is the man who has to have a knowledge of the Bantu labour requirements of agriculture. Well, I do not like that. I must say that I have deep suspicions about this, particularly if one reads this in conjunction with a later clause in this Bill which gives the Deputy Minister the power to supply the labour requirements of these areas. I think this is very unbalanced in view of the fact that basically this was to deal with the mobility of labour in an industrial area like the Wit-watersrand, for instance. Although the hon. the Deputy Minister says that this Bill was not introduced to deal with Johannesburg as such, right throughout the discussions, right throughout the explanations of the Bill and through the Press reports that he has given, one has had the idea that it is mobility within these industrial areas that he is concerned with. But labour for agricultural areas appears right at the top of the list.

I presume that the part of my amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept is the proposed addition of paragraph (e). He is not prepared to have a member of an urban Bantu council on this board. Is it because in principle he is against mixed boards, or is it because he does not attach any importance whatsoever to having a member of the urban Bantu council on that board? After all, who knows more about the needs as human beings of the people concerned—I am now not talking about the economic question of labour units and all that—than the elected member of the urban Bantu council? Now why will the hon. the Minister not have any such representation on the board? Is it his intention to have any consultation at all with the established urban Bantu councils? Because I want to know what the purpose was of setting up urban Bantu councils if no consultation with these bodies is going to take place as far as this vital matter of the utilization of African labour is concerned. I should like some explanation as to why the hon. the Minister has rejected out of hand, even before he has heard any argument on this score, the suggestion that there be a member of the urban Bantu councils on the boards which are going to be set up for the different areas.

Order! The hon. member has not moved her amendment.

Yes. I moved both parts.

The first one has already been moved by the hon. member for Transkei. I can only accept the second part.

I realize that and I therefore move—

(e) one or more shall be appointed from the membership or the urban Bantu council, if any, in the area of each urban local authority the whole or part of whose area of jurisdiction is included in the board’s administration area.

What the last section which the hon. member for Houghton has just dealt with amounts to basically is the difference between the various political policies of this side and that side of the House. I think I am quite correct when I say that the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday evening that the amendment was not acceptable to him because he did not advocate a mixed board of this nature, because it was not the policy of this side of the House. Therefore, there is probably no lack of clarity in regard to that, but now the hon. member is also asking whether it is not perhaps also true—I am stating this in my own words now—that we are absolutely against the Bantu in this connection and that there is in fact a kind of antagonistic feeling. That is the problem. The hon. member always senses antagonism if one does not want to give the Bantu something on a board or on some occasion or other which she would like them to be given. I should just like to deal with this, and this ties in with what the hon. member for Transkei said here yesterday evening in his argument: Give these people representation on the board so that they can be trained in local government matters. I think that is the argument and I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to do so because we have already created opportunities for these people to be trained in local authority matters. That is also the reply to the hon. member for Houghton. We are not begrudging these people anything. We have given them these opportunities. Surely this opportunity is very clearly stated in the Urban Bantu Councils Act, Act No. 79 of 1961, section 4, and the practical operation of these boards at present is such that the Bantu are being trained on local authorities under the able guidance of experienced officials and under the able guidance of the experienced members of city councils and local authorities. Now I know there is criticism to the effect that they are not being granted sufficient opportunities within the operation of that Act. One can argue about that on another occasion, but you must just see what opportunities are already being given to these people. I am not talking now about the Bantu Urban Advisory Boards which are virtually identical and have identical functions, but I just want to mention a few to the Committee again. These people are subject to prescriptions from the local authorities in conjunction with the Minister, etc., and to them, inter alia, the following functions have been entrusted: Firstly, the laying out of the area; secondly, the accommodation of Bantu who are not leading a family life; the removal of persons who are illegally resident in the area; the illegal occupation of buildings and land; the management of and control over the area including the establishment of the order of precedence followed in the allocation of residential facilities. This is not mere parrot work; a great deal of responsibility is attached to it. There is also the erection and use of dwellings, buildings and other construction work and the removal of demolition of unauthorized or abandoned buildings and construction work; the allocation of sites for church and school purposes; the prohibition or the arrangements and restrictions in regard to keeping of animals; the prohibition on the arrangement of entry or temporary sojourn in the area; the supply of sanitary services, health services and medical services; the moral and social welfare of the persons in the area. Mr. Chairman, these are comprehensive functions with which these people have been entrusted.

The hon. member must not probe too deeply into those functions, for in clause 3 we are actually dealing with the composition of the board.

Actually I am confining myself to the amendments only. I accept your ruling. I am now confining myself only to the argument of the Opposition that these people should be given a greater opportunity of being trained in these functions. That is why the Opposition is requesting that these people should be given representation on the urban Bantu administration boards. I was afforded an opportunity of attending meetings of the Urban Bantu Councils. I take it that members on the opposite side of the House were also afforded such opportunities. When one attends these meetings, you really see how far these people have already progressed in the field of local authority matters. Actually one stands amazed. Whether these people have confidence in themselves yet, will appear from the following example. Without experience in this field, some of these Bantu have already so much self-confidence that they have come to see me personally and asked whether representations cannot be made to the effect that they should be enabled to carry out the city council functions of a Bantu township in the Bantu homeland. They feel themselves competent enough, as a result of the years of experience which they have acquired in these councils. On the one hand this is not the policy of the National Party at all. On the other hand I think that we on both sides of the House can be satisfied that we have done our duty and are still doing so towards these people in training them to take over these duties one day in their own areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now explained to us that this board is to be a board of experts. He says that if he were to accept our amendments, he would defeat the object of the whole matter.

Only that specific amendment.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that specific amendment. I accept that. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that he was going to choose a representative of agriculture because of his knowledge of Bantu labour. The same applies to the representative of commerce and industry. He wants them all to be experts. But I asked the hon. Minister how he was going to choose the representatives of local authorities. He will have to get a list from the local authorities. He will be bound to choose from the list given by a local authority and if there is no expert on that list what is he going to do? Will he simply refuse to take anybody from that list?

There will be one.

Yes, there will be one! That is exactly what we said. The hon. the Deputy Minister will arrange it in such a way that they will be obliged to put a Nationalist on the board.

That is nonsense.

The Sappe will lose in any event. They cannot get into this board. If the Nats, are in the majority on a council the hon. the Minister himself has said that they will appoint a Nat. If the Sappe are in the majority on the council a Sap. will not be appointed because in that case the Minister will make an appointment. We have said that right from the outset. This is a move to get the control of the boards in the hands of the Government.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom has said that the Bantu are already being trained in administration duties in that they serve on the urban Bantu councils and that provision was made in the Councils Act for certain functions to be handed over to them. I dealt with that last night when I referred to section 4. There are 11 instances where functions can be handed over to them. I also made it quite clear that our policy is eventually to have the Bantu, after proper training, to manage their own townships. The point I made last night was that they must be allowed to appoint members on the board so that they can get further practical experience of the procedure followed in administering through a board of this nature. They will then get the experience of sitting on a board itself and of seeing the difficulties that face the board and how to handle those difficulties. They would gain that further experience by being on the board. Then I said further that, obviously, a Bantu is the best man to tell the board the feelings of the Bantu with regard to the aspects of their life in those areas. I quoted the necessity of having a representative on the board; because there is nothing in this Bill before us which ensures that the board will in fact consult the Bantu urban councils. I quoted an instance of what happened at Meadowlands and Diepkloof where the Bantu there asked that they be allowed to have a channel of communication with the Resettlement Board through an urban Bantu council. They were advised that it was not the Resettlement Board’s policy to have such a council. That is why I said that we want to ensure that there will be consultation and direct channels through which the Bantu can get to these boards. The best way of doing that is, in fact, to have a member of the urban council on the board. Last night the Minister asked me if that person would have to be a Bantu. I said that this was not necessarily so. My first amendment to add subsection (1) (e) to clause 3 of the Bill reads:

one shall be appointed in respect of each urban Bantu council, if any, the whole or part of whose area of jurisdiction is included in the board’s administration area. 7

He would appoint somebody to represent that council. If the Minister accepted that amendment, he could appoint a Bantu or a White man on the board. Then I have a further amendment to add after “(c)” in line 42 “and (e)”. If the hon. the Minister reads that he will see that it will then read:

If the hon. the Minister and the House accept my second amendment, there will naturally have to be a consequential amendment in subsection (2) (a), because one would have to add “and (e)” after “(1) (c)”. It would be consequential on the acceptance of the addition of a new subsection (1) (e). I hope that the hon. the Minister understands my proposition with regard to representation of the urban council on the board.

I understood that.

If the Minister accepts my first amendment, he could appoint a Bantu, or a White man or anybody he likes. But our further amendment is that this person should be a member of the urban council.

The whole question is one of consultation. We want to ensure that this board will have before it at all times an opinion representative of the Bantu in the area and not just somebody to represent them. We want those councils represented to be sure that the Bantu are in fact consulted.

With regard to the additional nomination of the representative of the urban council, again we want the hon. the Minister to appoint a member from the urban council so that we can be sure that he not merely represents them, but is a representative of that council. I am not now talking about the Bantu urban council, but about the White urban councils and local authorities.

Why did you not say that from the beginning? I thought you were talking about the Bantu urban council.

No, read my amendment. I did say it last night. As regards representation from the local authority, I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that, if one has a member from the Brakpan Town Council, he is going to look after the interests of the Brakpan Municipality. After all, why is he a representative of that area? Why is he appointed to represent them?

I told you.

But now you say that he is not a representative of that municipality; he must be there as an expert. Well, then you might choose your experts as you are going to choose the experts from the Chamber of Commerce and from agriculture.

He has specific knowledge and

background of local authorities.

Yes, but what will the hon. the Deputy Minister do if he thinks that not one of the persons whose names have been submitted to him, is an expert and knows about Bantu life?

I have greater faith in the municipalities than you seem to have.

The Minister cannot say what qualifications he wants if he is going to allow the municipalities to select the people from their councils. In dealing with another clause, the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, said during his Second Reading speech that they will, as a matter of privilege, be allowed to report back to their authorities on points affecting their councils. The mere fact that they are allowed, as a matter of privilege, to report back to their authorities, is surely further proof of the fact that they are there to represent the interests of their councils. It would be scandalous if they were not. I am getting more and more worried about this board where we now find that the representatives of the different local authorities are not even there to represent the interests of the local authorities. Surely, that should be their main consideration.

Just read clause 3 (2) (b).

I am talking about the explanation the hon. the Deputy Minister has given. Clause 3 (2) (b) reads as follows:

It qualifies that.

I know, but it will be a person nominated by the council. The Minister may not agree with the council. If this is to be the qualification and the Minister is to accept that the municipalities select persons on the grounds of this qualification, then he must accept the persons they nominate. He should not query their nominations. Why does he think that he has better knowledge than the municipality has of a man nominated on the ground of his knowledge?

I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I cannot agree with the argument of the hon. member for Transkei that a member of the Bantu advisory board should serve on this board. He went on to say that the member of this Bantu advisory board could be a White person. But, surely, Whites do not serve on this Bantu advisory board. The hon. member for Transkei is wrong. The chairman of the Bantu advisory board is a White councillor of that local authority. The only other White persons are the officials of the department who act in an advisory capacity. Consequently it can only be a Bantu member of the Bantu advisory board who may serve on this board. But any mixed board is contrary to the policy of this Government. That is why I support the hon. the Deputy Minister’s standpoint.

What about the chairman?

In that regard he only acts as the chairman of that board. He is only acting ex officio. Surely, if that chairman is a person with such expert knowledge, he will be recommended by his town council. If we have a good Deputy Minister with good qualities, such as the one we have at the moment, and that person’s name is submitted to him by the town council, surely he will be accepted. After all, then the Bantu will also be represented there.

Why do you laugh

when you say that?

Should I be sour all the time? I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Minister can never allow there to be any mixed boards. That is something we do not want.

But there is also a second point which was put forward by the hon. member and in regard to which I differ with him. He wants the town council of Brakpan—let us take the town council of my constituency as an example—to nominate a town councillor. But what are we going to have then? If each of the town councils of Brakpan or Benoni or Springs or Boks-burg or Germiston were to nominate their councillors, we would have the position that those town councillors would only fight for their own areas. But if these members were appointed by the Minister, those councillors would realize that they had to work for the interests of the whole area and not only for those of the small local areas represented by each of them.

That is why I support the hon. the Minister and why I ask him not to yield to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that his aim, which I am quite prepared to accept, is co-operation with the local authorities. He has spent quite a lot of time telling us that it was his intense desire to co-operate with the local authorities, because it is essential that he should get their co-operation, their “toestemming”. He does not want to force any issues, but he wants to work with them because he realizes that he has to take over so many assets. A lot of information is required by him and, in fact, he wants their officials to come over and to assist the new board in the undertaking which he is attempting. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants all that co-operation, it is only for one reason. The reason is that the local authority has a direct interest. Every local authority has a large township on its boundaries. Johannesburg is quoted, even though it is one of 417 local authorities only because it happens to have 25 per cent of the urban Bantu of the country in the particular areas which surround its boundaries. That is a quite substantial figure and I want to impress this figure on the hon. the Deputy Minister because he is very keen to understand this problem thoroughly. Twenty-five per cent is quite a large number. 25 per cent of the country’s urban Bantu population is quite important because it involves a fantastic number. For instance, they have an amount of over R5 million in their Native Service Levy Account alone. This indicates the vastness of the undertaking. They have spent millions of rands on housing. There are about 80 000 to 90 000 homes which they have to build and which they have to maintain. It is an enormous undertaking and I need hardly impress that on the hon. the Deputy Minister unless he does not know the position; but he does. If he wants their co-operation, he obviously knows that he has to have somebody from that local authority because the local authority has an interest in it. It also has a tremendous White population which it has to look after. There are interrelations between White and non-White in this regard. The mobility of labour depends on the labour being employed by White industry and commerce. Surely he realizes that the local authority has to give services to the board. The local authority has to maintain services for the board and the local authority has to do many things. The Minister can force it and compel it to do these things. The hon. the Minister has maintained that he does not want to force them, but he also said that he is entitled to demand all those things. The local authority has an absolute, direct and positive interest in that board, but the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to do exactly what has been done by him and his colleagues over the years. If an appointment of a quasi judicial nature is to be made to any board on which a local authority should be represented, a board such as the Road Transport Board and other bodies of a similar nature, who is appointed by the Government?

The best man.

The best man! Forgive me for saying so—my eye! Who is appointed in such a case? The hon. the Minister picks a man who belongs to his party, or a person who he feels will carry out his policy. Then that gentleman is appointed. Local authorities have submitted three, four, five or six names, but he has appointed whom he wanted. Obviously we are not children. The hon. the Minister knows it and we need not play like cat and mouse here. He obviously wants to ensure that he has the people he wants.

You are doing it now.

The Chief Whip of the Government says that I am doing it now. Let me explain a simple thing to him. The local authority is asked to submit a list. It then submits a list of 10 people. Now, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not like the people in that list, so he demands the entire council, with the result that he has 47 names submitted. Then he picks the gentleman that he thinks will suit his purpose best. We need not bluff ourselves. Much as I admire the efforts of the hon. the Deputy Minister in his bland and disarming way to assure us of his intentions—and I am sure they are most honourable—one must also realize that his party principles desire to have those people who will serve his will, and that is paramount. It is human nature. We want to ensure that the right thing happens and that the representative on that board comes from the local authority and that he knows the local authority’s work. Who would any council send? They would send a man, as the hon. member for Brakpan has correctly pointed out, who has had the experience. He would probably be the man who represents that particular department in the management committee.

In the Transvaal, for example, and I believe in the Cape now too, all these councils operate through management committees. Let the persons who run and administer the council’s affairs like a cabinet, therefore, appoint their own member. If a town council cannot have its management’s member who knows local affairs and understands the affairs of the Bantu appointed, then I do not know. After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister himself is a Cabinet Minister and he says that he understands the Bantu; in fact, his own Minister regards himself as the father of the Bantu, as a man who understands their affairs, their way of life, their traditions and their history. He thinks he knows everything, but how do we know that he does? We expect him to know because he is the Cabinet Minister in charge and this we also expect from a member of a management committee. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows of the consultations he has had with people of this standing and all former members of councils on the other side of the House know it well too. That is why they talk with their tongues in their cheeks when they talk about this suggestion of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he wants to select such a person himself. He does not actually want a representative of the council. He just wants an individual who happens to be elected to the council. For one reason or another he would like to appoint one of those people, because there he thinks he will find someone who has the best knowledge of Bantu affairs and Bantu labour. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I can name him plenty of people in this country who know more than he and the Minister know about Bantu affairs and Bantu labour. These are experts and people who have studied the subject. They are people who have lived with the subject and who have grown up in this atmosphere. Let us be frank and not be children about a serious matter like this. We cannot let the hon. the Deputy Minister get away with something which I think sounds a little like a child’s fairy story.

You are just playing with words.

I am not playing with words. I would now like to come to the matter concerning the representative of the Bantu council. Does the hon. member for Potchefstroom, for example, know after having repeated his famous cliché “ons wil nie gemengde rade hê nie” what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said when he introduced the Bantu Councils Bill? The Minister then stated the importance of taking them from an advisory council to a proper council that could have executive powers, that could be. taught to administer their own affairs, that could give an example of what should be done and that could be trained? Here a special body is going to be formed which will take over the entire Bantu affairs of local authorities with, let us not mince words, its assets, liabilities, administration, future direction, planning and all the other things. Not one thing will be left for local authorities. Even the officials will be taken over. If these Bantu councils do not have the opportunity to receive their training and learning there where are they going to get it? Is the Minister going to give the urban Bantu council executive powers from the board? That was what was envisaged here, namely that the local authority would actually divest itself of some of its power and give it to the urban Bantu councils especially to enable them to carry out executive power. Now, is the board going to do it? I almost quoted something from “My Fair Lady”, but it would not sound parliamentary. I would rather like to quote what the hon. the Minister said in Hansard, column 8142 on the 15th June, 1961. He said:

In the past such bodies existed but only in an advisory capacity …

He was talking about advisory boards and this type of council. He went on:

Many of these boards did good work and in recent times I have succeeded in gaining the co-operation of many of them. However, everywhere the complaint was heard that they were only advisory and as such were powerless … Under these circumstances … the time has come for these boards to be given a certain degree of power to enable them not only to provide for the material welfare, but also for the social and spiritual welfare of the Bantu in the urban areas … the municipalities can delegate many of these powers to the Bantu councils so that they will also be able to play a considerable part in building up their own communities and in the establishment of better mutual relationships.

This illustrates what the hon. the Minister had in mind and that is what we expect to see here. The hon. the Deputy Minister should welcome every opportunity of training people, even if they eventually become town councillors in the homelands and of management committees there. They will then have had the experience.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the amendments proposed by the hon. members for Transkei and Houghton. There is a very small difference between the amendments proposed by these two members. The hon. member for Houghton says “one or more members appointed from the membership of the urban Bantu council”, whereas the hon. member for Transkei says “one member in respect of each urban Bantu council”. To my mind a very important principle is at stake in this matter. I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes that the exposition furnished by him differs widely from the position as regards the existing Bantu councils, where the chairman of the advisory board is a White person and they now want to have Whites and Bantu appointed to these proposed boards. To my mind this is the most important principle at stake here. The Opposition has put forward the proposal that a statutory board with executive power be established, a board which will consist of Bantu and Whites, with the possibility—not only a theoretical possibility—that the Bantu will be in the majority. I want to mention a practical example of what could happen in such a case. This example was also mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister last night. Suppose that within the administration area of this board there are 30 local authorities, with 30 prescribed areas, each of which has its urban Bantu council. In that case the composition of the board, in pursuance of the proposal made by the hon. member for Transkei, may be such that there will be 30 White members representing White local authorities. On the board there will also be 30 Bantu members representing the urban Bantu councils. In addition there will be representatives of agriculture. Suppose the Minister appoints two White members for that purpose. We assume that he will also appoint two representatives of the mining industry, as well as two each for commerce, industry and the department, respectively. Then there will also be 10. In other words, then we will have a board of 70 members, 30 of whom will be Bantu. This is a board with executive authority. But in urban areas in the Transvaal at present there is within the area of the local authority more than one urban Bantu council. Now the hon. member says here that one representative should be appointed in respect of each urban Bantu council. He may be either a White person or a Bantu. But since he may be a Bantu, they may all be Bantu. If out of these 30 local authorities there are only 11 in whose areas there is more than one urban Bantu council, it means that we shall have a minimum of 41 Bantu representatives and a maximum of 40 White representatives. To my mind this is the important principle. I looked up the Opposition’s policy in this yellow booklet of theirs, and nowhere could I find in it any statement in which they suggest that it is their policy that it will be possible for statutory bodies to consist of Whites and Bantu. They have now put forward this principle here. Whereas they now accept the principle that a statutory body may consist of Whites and Bantu, the question that arises is this: In respect of what other statutory bodies are they going to apply this principle as well?

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Jeppes, told us last night that through this composition, as advocated by them, the Bantu were to be afforded the opportunity of being trained for greater authority. But now we know that hon. members opposite believe, and they say it every day, that the urban Bantu are not interested in the homelands. The hon. member for Jeppes, on the other hand, has just said that the urban Bantu should be trained and then be sent back to the homelands. But earlier in this debate he said that it was absurd to expect these urban Bantu ever to be interested in returning to the homelands.

I did not say they had to; I said if they wanted to, they could go back.

If these Bantu are trained, they are trained for greater authority. But you are saying that that greater authority need not be the homelands. Where is it then? What are they being trained for? As I see it, the hon. member for Transkei is, by way of this proposal of his, giving shape to what the hon. member for Yeoville said on the B.B.C. and what was said by his Leader, i.e. that Bantu will eventually be admitted to this Parliament. This is, therefore, the only place where they can bring the Bantu who have been trained for greater authority. But this is not the most important thing. Nowhere have I seen them accepting the policy of mixed boards. That is not stated in their yellow booklet. Therefore, here we find it now for the first time. That put me in mind of going into matters a little more deeply. I went through the Order Paper of this House and found that the hon. member for Houghton had introduced her amendment on 11th March, and so had the hon. member for Transkei, but the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei did not make any provision for the appointment of Bantu to these boards. On 15th March another amendment of his appeared on the Order Paper, an amendment in which provision was in fact made for this. On a previous occasion the Minister of Bantu Administration outlined the points of similarity between the Progressive Party and the United Party. On that occasion I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said that the Progressive Party were going over to the U.P. However, today I think that that was a mistake, since it is clear to me today that the U.P. supporters are going over to the Progressive Party. In fact, the hon. member for Houghton has swallowed up the entire United Party, for after she had, on 11th March, introduced her amendment, in which provision is made for Bantu on these boards, the United Party came forward with the same amendment. But, Sir, those boards may consist of Whites and they may consist of Bantu. The hon. member said last night that he would make sure that the Bantu were not in the majority. But, Sir, in analysing his amendment, we find no such assurance. In fact, if that amendment were to be accepted by the House today, as proposed by the hon. member, it would mean that this House would accept that there could be a statutory body in South Africa, a body with executive powers and functions, in which the Bantu could be in the majority and the Whites in the minority. Does this or does it not imply a change in policy on the part of the United Party? As for me, I can only interpret this as a new policy with which the United Party has now come forward, a policy which is actually the policy of the Progressive Party. Now they are using the Committee Stage for getting this change in policy through the House without its being noticed—as though at the Committee Stage matters are not discussed in a thorough manner. By those means they want to place themselves in a position where they are telling those voters they fear want to go over to the Progressive Party, that they, i.e. the United Party, have the same policy as the Progressive Party. That is why the amendments of these two hon. members are of vital importance to me, i.e. because they affect the crux of the most important political question in South Africa. One must necessarily arrive at the conclusion that as far as this matter is concerned, the United Party has clearly adopted a new course and that it has now ranged itself completely on the side of the Progressive Party.

Sir, under this measure we are debating the administration of all the Bantu outside the Reserves. To us, as I think also for hon. members opposite, the whole administration is a matter of, one could almost say, life and death; it is a matter of the utmost importance that we should so arrange our administrative machinery that we secure the co-operation of the Bantu people and that our relations with them are harmonious. After all, we know that in the so-called White areas we are outnumbered by them by more than two to one, even conceding the redrawing of boundaries and the displacements which we know about. In this situation each party is putting forward its ideas as to how we will get the happiest possible relationships. And it grieves me very much that the hon. member for Lichtenburg should place party politics so much above the true interests of South Africa in this regard. However, he has done it. Let us now examine some of his suggestions. First of all, to show how ludicrous it is that you could have the Whites outnumbered on one of these bodies, he postulates 30 urban Bantu councils in one Bantu Administration area. Let me say at once that in the entire country at the present time, according to my information, there are only 23 urban Bantu councils, of which 13 are in the Transvaal, seven in the Orange Free State, two in the Cape and one in Natal. Does he think that this party, committed as we are to a policy of White leadership, would ever tolerate a situation where there is a majority of Bantu on such a Bantu Administration Board. Sir, I want to remind that hon. member and other hon. members opposite that what I said just now on the question of the importance of our relationships with the Bantu living in our midst now and for our whole future, is no flight of fancy. I want to refer that hon. member to a report by two university lecturers, a report which was published in the Argus of the 18th March of this year, a week or so ago. The two gentlemen concerned were Dr. Denis Worrall, senior lecturer in international relations at the University of the Witwaters-rand, a gentleman well known to all of us as. one who is clearly sympathetic to the Nationalist cause. He has written for many years in Die Beeld, and as far as I know he is still sympathetic to the Nationalist cause. The second gentleman is Mr. A. ‘Bertelsmann, a junior lecturer in the Department of Public Law at the University of South Africa.

Never heard of him.

They did this survey in conjunction with a number of African lecturers. Their finding was one that we could well ponder when we consider what are the best arrangements to ensure good relations in these crucial urban complexes of ours, complexes with as many as a million Bantu around Johannesburg alone. They interviewed 226 Africans. The questionnaire that they used was limited to newspaper readers who could understand English, and I think it is probably fair to say that this was very possibly taken in the Johannesburg complex because they themselves are there, although it is conceivable that the Bantu concerned might come from elsewhere. Their finding was that 90 per cent of Africans interviewed showed that there was no goodwill between Whites and non-Whites. Sir, I am not assuming from this that this is a complete reflection of the actual position, but I do say that it must at any rate give us cause to reflect upon the state of the relationship particularly between the urban Natives and ourselves. I think it should at least came us to reflect on the state of these relationships. This brings me to the clause. Where we are consider arrangements which are to ensure harmonious living alongside each other indefinitely into the future, is it better to have a board which has a representative of these peoples upon it, or not? The hon. member for Potchefstroom said in a very dogmatic way, “Ons wil nie gemengde rade hê nie”. Very well. We have said before it would be nicer to have a snow white country, with all the Blacks in one area and ail the Whites in another, but unfortunately Providence has not disposed things in that way and we are therefore considering how best to secure the co-operation of these people in order to ensure harmonious relations, so that they can develop happily in the future. When we look at it in that light, can anyone say, so roundly, that there is no question of mixed boards? Let me mention to the hon. member for Potchefstroom that he and his party envisage a commonwealth of nations in which there will be eight Black Prime Ministers sitting down with one White Prime Minister at some time in the future. And let me remind the hon. gentlemen opposite, lest than take fright at the possibility of having one Bantu on an administration area board, that I understand that in that fine church, the D.R. Church, on its Synod, you have Black men and Coloured men sitting and nobody has come to any harm. So I say that where we are considering the harmonious relationships, we should remember that. The hon. member for Transkei has made the point that these people must learn the art and the nuances of local government. We have made the point also that their advice as to what is best is desirable, and, after all, we are in this Bill concerned only with Bantu relations. This is the whole purpose of the Bill. We are concerned entirely with matters affecting the Bantu, and in such a situation does anybody want to tell me that the views and the advice and the suggestions of one of the Bantu people, who can become a Prime Minister in his own land under their policy, will not be helpful in ensuring good race relations? We on this side see this from the point of view of continuing race relations.

How many Bantu sit on the Bantu Affairs Committee of the Johannesburg City Council?

But that is a White city council. [Interjections.]

I believe that nobody will come to any harm if such a man were to take sitting on such a board. For the information of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, I may remind him that it is our policy, and it has been adumbrated before, that in regard to the senates and the councils of the Bantu universities. Black men may take sitting on such bodies. He may not have been in the Home when that was stated to be our policy, but it is part of our policy. It is very much a parallel case and it shows that in this way we believe that we shall obtain better co-operation from these people than the hon. members opposite.

Now I want to ask, before I sit down: What are the plans of the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite to secure the most important views of the very people affected in order to carry out this legislation?

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I wish to point out that I allowed the hon. member ‘for Pinelands and the hon. member for ‘Lichtenburg considerable latitude in discussing this clause. I now want to warn hon. members that I shall henceforth restrict them to this clause, which deals with ’the composition of the boards. Hon. members must not attempt to drag in the entire race question and race relationships in discussing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just sat down, began his speech by making an important statement which I endorse wholeheartedly, namely that this matter of Bantu administration in White areas is, as he put it, “a matter of utmost importance”. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Its importance cannot be over-emphasized. Then the hon. member went on to say, “Therefore we must get their co-operation”. There I differ with him. We already have the co-operation of these people. And what I do not find very nice is the hon. member’s having used findings of a so-called little survey in the House this afternoon in the way that he did. I think that was very irresponsible because of the fact that, as far as we know, the relationships between the Whites and the Bantu are very good. Now I want to make that hon. member feel really ashamed of himself. In my hand I have an article which appeared in The Star of 16th March, 1971, under the heading “Africans, Whites getting on better”. This report was not written by a White person. It was written by a Bantu called Mhloli who lives in the Bantu residential area of Soweto. This report did not appear in a National Party newspaper, but in an English newspaper. I share that hon. member’s view that this is an important matter, but at the same time I want to issue a warning that it must be treated with the necessary responsibility and circumspection. That little sort of moral survey, which fails to qualify as a scientific one, must not be used in this House. It is not aimed at improving relationships, but at disturbing them.

It does not belong under this clause.

Two amendments are under consideration now. One is that the local authority should itself appoint a member and the other is that subsection (1) (e) be added.

I shall first deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, nameley that the local authority should itself appoint someone to the board. Since I assumed the position of Deputy Minister responsible for the Bantu in White areas and consequently for that aspect of Bantu administration as well, it has been my constant view and conviction that party politics should be kept out of this matter as far as is practicable. Up to now I have done everything in my power to implement Bantu administration in that way. I want to give the assurance that I shall continue doing it in this way. Now I am only requesting the assistance of hon. members in this respect. It is no easy task. I am requesting the assistance of hon. members in order that it may be done in that way. I think that together we shall be able to make a very important contribution if this is our view and approach. This is my view; in fact, it is the motivation of all my actions in connection with the matter. For this reason I want to tell hon. members at once that, as regards the appointment of members to the e boards, I shall not allow myself to be guided by the political views of those people. We would like to have the best talent and the best experts on these boards. As far as is practicable and possible, I shall implement this. I am telling hon. members this now in order that they may grasp it thoroughly. Moreover, I want to motivate it. For some years past we have been appointing the local and central levy services committees, which deal with a very important matter, i.e. the levy funds. This has been done on exactly the same basis as that now being proposed by this Bill. Commerce submits names to us. Industry and agriculture submit names to us. Go and ask the central services committees how those appointments have been made. They will tell hon. members that we did not inquire about a person’s political affiliations in this regard, but that we asked who the competent people were. I do not know of a single case where industry or commerce submitted a name to me and where I could ¡not accept the person as such. I intend appointing these boards in the same spirit and with the same attitude, but we would very much like to have experts serving on them and we want to make it possible for experts to be appointed. What can be more reasonable than telling each local authority to submit as many names as there are on their local authority and to enable us in that way to get the best experts on Bantu affairs and Bantu labour onto those boards?

I want to tell hon. members that the following is the second argument advanced by them, on which I wish to express myself very clearly. I have now replied to the hon. members on the first, and I hope they are satisfied with my reply. I now wish to reply to the second. It is not a correct argument to use here that if someone from the local authority of Brakpan, Johannesburg, Benoni or Germiston serves on such a statutory board, it must necessarily follow that those members serving on such a statutory board will in the first place serve the interests of Brakpan, Johannesburg, etc. They will be motivated to serve the interests of that area in the first place. I have very strong proof of that here. These levy services committees and the central services committees, which handle millions of millions of rands belonging to employers, have been administering these affairs for six years now. They are expected to take decisions on extremely important projects. Will one of those hon. members stand up and give me one single example of a case where one of these levy services committees, in considering a project, brought other interests into the matter, interests other than the consideration of what would be the best for that project? This is the way in which these boards will function. There is no reason on earth why they would not function in this way. All I am asking is that we be assisted to compose these boards in that way and that they be enabled to manage these affairs impartially and objectively.

Now, in respect of the other very important matter which has been mentioned here, namely the addition of subsection (1) (e) in clause 3, which has been moved by the hon. members for Houghton and Transkei, I first want to mention three matters very clearly and unambiguously. Firstly, it is provided in section 21 of the Urban Areas Act that there shall be consultation between the local authority and the urban Bantu council. The hon. member for Pinelands rightly said that there are only 23 at the moment. This is quite correct, but what he omitted to add is that there are a couple of hundred Bantu advisory committees. What he should also have added is that there are many places, for example Thembisa, which is a very large Bantu residential area, where there is no urban Bantu council and that this works extremely well. The hon. member for Transkei spoke of Diepkloof and Meadowlands yesterday. There are no urban Bantu councils there either. I do not like playing off one against the other, because it is unnecessary, since things are going extremely well in Thembisa. Why, if things are going well there and the Bantu and everybody there are satisfied, are comparisons being drawn and matters being introduced for which there is no need at present? It has been shown that the Bantu are so satisfied with the way in which the Resettlement Board is dealing with matters that hardly a day passes without Bantu from Soweto applying to go and live in the Meadowlands and Diepkloof complexes. We should not draw comparisons, because it is unnecessary. As I have said, the Act provides that, where there are urban Bantu councils, there shall be consultation.

In my humble opinion the hon. member for Houghton displayed some rather crass ignorance here. With all due respect, this is also true of the hon. members opposite who spoke about the matter, because if they look at clause 11 (1) (e) of the Bill now before the House, they will see that it provides that the administration board shall act, inter alia, in terms of the Urban Areas Act. The Bill now before the House does not change the Urban Areas Act by one jot or tittle. In reply to the pertinent Question put to me I therefore want to say that there must and will be consultation between the administration board and an urban Bantu council. This is an obligation, because section 21 (2) (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Urban Areas Act, which remains unchanged, makes it legally binding that there shall be consultation in respect of the matters mentioned there. For lack of time it is not possible for me to list these matters now. but they are there for everyone to read. With this I therefore want to say that there must be no misunderstanding, because that would cloud relationships. I would not like this matter to be disposed of without this misunderstanding having been removed. There must be no misunderstanding about the fact that the relationship between the administration board and the urban Bantu council, where one does exist—and there are 23 of them—must be of the very best. The same goes for the advisory boards which may exist and also for places where no advisory board or urban Bantu council exists. As I said, there must also be the necessary consultation. I hope this is very clear.

To this I want to add that there are other reasons, apart from policy considerations, which were very well expressed by hon. members on this side of the House. We desire the relationship between the administration boards and this urban Bantu council to be the most fundamentally sound relationship imaginable. We shall go far out of our way to achieve this. It will be like this, and we are grateful that it is like this at present. But, as I said, it must be appreciated that there are other considerations. I just want to mention a few. According to law an urban Bantu council has certain powers. Thus, in terms of the Act, influx control is not one of the powers of an urban Bantu council. An urban Bantu council has statutory authority in respect of streets, lighting and other matters normally dealt with by a local authority. But this administration board will, after all, have much more extensive powers than those of an urban Bantu council. For this reason alone it is not necessary to grant an urban Bantu council representation on this administration board. This would only create problems, because the powers of the one are extremely limited while those of the other extend over a much wider field. Apart from political and policy considerations there are therefore other important reasons why this request cannot be granted. I am stating this for the sake of clarity.

Furthermore, I want to say that the urban Bantu council is. after all, not the only council dealing with Bantu affairs in Bantu residential areas situated in White areas. There are the advisory boards. I am not talking politics now.

The urban Bantu council is in place of the advisory board.

Yes, but my officials tell me there are about 400 Bantu advisory councils. If I remember correctly, the hon. member also spoke about Bantu advisory boards yesterday.

No, only about

urban Bantu councils.

We can refer to the hon. member’s Hansard. The hon. member mentioned it specifically yesterday. But I do not want to argue about a side issue now. The point I want to make is that there are in fact some places, 23 to be exact, which have urban Bantu councils. Apart from the policy aspects, on which I expressed myself very clearly yesterday, what merit is there in granting those places representation because they now have urban Bantu councils, as the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Houghton want? What is the use of granting them representation, while those places which do not have such boards, will not have it? Surely this is completely illogical. If there would ever be a confusing issue among the Bantu, it would be if I were to be prepared to accept the amendments moved by the two hon. members. Let me mention a practical example now. If Johannesburg, Germiston and Alberton were to be thrown together in one administration area, we would find that the administration board from Thembisa. which has more than 100 000 inhabitants. would get no representation on this board to be established, because it has no urban Bantu council. If the amendments of the hon. members were accepted, this would be the case, while Soweto, which happens to have an urban Bantu council, would be represented on the board. Can hon. members see now what confusion can be created in practice? Surely, as our hon. Prime Minister would have said, it is “truly too ridiculous to be at large”. Besides. we must argue this matter logically, on the basis of facts.

Then, finally, I want to touch upon a very important matter. This is an extremely important consideration. The hon. members are now asking for a representative of the urban Bantu councils, of which there are only 23 in the whole of the country, while there are 400 Bantu advisory boards, for which they ask no representatives. In South Africa there are. after all, national representative councils in these Bantu residential areas. According to law these national representative councils have the function and the task of looking after the social, national and cultural interests of the Bantu in the urban residential areas. Why, then, do the hon. members not ask for the national representative councils to be represented on these boards? These councils would actually be much more suitable for such representation, if this were to be considered on a practical level. I wanted to indicate the tremendous practical problems with which one would be confronted and the confusion one would be creating among the Bantu if the proposal of the hon. members opposite were accepted. For these reasons I regret that I am unable to accept paragraph (e), as moved. I regret that I am also unable to accept the proposal in respect of the appointment. I am doing this in a very good spirit and I just want to emphasize again that we must understand each other very well on one point. This is that the intention with these administration boards is to improve and constantly develop relations in order to eliminate levels of friction. The boards will assume their extremely important task accordingly and I shall try to ensure that they carry it out. There must be no misunderstanding about that. Therefore the relationship among these boards and the urban Bantu councils which do exist, as well as the Bantu advisory boards and the national representative councils and, of course, the Bantu themselves, must be of the very best. That is my wish.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. When the hon. the Deputy Minister speaks of the national representative boards, is he referring to section 4 of the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act?

It is provided in that particular legislation, but I do not know in which section it is provided. According to law the position is that every Bantu homeland government may appoint a national representative.

A representative, yes.

That is what I said, a national representative. [interjection.] No, the hon. member for Pinelands does not understand me clearly now. Every homeland government is authorized by law to appoint a representative, but that representative in the White area is in turn authorized by law to appoint a board there to assist him.

No, no!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION: But of course. The hon. member must not question my word now. These boards have extremely important functions to perform. Only this week, for instance, it was announced in the newspapers that the Ciskeian Representative Board appointed a national representative, Mr. Dunjwa, for the Cape Province. In the same way the Tswanas, for instance, already have one in the Johannesburg area. In this way this system is being developed in order that the representative of such a national group may have other members available to assist him on a national representative board.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister knows what is contained in section 3 (2) of the Urban Bantu Councils Act? He would know, then, that such a national group may choose its own boards.

I piloted an amendment to that particular Act through this House last year in order to appoint these boards, and the matter was discussed at length here. The hon. member should remember it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Deputy Minister tells us that there will be consultation between these boards and the Bantu. I wonder if we may just examine this in the light of his Government’s own actions. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted, for example, from the columnist, Mhloli, who writes for The Star. He quoted from his column of the 16th of March. Only a few days before that, on the 25th of February, the same columnist dealt in his column with representations made to the superintendent of Meadow-lands, zone I, about the possibility of setting up channels of communications between the Bantu of Meadowlands and the Resettlement Board. It was pointed out to the superintendent that in areas covered by the Johannesburg City Council, for example, the City Council consulted with the urban Bantu council or with their advisory boards. The superintendent was asked if something on similar lines could be done in the case of Meadowlands. The columnist reported as follows—

Surely, this gives the lie to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his speech just now. This superintendent went on to say—

How can the hon. the Deputy Minister reconcile this attitude with what he told us a few minutes ago? That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Transkei wants to make absolutely certain that there is direct contact and that avenues are created whereby this valuable contact can be assured. That is the whole reason behind it.

Turning to the composition of these boards, the hon. member for Lichtenburg was very fearful about the possibility of the Bantu outnumbering the Whites on those boards. The hon. member for Pinelands has dealt fairly effectively with his argument, but I do want to point out that it is the Minister who appoints the people to the board. Is he then suggesting that the Minister is going to make the appointments in such a way that the Bantu will outnumber the Whites? Is that what the hon. member thinks of the hon. the Minister? According to the Deputy Minister these boards will be boards of experts, although everything we have heard this afternoon suggests that these are going to be boards of stooges. Members will simply be appointed by the Minister and he is obviously going to appoint people whom he thinks will do his job best. Was it not the hon. the Minister of Health who. when talking about appointments to Government boards, said that the first qualification was that a person should be a good Nationalist?

Now, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made great play of the fact that the people who are selected from local authorities, for instance, to serve on the board, will be representatives of these local authorities. The word “representative” has been used repeatedly by the hon. the Deputy Minister throughout this debate. In fact, if one looks at the White Paper that was produced on this Bill, one will see that, in dealing with clause 3, on page 4, it says: “Furthermore, local authorities will have representation on such boards.” He cannot have it both ways. Either he is going to appoint the people, or local authorities must be able to decide. That would be representation, and not if appointed by the Minister.

We need to go no further than to examine something very much parallel to this. As I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister just now, I noticed he was using words which were very familiar. I should like just to deal very briefly with this Government’s code of conduct in matters of this nature. For instance, as we all know, our Constitution provides that some Senators are appointed to the Other Place because of their thorough acquaintance by reason of official experience or otherwise with the interest of the Coloured population of the various provinces. I think it is common cause that this is honoured far more by the breach than by the observance. So everything in our experience tells us that this will not be representation at all. I believe it is only fair to allow local authorities, whether it is Brakpan or Johannesburg, to decide who should serve on the board. These boards will be dealing not only with matters affecting the Bantu population; matters coming before them will be of vital interest to local authorities and to the entire population of the areas covered by them. It is only reasonable to suggest that the interests of the local authorities and people of other races in the areas of local authorities should be properly served. The best way of doing that, would be by enabling the local authorities to decide who should be appointed to these boards. It should not be left in the hands of the Minister.

I should like to return to the question of the consultation which is going to take place. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that there were various boards which would be consulted; that there were various channels through which the Bantu could be consulted about their wishes in these matters. Sir, let us examine this a little closer. He said there were the urban Bantu councils; then there were the Bantu advisory boards and in addition there were the representatives of the national governments …

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are not discussing that matter now. We are dealing only with the constitution of the board now.

Sir, I want to suggest that I am discussing the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Transkei.

The hon. member may proceed, as long as he does not go too far. I cannot allow a wide discussion which has nothing to do with the clause.

I shall confine myself to the amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that he would consult the Bantu through these three channels. This is all very well, but I wish to point out that as far as the representatives of national governments are concerned, each one of the eight different national governments has a representative in this country. He also has assistants. To mention only Soweto as an example, there may be eight different national government representatives who have to be consulted. I do not know whether all of them are going to be consulted simultaneously; perhaps not. Perhaps each one of them will have to be consulted on his own. If I were to accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister had said, i.e. that there would be consultation, then one would have to accept that prior to anything being done by this board, those boards would have to be consulted. What cumbersome machinery for getting things done. Instead of that, we come forward with a practical proposal in terms of which one or more Bantu may have a seat of his or their own on the board on behalf of each such urban Bantu council. The acceptance of this proposal will eliminate this cumbersome machinery. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this matter, particularly in view of his assurance that some of these various Bantu councils will be consulted. What we are proposing is, in my opinion, a far shorter way. In that case there will be continuous consultation with these people. Instead of calling them together each time for the purpose of consulting them, this simple method can be employed. Whenever the Bantu are consulted, Whites will in any event be sitting with them round the table in order to listen to their advice. We are proposing now that instead of holding consultation meetings, the Bantu should have seats on the board itself.

But we are establishing a statutory board here.

Yes, but the hon. the Deputy Minister says that the board will consult with those Bantu boards. If the board itself does not consult with the advisory boards of the Bantu, then there is no consultation at all with the boards as such; then the board itself will not be obtaining the advice and learning of the wishes of the Bantu. Then their wishes will simply be conveyed, perhaps by the Minister. I want to ask the Deputy Minister what the actual method of consultation is going to be. Is the Minister or the Deputy Minister going to consult with the boards? Is the Bantu administration board not going to consult with the people at all? We should like to know precisely how this consultation is going to take place, because as the clause stands at the moment it seems to me as though the Bantu administration board is not going to consult with the various Bantu boards.

I want to reply briefly to the last question posed by the hon. member. He wants to know how consultation is going to take place. It is going to take place in precisely the same way as that in which consultation is at present taking place in terms of section 21 of the Urban Areas Act, as consultation with local authorities is taking place at present, because clause 11 (1) of this Bill provides that consultation shall take place as laid down in the Urban Areas Act. One way in which consultation is taking place at present, is that the minutes of the meetings of each urban Bantu council are made available to the local authority. That consultation takes place in all kinds of ways. This legislation provides that that consultation will have to take place in precisely the same way when an administration board is being established.

Secondly and lastly I want to say that doubt was expressed here a minute or two ago about the question of the national representative boards. The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, No. 46 of 1959, provides very clearly in section 5 (1) (b), which deals with the powers, functions and duties of representatives, that he shall in consultation with the Government constitute a board to assist him in the performance of his functions and duties. This is what we call a national representative board. The ignorance of hon. members of the United Party who doubted that this afternoon is truly glaring. They did not even know this, and the legislation providing for this was passed here last year. Those boards will of course be consulted in connection with these matters.

Sir, I am even unhappier after hearing that the method of consultation is to be by providing the minutes. I ask you, Sir! The method of consultation and of ascertaining the attitude and views of the 4 million Bantu in the urban areas who are affected is apparently to be by supplying a copy of the minutes to them, and then apparently they will make comments on it. I can only say—and I regret to say it—that this will lead to misunderstanding. This will not improve those relationships which need to be improved. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that one must not rely heavily upon the opinions expressed in a professional survey done under the leadership of a man well disposed to the Nationalist Party, namely Dr. Denis Worrall, but I say that one cannot be too careful to ensure that relationships are good. I do not believe that in matters which so intimately affect all these people it is going to lead to harmonious race relations if their opinions and their suggestions are to be obtained on the basis of supplying them with a copy of the minutes and then getting their reactions to it. I think these people will be inclined to feel that they are not being heard adequately and I think that this will certainly be an unfortunate method of consulting them. I believe that our suggestion is a perfectly sensible one and will make for better race relations.

The consultation taking place at the moment is not only by way of furnishing a copy of the minutes. I mentioned that as an example, as one of the ways of consultation, and if the hon. member feels so strongly about the question of consultation, why does he not complain about the existing form of consultation which has been in operation for years and which works very well.

It should be improved perhaps.

These administration boards will be able to make a very important contribution, and that is why I said that to begin with, that consultation will take place as laid down in the Act at present. The Act is applicable to these administration boards. But, Sir, any urban Bantu council is free to approach a local authority on any matter and to make its representations known to that urban local authority. The local authority is free to submit to the urban Bantu council any matter which it feels such urban Bantu council should be informed of. As far as I know, relations are good at present; the system of consultation works well and there is satisfaction. If there are opportunities for improving the system, we shall gladly do so. But the point I want to emphasize is that consultation with an administration board will, at least, be precisely the same as it is at present. If the system can be improved, we shall continually endeavour to do so.

Let me just say briefly that I am not interested in this question of consultation at the moment. You have already ruled, Sir, that that is outside the ambit of this particular clause. But what does interest me is the question of representation and I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that what he is providing for in this Bill now is not representation for the local authorities. He makes no provision whatsoever for representation of the urban Bantu councils. This is the whole gist of the amendment of my hon. friend, the member for Transkei; it is to have representation for these two bodies. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister can see that he needs the advice of these people and that the other parties appointed by him are not necessarily representative of the industry concerned. He has not got to appoint someone from the Agricultural Union or from the Farmers’ Association; he has not got to accept somebody who is a member of the Chamber of Industries or of the Chamber of Commerce. In each case it is his own choice, and we want to make these people representatives of the other two bodies. Sir, there is one little point which I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I must admit that my knowledge of Afrikaans could be at fault here. [Interjections.] I am being serious; those hon. members might as well be quiet. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would have a look at the English text of clause 3 (1) (b), he would see that it reads—

“Any other” is referring, of course, to (a), where there is reference to agriculture. When it reads “any other industry” I can think of two immediately which could apply in the Johannesburg area, namely the manufacturing industry and the mining industry, so I assume that both those industries will have their representatives. But if he reads the Afrikaans text, it says—

Does this not imply one industry? I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will not look into this and if necessary move an amendment in the Other Place to make certain that if there are two industries, like manufacturing and mining, as I pointed out in the case of Johannesburg, they can both be represented.

That particular clause is not intended to mean only one industry. It is very clear that it could be more than one industry. In fact, we have already had dealings with some of the industries, which I am not going to mention now, which also want representation when these boards are instituted; so that it cannot possibly be one industry only.

Amendments in lines 30, 33, 34 and 35, proposed by Mr. T. G. Hughes, put and agreed to.

New paragraph (e), proposed by Mr. T. G. Hughes, put and the Committee divided: Ayes—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers. I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener. T. J. A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, j. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar. L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. L; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail. M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Van Breda. A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe. S W.; Van der Merwe. W L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

New paragraph (e) accordingly negatived.

New paragraph (e) proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman, put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Question put: That all the words after “be” in line 48 up to and including “him” in line 50 stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail. M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuv, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—40: Bands, G. J.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and the last amendment proposed by Mr. T. G. Hughes dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser. P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail. M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; De Villers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

(3) The Minister may at any time remove from office any member or an alternate to any member of a board who in his opinion has been guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty, or is unable adequately to fulfil the functions of a member or an alternate to a member of a board.

I should just like to say a few words about this. At present subsection (3) reads as follows—

I now want to amend this as is being proposed in my amendment. I should like to tell the House why I am coming forward with this amendment. It is because the hon. members on the opposite side tried to make out a case to the effect that the hon. the Minister wants to claim these powers for himself, and we have already assured them that this is not true and that this is not what the hon. the Minister wants to do. However, the clause, without my amendment, could have created that impression. Because we would not like to create that impression and because it is unnecessary that that impression should exist, I am amending it as I now move.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on the Order Paper, too. My amendment has the same effect as the Minister’s, though the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment is couched in different terms. We are prepared to accept his amendment. Accordingly, I will not move mine.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

We on this side of the House have serious objections to subsection (4) as it stands at the moment, for it is designed to allow administration boards to conduct any affairs they choose in secrecy. As subsection (4) stands, it gives these boards total discretion. Our view is that this will bring about a very undesirable state of affairs. We know that some matters should properly be dealt with privately. Matters of a domestic nature, such as staff discipline, belong properly for the most part in closed session. Early discussions about the possible acquisition of land for development might well also belong in closed session to avoid speculation and so forth. Also, matters that have some defamatory content to them should be discussed in closed session.

However, we must remember, too, that these administration boards will also be dealing with matters of grave importance, not only to the Bantu of the areas, but to all the communities living in the areas covered by the boards. Housing of Bantu, for instance, is one of these matters. It is very much in the public interest that it should be generally known what administration boards are doing about housing and about the living conditions of the Bantu, whose welfare is intimately tied up with that of the community as a whole.

Clause 5 (4) provides at the moment that—

This really means in effect that these boards are going to be given unfettered discretion as to what the public should be told about their proceedings and their decisions. It is quite conceivable that some of the matters that come before the boards could be highly contentious. It is not inconceivable that a board might decide, for the sake of convenience, to go into closed session merely to keep its actions away from the scrutiny of the public. This, I think, would bring about a state of affairs that could not and should not be countenanced. We do accept that there is a necessity for some matters to be dealt with in private. But we want safeguards that these boards will not abuse their powers by conducting affairs unnecessarily in closed session. That is why we now ask for the powers of these boards, in this respect, to be limited.

The number of instances in which these boards should in any event have to go into closed session should be very small indeed. We suggest that some safeguard is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. member’s amendment, I want to move the amendment printed in my name, as follows-

This is a minor matter and I think this House will be agreeable to it.

With reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, I want to say that I understand the problem of hon. members on that side of this House in this regard, I should very much like to accommodate them as far as it is practicable. In the first place I want to say that the specific subsection which provides for when a board may hold its discussions in camera, was taken virtually word for word from the present ordinances relating to local authorities in the Cape Province and in the Transvaal. The hon. members may accept it in that light. I have certain problems with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. In the first place I unfortunately have to say that it would be quite unpractical to apply the matter in the way suggested by the hon. member a moment ago. I have discussed it fully with the law advisers, and they pointed out to me that if his amendment were accepted, it would mean that if, for example, 50 boards were to have a discussion in camera about a certain matter, a member of such a board could divulge a decision taken in camera and subsequently plead that he did not know whether he had the Minister’s authorization to divulge the decision. For this reason it is unpractical. I want to cut the discussion short, because I do not want to have a long discussion on this, but there are other practical considerations which must also be taken into account. However, I want to repeat that I understand hon. members’ problem in this regard. I want to state very emphatically to the hon. members that it is not the intention that the administration boards should go in camera about any unnecessary or insignificant matter. This is definitely not the case. This particular clause is contained in the legislation because it is a standard provision in respect of all the statutory boards. It applies to the local authorities as they function today. In order to help the hon. members opposite out of their problem, I am prepared to move an amendment to the present clause 5. It reads as follows:

This is a practical and feasible proposition. I may just say that I have discussed it with the hon. member and that I am prepared to meet hon members opposite to this extent. I am in fact prepared to go even further, because I should like to meet them. I am prepared to issue the necessary directive, by means of regulations in terms of clause 22, that the meetings in camera from which the press and the public are excluded, cannot be held just for any reason. I shall therefore issue a directive that, as the clause is intended to function, it will apply particularly in respect of the three matters I shall mention now. Firstly, in a case where such an administration board is dealing with staff matters and where the publication of decisions on staff matters may embarrass the administration board. That would clearly require a normal in camera meeting. The second case where this will be done, is where the board might expose itself to libel actions if decisions were to become known. The third case in respect of which I shall issue a directive by way of regulation, is where matters are discussed, for example in connection with land purchases or other business transactions, which would cause all sorts of problems for the board and which could lead to unnecessary price increases if the discussion or the decision on such a matter were to become known. In these cases the board will then normally sit in camera. In other words, I want to try to help the hon. members, because I appreciate their problem. Their problem is that they do not want the board to sit in camera on general matters of policy and so forth about which the hon. members feel the press and the public should know. Because I want no misunderstanding in regard to this matter. I am prepared to move this amendment and to issue these directives by way of regulation in cases such as those I have mentioned. I hope this satisfies hon. members opposite.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, this has been the subject of some discussion between us. I want to express my appreciation for his co-operation and his general understanding of our problems. I feel that he has met us to a large extent, if not in toto, and we will support his amendment. I therefore wish to withdraw mine.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. D. G. Oliver, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the remuneration payable to members of the board and lays down that it will be paid out of the revenue of the board. In the Second Reading debate we expressed our regret that this was going to be done, became we feared that the amount available to the board would not be sufficient for it to carry out its obligations. Certain municipalities, for example, have to subsidize their Native revenue accounts for capital works because they do not have sufficient funds in their revenue accounts. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated, however, that the majority of municipalities have surpluses in their revenue accounts; in other words, that they have more than necessary to carry out their obligations. We fear that in these cases municipalities may not be giving as good service as municipalities where there are deficits …

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense.

You cannot say that they do not give good service.

They give service, but not as good as the others. The Johannesburg municipality, is an example to all other municipalities. Just look at all the amenities provided by the city council of Johannesburg to Soweto. Why is it the most popular Bantu area? It is because of the amenities provided and the general attitude towards Bantu administration there. Unfortunately we cannot amend this clause as we wished to in order to provide for the payment of board members by the Treasury, because of the rules. We feel that this will be an additional burden upon the funds of the board, and we also fear that it will result in the service to Bantu not being up to standard. As we are unable to amend this clause, we have to accept it as it is.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Provided that if the vice-chairman is not a member referred to in section 3 (1) (c) such a member shall be one of the members appointed to the executive committee.

I think the amendment is self-explanatory. It is simply to try to ensure that one of the members representing an urban authority within the administration board’s area, shall be on the executive committee if one such member is not appointed as a vice-chairman. It seems to me again that despite the arguments we have had on previous clauses, it must be in the interests of the administration board to have a spokesman, somebody who is at least conversant with the problems of larger municipalities falling within the administration board’s jurisdiction, on the executive committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment has the effect of seeking to ensure that one of the members of the executive committee of a city council shall be among those who are nominated—I will have to change the wording of the amendment—by the most populous local authority in the area concerned, namely the member who will be selected by the hon. the Deputy Minister from those people who are so nominated. In motivating this, I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that, even though the department or the board as such is going to take over the interests of the local authority concerned, the largest, most populous local authority in that area will still have a very real interest in what is going on. It will, at the same time, have surrendered to the board the biggest investment in housing and so forth of any of the local authorities in that area. We feel that it is quite fair that the representative of that most populous local authority should be one of those who are on the executive committee entrusted with the most intimate daily affairs of the board. I would like to ascertain from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is going to accept the amendment or not, as it will have to be amended to read as follows:

I now move the latter amendment.

Mr. Chairman, because I want to view this matter objectively and honestly and because the interests of these administration boards are at stake here, I now find myself in the most peculiar, I almost want to say unenviable position—I am not so sure either whether it may not perhaps be an enviable position—of being able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton as it stands.

I am fainting! Get me some water!

I do not know whether an amendment of that hon. member has ever been accepted in this House before. The amendment moved by the hon. member is quite a good one, to the effect that, since it is being laid down by the clause concerned that the board should appoint an executive committee consisting of the chairman, the vice-chairman and one or three other members of the board, the proviso is being added that if the vice-chairman is not a member of the local authority—it is merely being stated in legal terms here—such member should be one of those members who has been nominated to the Executive Committee. It is quite fair that a representative of the local authority should be appointed to the Executive Committee if it should so happen that an executive committee were appointed and that none of the members on such executive committee were a member of one of the local authorities. I therefore accept the amendment moved by the hon. member with all the reservations I now, by way of a joke, added to it.

Unfortunately, I find myself in the position now that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River. I am very sorry that I cannot accept his amendment, but surely the hon. member will appreciate my position. We have had a detailed discussion of this matter and the suggestion that local authorities themselves should nominate a member to these administration boards has been rejected. These two matters are closely bound up with one another. There is a further reason why this amendment is unacceptable to me. During the discussion of one of the other clauses I took great pains to explain what our object in regard to these boards was, i.e. that they should be boards consisting of experts. If one were to lay down now that a particular member of one of the biggest local authorities should be represented in the executive committee meeting, it would create so many problems. Who is going to determine which one of them is the biggest? This is another case where people are thinking only in terms of Johannesburg. I may find myself in the position where I have 30 local authorities in the country districts on my hands, and if I were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, the Minister or I would be expected to play the role of father in order to decide which of those places is the biggest. Some of these places are always having a pleasant fight amongst themselves to decide which one of them is the principal town of this or that area. Thus, for this practical reason that it is not always possible to ascertain in the first place which is the biggest in a particular administrative area, and in view of other problems I regret that I unfortunately cannot accept this amendment. In conclusion I just want to add the following: If one would like to nominate a board of experts, surely it is not a logical consequence that the best experts must necessarily come from the biggest places. In the rural areas where one is dealing with a number of smaller places, my task would be made absolutely impossible if I were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. I think I have given ample proof of my sympathy towards hon. members, but I find it impossible to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I can well imagine why the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton has given him an opportunity of getting away from the amendment moved by my hon. friend, the member for Mooi River, and at the same time of saving his face. Let me say that I do not believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton goes far enough. Sir, I want to quote two examples of what can happen here and what will in all probability happen. Let us assume that such a board is established in the Eastern Province. Sir, if that “pappegaai” over there would stop talking to the Deputy Minister, the Deputy Minister might be able to give me some attention. Sir, if such a board is established in the Port Elizabeth area, it would be established with possibly three local authorities, those of Port Elizabeth, Despatch and Uitenhage. In terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, it would be sufficient for the hon. the Deputy Minister to appoint the nominee from Despatch as the person to represent those local authorities on the Executive.

Why not?

Sir, is it fair, is it honest? Would this be right, when you consider the size and importance of the three local authorities concerned? Sir, Johannesburg has been bandied backwards and forwards here but I think we have to consider Johannesburg too.

What about Pietermaritzburg?

We will leave Pietermaritzburg for a moment; I will come to Pietermaritzburg in a moment too. Sir, if that “pappegaai” would stop talking, I will continue.

Big shot!

If that hon. Minister has something to say perhaps he can take a turn. In the Johannesburg area I would anticipate—and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me—that included in the area of a board would be the area of the Peri-Urban Areas Board, and in terms of clause 3 (1) (c) the Peri-Urban Areas Board is entitled to a representative as well. Sir, would it be right, would it be fair on Brakpan, would it be fair on Germiston if the representative of the Peri-Urban Areas Board were put on the Executive to the exclusion of Brakpan, Germiston, Johannesburg and the larger urban areas? As was pointed out here this afternoon, the Johannesburg Municipality has the responsibility of looking after 25 per cent of the urban Bantu of the Republic of South Africa. Sir, the whole object of the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River is that such an urban authority, with the experience which it has gained over the years, should be represented on the Executive, because it is the Executive which is going to do the work. It is not the board that is going to do the work. The board is going to meet once a month or otherwise as the hon. the Deputy Minister will determine. It is the Executive that is going to do the work. They are going to be doing this work virtually full-time. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not want the benefit of the advice of these people who have been administering this area all this time? The same thing applies in Durban, Sir. The same thing applies around Pietermaritzburg. If you were to include Howick, Camperdown and Richmond districts with Pietermaritzburg, would it be fair to take the representative of, say, Howick, or let me rather say the representative of Camperdown, a very small local authority with a handful of voters, and put him on the Executive? Sir, this comes back to the argument that we had earlier with regard to the representatives who were going to be appointed by the hon. the Minister. This comes back to why we wanted the nominee of the local authority concerned, who will be representative of the local authority concerned, and not representative of the thinking of that side of the House, to be appointed to the Executive. We do not want a person appointed by the Minister because of his political affiliation. Sir, this is the whole object. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot see our argument. I am sure he does see our argument and, as I say, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton has given him a wonderful opportunity of getting out of his troubles.

Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down must be very careful not to talk about another member making a “pappegaai” of himself, because he has just been making a big “mamparra” of himself. Apparently he does not know that what is under discussion at the moment is clause 7 which reads very clearly: “A board shall appoint an Executive Committee consisting of a chairman .. and that is the only person on the Executive who is to be appointed by the Minister. Neither I nor the Minister will appoint the other members. The board appoints the members of the Executive Committee. The hon. member therefore makes a “mamparra” of himself when he talks as though I am appointing them.

*Sir, let us be fair now. In the example, mentioned by the hon. member, of Port Elizabeth, Despatch and Uitenhage, where you have one big place and one or two small places, the board, which is going to nominate members of the executive committee itself and which consist of sensible people, will in practice, in 99.9 out of a 100 cases, most certainly take into account the kind of thing the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had in mind and will in all probability, owing to the practical set-up, give representation to the biggest local authority on that executive committee. I assume that. Where it is necessary everything can be done to do this if it is really necessary to do so, but in practice I do not think that it will be necessary. If what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District anticipates happens in practice, then I would not for one moment have hesitated to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River with the greatest of pleasure. But what is being requested now is that we should write into the legislation that the board, which must nominate the executive committee, which consists of a chairman, a deputy chairman and one or three members, should nominate somebody to the executive committee from the biggest local authority in that area. I do not think it is necessary to prescribe that for the board. I really do not think that it is necessary. But my problem is also this: On the one hand of the scale I must consider the possibility, if an administration board is established for Port Elizabeth, Despatch and Uitenhage, that a representative of Port Elizabeth will not be nominated as a member of the executive committee; I believe however that they will in practice in fact nominate someone from Port Elizabeth. On the other hand I must consider the following on the other side of the scale: Take the case where I am dealing with an area where there are 15 or 20 small local authorities. Hon. members must remember that the snail local authorities are going to derive the greatest benefit from this entire piece of legislation. What will happen now if you provide in the legislation that the board shall nominate a person from the largest local authority? Sir, in plain language, do you know what you are then going to do? You will then be starting a “cock and bull fight” between those smaller local authorities. I know that this is the last thing the hon. member for Mooi River wants and will expect from me. For these good and practical reasons I think we should rather leave it at that and where I am able to I will try and help, as requested by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, to ensure that justice is done to the biggest local authority under all circumstances, because I believe this is in our interests. But to give legal force to this would only be creating practical problems.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. M. Sutton put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

This clause deals with questions of disclosure by members of the board. The position as set out in the Bill is that a member of the board may not disclose a confidential matter except in certain circumstances. When I say a confidential matter, I refer to a matter from which the public and the press are excluded. A member of a board then may not disclose a confidential matter except with the consent of the board in question or in the performance of his duties, or as a witness in a court of law. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, I think it was, did give a fairly wide interpretation to the words “in the performance of his duties,” but we have some doubt as to whether in fact the wording of the clause covers the wide interpretation he gave to those words, and that is why we have moved the amendment. I think in considering whether this amendment can be accepted and the need for it, one should bear in mind the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the personnel of this board. He takes the view that representatives, for example, of councils or local authorities, will not indeed be there as representatives but merely as people who are serving in connection with local authorities. Therefore, since they are there in that capacity on these boards, the interpretation that one can give to the words “in the performance of his duties” in relation to a board member is more likely to be circumscribed, I think. The purpose of our amendment is to enable a board member who is a member of a local authority to gain the consent of the board to make disclosure to his own council of confidential matters which are dealt with by the board. It is a fairly limited amendment, but equally, it will enable a full report by a person representing the local authority on this board to report back to his local authority on the confidential matters that have been discussed by the board.

I do ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for him to accept this amendment. I believe that he was disinclined to accept it, but I would urge upon him to think on it afresh in the light of the fact that the person from the local authority will not, upon his interpretation, be a representative, but will merely be a person upon such body. Consequently one might have to give a very restrictive interpretation to the words “in the performance of his duties.” This therefore means that such a representative of a local authority would be limited in the information he could pass back to his local authority arising from matters discussed by the board. I ask him. therefore, in the light of that to consider this amendment. I stress again that it is of a limited kind and I think it may indeed more effectively achieve the purpose which the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, and if that is so, I suggest that it should be acceptable to him.

I took a very good look at the amendment which the hon. member for Pinelands is moving, and I should very much like to accept it, but I must tell you that it is unfortunately not possible to do so. I shall explain why it is not possible for me to do this. If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment it would have the practical effect of nullifying the basic content of clause 8, and I shall tell him why.

Clause 8 deals with the fact that a board member or an official will not make known information which he has gleaned in the course of his activities and which is of a confidential nature. But now the hon. member must bear in mind that on that statutory board there are people from commerce, industry and agriculture. There are consequently not only people from the local authorities on that board. My first problem is that we would be discriminating if we were to set down that a member of the local authority is exempt from clause 8. Then it means that clause 8 has no legal force with respect to a member of the local authority. One can be dealing with quite a number of bodies. Take questions of land purchases and various other things that one can foresee. The principle that one may discriminate and that some members of that board are covered by clause 8 and may not divulge matters of a confidential nature, while other members of the same board can do so, is really not tenable in any legislation. Because it is really impractical and because it discriminates between members serving on that board, I am faced with the difficulty that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, although I have the greatest respect for his legal knowledge.

Let me add another important consideration. It is a really important consideration and it will impress upon the hon. member how much trouble I have taken to see whether I cannot accept his amendment. I could mention a number of Acts to him here. There are easily 10 or 12 Acts in which this clause 8 appears word for word as it does in this Bill; and if I just quickly mention the legislation to the hon. member he will see how similar it is and how there is a comparison between this Bill now before the House and these Acts I am now going to mention, in which this clause 8, with only numerical differences, is contained. There are, for example, sections 9 and 10 of the State Tender Board and State Procurement Board Act, 1968. This is very recent legislation. There is section 52 of the Abattoir Commission Act, 1967; section 6 (2) and section 39 of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967; section 11 (2) of the Group Areas Act, 1966; section 6 (2) (d), 11 (2) (d) and section 34 of the Drugs Control Act; section 8 (1) of the Hotels Act, 1965; corresponding sections 4 (2) (c) and 8 (2) of the Bantu Re-settlement Act. In order not to go on for too long, I leave the rest at that. Let me now just ask whether this is not a sound legal principle. And let me say with all modesty that here we are trying to pilot a fine Bill through the House of Assembly. Legally and otherwise this is really a fine Bill. This is so if one looks at it objectively. Legal advisers for whom I have a great respect said this to me. From the legal point of view we leastways also want to keep it as it is. The hon. member will now understand, as a result of the three considerations I have mentioned, that it is not possible for me to accept his amendment. Why would the provision be in order in all the other Acts, while in this legislation we must accept a new principle, i.e. that of telling certain members, because they happen to be board members, that they may have freedom of speech while those in commerce, industry and agriculture may not.

Lastly I want to tell the hon. member to be a little careful. He must leave this alone. He does not know the farmers as I know them. If they know what that hon. member now wants to do here they would make things difficult for him. They would not like the fact that they are being discriminated against in this way. I hope the hon. member agrees.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. However, I want to suggest that there is an important difference between the board members for whom I am lodging a plea and the other members. The big difference is that they are members of a local authority whose entire administration of Bantu affairs and assets and everything were taken over. These are people of a city or town whose happiness depends to a large extent on the relationship between the Bantu and the Whites there. The board members representing agriculture and industry are there because of their special knowledge. They are not at all in the same position as the members of local authorities. That is the first point. I think it is a very important difference. This makes it possible to draw a distinction between the particular Acts the Deputy Minister mentioned.

In the second place the hon. the Deputy Minister said that in such a case a certain group of the board members would let the information leak out. It sounds as if this information were now going to be spread abroad. Actually I am only advocating that they be able to convey the information to their own boards in an altogether responsible manner, i.e. to those boards from which they come, so that they can keep abreast of affairs. In other words, just as in the case of the law of libel it is conveyed by someone that has an interest in it to someone else that also has an interest in it. Consequently there is no question of it being broadcast far and wide. I am advocating an altogether limited right and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will see the difference. I am sure that he will see it and declare himself prepared to make the exception accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to emphasize the difference between members on this side of the House and those on that side. The town councillor is not appointed to this board because he represents the town councils of Brakpan or Benoni. He is there as a result of his knowledge of local authority affairs and Bantu administration. He also serves on that board because he is knowledgeable. It would be wrong if the member of any town council were to report back to his town council about what takes place there. The correct approach would be for the Administration Board to notify the various town councils by letter of any decisions, if necessary. If this is not done officially, one is always going to land up with problems. Decisions will not always be conveyed to local authorities correctly. I hope and trust that the Minister will not let himself be influenced by this, because it would amount to nothing but discrimination. Why, for example, may a member representing commerce, industry or agriculture not convey certain information? Why is only the town councillor privileged? Surely this is wrong and unreasonable. It is discriminatory. We surely cannot do this. Hon. members must rid themselves of the idea that the town councillor of a certain local authority represents that local authority. He represents the entire community and he is present on that board because of his knowledge. That is why the Minister wants to appoint him accordingly.

If ever we have had an arrogant admission in this Committee, we have had it now. The hon. member for Brakpan now admits that all the nice talk by the hon. the Deputy Minister, while we were discussing clause 3 and the question of representatives of local authorities, meant nothing whatsoever. What does the hon. member for Brakpan say? [lnterjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause. We have discussed that matter at length.

What does the hon. member for Brakpan say? He says that the people who are going to be appointed from the city councils will not be representative of the local authorities but that they are there because of their particular knowledge.

But that is what the Minister has been saying for two hours now.

But it is not so. The hon. member for Potchefstroom too must read clause 3 again. The point I made while clause 3 was being discussed, was that certain members were being appointed because of their knowledge in certain fields, such as agriculture, industry and so on.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should stress that again. He must come back to the clause.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with the clause. The persons who are appointed in terms of clause 3 (1) (c) are not appointed because of any particular knowledge, according to the clause, but from those bodies.

Yes, we have passed that clause already. I want the hon. member to come back to clause 8.

Yes, Sir, but the hon. the Deputy Minister raised this as a defence here—the question of discrimination between the different types of members of the board. Surely I should be able to discuss the different members of the board, if I am to answer his question on discrimination? He says that there will be discrimination against the farmer representatives. If I am to discuss the question of discrimination, I must discuss the different members, how they are appointed and for what reason they are appointed. The point is that the farmer representative is appointed because of his particular knowledge and not to represent a farmers’ association. The industrial representative is not appointed, to represent industry ci the Chamber of Commerce. He is appointed because of the particular knowledge he may have. When one looks at clause 3 (1) (c), one finds that the representative of the local authority comes from that local authority, but not because of any particular knowledge. There is no question here of discrimination. The hon. member for Brakpan hides behind the discrimination story as well, but he has not looked at the clause to see where the members come from. However, it goes further than this. Where is there going to be discrimination? There is no question of discrimination. The person who is appointed because of his knowledge of farming affairs has no body to report back to. The person who is appointed because of his knowledge of industrial affairs has no body to report back to.

That does not necessarily follow.

Of course it matters. The person who is appointed in terms of clause 3 (1) (c) is appointed because he represents a body.

Which body?

The body being the local authority. He represents the local authority and is a member of that body. He represents that body on the board. He is not there because of any particular knowledge. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister accept, as my hon. friend from Pinelands asked him, that it would be in the performance of his duties if he reported back to his City Council or his local authority?

I will reply to that when you sit down.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says he will reply to that. All right, let us hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply before we go any further.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Deputy Minister replies, I just want to say that because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was apparently absent from the House for a brief period a while ago, he now has the wrong end of the stick. He simply does not know what this is all about.

We had finished with clause 3 a long while ago, but if he would just look at it again he would see that it is nowhere provided that the representative of the urban local authority must report back to the said urban local authority.

No.

Just give me a chance. And nowhere in clause 3 is it stated that the said member of the urban local authority serves as a representative of such an urban local authority on this Bantu Administration Board. When the hon. member has returned from his coffee drinking he must just read clause 3 (2) (b) to see that members are appointed “on the ground mainly of acquaintance with and wide knowledge of the affairs of such body”. This does not say that he must represent that local authority. But I do not want to concern the hon. member further with clause 3.

To which clause are you referring?

I am referring to clause 3 (2) (b). If the hon. member would just read that paragraph he would see that his argument is altogether unfounded.

Looking at the amendment which the hon. member for Pinelands moved, one is amazed that the hon. member could draw up an amendment which really does not hold any water legally. Clause 8 (2) is exclusively aimed at preventing people from making confidential information public. The hon. member agrees with that. That is the basis of this subsection.

It is standard law.

Yes, the hon. member’s amendment boils down to the fact that the person who is appointed as a result of his knowledge of urban local authority affairs shall not be bound by this, because the hon. member’s amendment reads as follows—

The hon. member says that because permission may not be withheld, a representative from an urban local authority obtains the unqualified right to make information known. What is the sense of placing this clause on the Statute Book if certain members now do have the unqualified right to make information public without being subject to the penal provisions that will be in force in this connection? The suggestion of the hon. member for Pinelands can therefore not be a good one, because why must one body now be given the unqualified right to make information public without these penal provisions being applicable to it? I therefore think the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite right in refusing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that the purpose of the amendment is to enable the person on the board who represents a local authority, to report back to that local authority. That is the purpose of this amendment. I have given the reason why representatives of local authorities should be distinguished from persons representing agriculture, industry, commerce and so forth. To repeat it, we are dealing with local authorities which are going to hand over their administration of Bantu affairs, all their assets and so forth. They have the interest of the good relationships between the Bantu people and the White citizens at heart. This amendment constitutes a more important test than I realized when I originally moved this amendment. This is a test, to some extent, of the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister in saying that if he could have left this whole matter with local authorities, he would gladly have done so. He has maintained that it is impossible so to amend section 40 in order to …

Order! The hon. member must come back to clause 8 and his amendment.

Are you supporting me now?

No. Mr. Chairman, the point is that I am dealing with the reason why the local authority person on the board should be in a special position. It has been stated that this would be discrimination, but I do not accept that expression. I am pointing this out to the hon. the Minister and I am advancing a reason why they should be in a special position. They should be in a special position because of the intimate concern of local authorities in these affairs; so much so that the hon. the Deputy Minister at all stages has indicated that he would gladly have left the whole matter with local authorities. I accept the hon. the Minister’s bona fides but if this is the right attitude I argue that he will surely not want to leave any stone unturned to keep local authorities informed as to what is truly happening on these boards. Apparently we have a situation where it must be taken out of their hands, but now is the opportunity for him to keep them as much in the picture as he possibly can. For this additional reason I am urging him to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I promised I would reply to the questions which have been put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. The hon. member for Pinelands has put a similar question. The question is whether in fact such a member of a local council who has a seat on such en administrative board can report back to his local council. That was the question that he put to me.

In the performance of his duty.

The reply is very clear. In any event I have already given him a reply in my Second Reading speech when I replied to a similar question which had been raised by the hon. member for Transkei. I said that under the rules of privilege, such a local council member sitting on this statutory board is entitled to report back to his local council on all matters pertaining to that local council. Therefore, he can do so. There are no other matters as far as anybody can foresee, on which he would want to report back. Why should he? For what reason? However, he can do so under the rules of privilege. That is why I emphasized that this is a standard clause which is as old as the mountains. For that reason I cannot understand why it is not acceptable to the Opposition.

Lastly, there is a biblical phrase which says: “Lead me not into temptation …” This clause 8 …

How do you know?

Yes, I know.

What do you know about temptation?

I have been ever so tempted by the Opposition and I am trying to be a good boy. I think I have been a good boy all through. The fact of the matter is that clause 8 is a standard clause and similar clauses are on the Statute Book. Seeing that the members of the local authorities on such a board have already the privilege to report back, I think it would really be a case of leading them into temptation if we also exempt them from clause 8 of the Bill. After all these reasons which I have mentioned, I just want to say again that I am sorry but I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that under the rules of privilege as he has described them, a member of this board who emanates from a local authority would be entitled to report to his local authority on what he had been doing.

On matters pertaining to that local authority.

Yes, I accept that. Well, the only rules of privilege I have ever heard of relate to the law of defamation. I am quite unaware of any other rules of privilege.

You are quite right. I will tell the hon. member why I say he is quite right. The reason is that the intention of this clause is to deal with matters of defamation and to protect the board from matters of defamation and libel. There are no other purposes in this clause 8. That is the reason why it is a standard clause. That means that my interpretation is quite right.

Mr. Chairman, this baffles me completely. Here we are dealing with a clause which prohibits the disclosure by a member of the board of information relating to the board without the consent of the board. Now what on earth has this to do with defamation? I imagine it would only be on a rare occasion that the board would have to deal with a matter which is defamatory of any person and I imagine it would be on an even rarer occasion that the member concerned would want to report back to the local authority on a matter which is defamatory of any person. What would be the general run of events I think is for non-defamatory matters to be dealt with by the board and for non-defamatory matters to be of interest to the municipality from which that person emanated. If that is the situation, and this seems clearly to be covered by clause 8 (2), then the law of privilege and defamation has nothing whatever to do with it. I cannot imagine why the hon. the Deputy Minister raises it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now raised this question of privilege again. He mentioned it during the Second Reading debate too, but I thought he made a mistake as a layman by mentioning privilege. I did not realize that he is seriously advised that a member of this board will be able to report back to his council on a question of privilege. The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned that this is a statutory body and I wonder if he has some peculiar idea about the privileges of a statutory body or the advantages of having a statutory body, namely that it has certain powers that other bodies do not have. I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister can make it quite clear to us now if the member of this board will only be able to report back on questions of defamation, if there is any defamatory statement made in the board about a member of the council or of an official of the council. Is it only in those circumstances that he will be allowed to report back or will he be able to report back on matters of interest like the acquisition of land? Supposing the member representing Johannesburg finds that the board is going to buy land abutting on Germiston to move the Bantu living in the Johannesburg area over to Germiston. Will he then be allowed to report that the board intended doing that and that the board is acquiring land for that purpose?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why hon. members opposite keep on debating this point to such an extent. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands cannot with the best will in the world be interpreted as meaning that such a person has exemption to report back to the local authority he represents. If one would want to interpret this provision in the years to come, anyone outside this House would have to refer to the Hansard report of the hon. member’s speech in order to find out what the real and correct interpretation of his amendment is. Surely the object of correct legal draftsmanship is to make the wording so clear that the conclusions that are to be drawn can be drawn directly from the wording itself. This amendment does not allow of any such conclusion being drawn as hon. members opposite want to be drawn in future. With all due respect to the Chair, therefore think it is unnecessary to debate the hon. member’s amendment any further here. This is not a justified conclusion to draw from it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add something in order to make the position quite clear. When I referred to the rules of privilege during the Second Reading debate, and this afternoon as well, this matter had already been discussed in detail with out law advisers. What I meant by that was, that where there is a common interest, and to me it is quite logical that this should be the position, that member of the administrative board is completely within his rights in reporting it to his local authority. Neither can I see at all how it could under any circumstances give rise to a problem of any nature whatever. However, I want to make one matter very clear. If a member of the local authority of, say, Johannesburg, reports back on a matter which was discussed on that administration board and which affects, for example, Benoni, which is also represented on that administration board, and that is a matter in respect of which matter problems of, for example, defamation may arise, it is naturally, according to the rules of privilege or normal rules of morality, not right that he should do so, and it would cause trouble. I therefore do not understand why there should be any difference of opinion on this. Finally, I just want to add that it is very clear that the purpose of clause 8 is to protect this administration board, like all the other boards I have mentioned, for example the Tender Board, the Medical Council, etc., against libel actions. This is a standard clause. That is all. That is the purpose of this clause. This is my information. If my information if wrong, I am very sorry. I honestly do not think it is necessary that we should have so much misunderstanding about clause 8 in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the Deputy Minister is getting us more and more confused now. Let us just see what the subsection says. It reads as follows:

Now, Sir, what do the words “or in the performance of his duties” mean? Surely, if in the course of his duties, he finds a matter of interest to his board which has nothing to do with defamatory statements about anybody…

But it could land the board in such a position.

I mention again a question of the purchase of land, which cannot land the board in any defamatory action. For example, if the board decides that it is going to remove the Bantu from Johannesburg over to Germiston, there cannot be any defamatory action against the board. But the board does not give its consent to his telling it to Johannesburg.

If it is on a staff question?

Staff questions are different. A member definitely mu-t be protected by privilege; otherwise he has to be careful what he tells the board. If there is any defamatory statement about any officials, of course, he has to be careful whom he tells. He obviously has to be careful, because he lays himself open to a charge.

But if he does so …

That is where a defamatory statement is concerned. But where there is no defamation concerned at all, it is a business transaction without a question of policy. Surely, he then in the performance of his duties must be entitled to go and tell his council, for example, the Johannesburg or the Germiston Council, as the case may be, what the board intends doing. The Deputy Minister relates the whole situation to defamation. I ask him to go into this matter more carefully and to discuss it further next time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.