Mr. Speaker, I move—

The hon. member is overseas on a very important agricultural mission, hence this motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of this Bill is, on the one hand, to create order from what is threatening to develop into chaos and, on the other hand, to have justice done to people who would otherwise have to pay a particularly high price for the privilege of rendering public service. As hon. members know, the pension benefits of present and former members of this hon. House as well as of the Other Place, have been regulated by a considerable number of statutory provisions since 1951. Today the benefits of a considerable number of former members are being calculated in terms of a large number of Acts which have been repealed but which, in fact, are still in operation in that they are nevertheless regulating the pension benefits of former members. It is no small task to determine today what a former member’s pension position is, and normally this requires a thorough study of a large number of Acts, a study which is in no way facilitated by the passage of time and adjustments and changes. In this measure we are consolidating the old and the new, and in this way we are creating a measure which we believe will create order in a situation which is becoming more and more difficult to handle.

On the other hand we see this as a measure which, as I have already said, rectifies what has become outmoded in the course of time. Unfortunately the position here is that we have to decide on our own welfare, but since there is no one else who can do this, we do not have any choice in this matter either. Nor are we apologizing for what we are doing by means of this measure, because we believe that it is not only our honest right to do our duty in this regard as well, but also something we are required to do in the interests of the country, i.e. to be realistic in a matter which affects the public interest as directly as this one does.

It is not our object to proclaim the merits of public service from the roof tops, but I do think it is necessary for us to indicate for the sake of the record a few of the lesser known facts. It is probably true that parliamentary service gives rise to the position that those who set out on the parliamentary road find themselves in the limelight more often than others do. It is also true that the limelight may often be flattering to the ego and may bring a lustre which cannot easily be acquired along another road. However, it is equally true that the limelight may often be cruel and disparaging and demand a merciless toll.

But, Sir, this is not all. The public life of a parliamentarian demands other sacrifices from him as well. More often than is generally realized his entry into parliamentary life gives rise to the position that he has to abandon, be it immediately or gradually, his business interests or his farming activities, or his occupation or profession for the ups and downs of a political career. That normally spells the end of his opportunities to make provision for his old age, especially if he enters public life when he is middle-aged. One is hesitant to underline the facts, but the fact of the matter is that many profitable occupations or professions or interests have to be abandoned for the privilege of serving one’s fellowmen in public life. One does so gladly and we, too, are prepared to contribute our share, but it is fitting for us just to take cognizance of the fact that the privileges we are enjoying also demand their price.

I do not believe it is necessary for me to go into the details of the provisions of each clause of this Bill. This is a matter which we shall be able to deal with more fruitfully in the Committee Stage. However, there are a few matters to which I should like to draw attention.

There may be a possibility that the genera] impression created by this Bill is one of an increase or improvement in the benefits of members. It undoubtedly improves the benefits of members, but now hon. members should not be shocked when I tell them that they will have to pay for that. The ways of Parliament are, and one cannot get away from this, that when it gives, it also takes in some form or other. But before I possibly upset members. I should first like to draw attention to one of the most important provisions of this measure. I am referring to clause 4, in terms of which hon. members who previously had service in a provincial council or in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa will henceforth be able to elect to have half of that service count as pensionable service in terms of the parliamentary scheme. As you know, hon. members who had provincial service receive little recognition for that service today in terms of the parliamentary scheme.

As a result it happens fairly often that the position of members who had fairly long service in, for example, a provincial council as well as parliamentary service, is an invidious one upon their retirement or death, and in many cases they have to make do without any pension whatsoever. Members who are survived by young children are especially hard hit by the present arrangements. As matters are today, members who had provincial as well as parliamentary service have to derive their pension benefits partly from the scheme of the province concerned and partly from the parliamentary scheme, and it often happens that long years of public service pass unrewarded as far as their pension rights are concerned. Clause 4 now enables them to find their welfare, as far as pensions are concerned, at one place and that is in the parliamentary scheme.

†As I have said, Sir, everything has its price. Hon. members will observe that clause 2 (1) of the Bill provides for an increase in the rate of members’ contributions. That increase, it is calculated, will increase the total amount of members' contributions by over R56 000 per annum. But that is not all. The recognition now given to previous service in a provincial council or the Legislative Assembly of the Territory does not come unpriced and members who will benefit by the provisions concerned have probably already observed that they will have to pay for the recognition given to their previous service. The amount recoverable from each member will naturally vary according to his own particular circumstances. It is accordingly not possible to give a general indication of the financial implications underlying this concession. May I, however, also remind hon. members that the Bill requires that in addition to paying for any service recognized as envisaged by the Bill they will have to refund any provincial pension received by them during any period served as Parliamentary members. The total cost of such recognition could, therefore, in a particular case amount to a considerable amount. For the information of hon. members I may mention that in one particular case of which we know, it would at this stage appear that recognition of previous provincial service could cost the hon. member concerned over R12 000. His case is probably exceptional, but it illustrates, I think, fairly, what hon. members might let themselves in for. Probably it would be advisable for hon. members first to consult my department before making an election in terms of clause 4.

As I have said, it is most difficult to determine what the financial implications of the concession in question might be to hon. members generally. We, however, estimate that a further R50 000 to R100 000 could be expected to become payable in respect of the recognition of such prior service, in so far as present members are concerned.

*As regards hon. members who may retire after this, it is probably not inappropriate to remind them of the fact that higher pensions will also mean higher taxation. As I am dealing with the financial implications of this measure, I may just as well point out that members who have already retired on pension should not begin to celebrate when they see the maximum amounts listed in Part III of the First Schedule, because the maximum pensions listed there will be reached only after many long years of service. I do not want to be a killjoy, but I nevertheless have to point out that experience has taught us that most members do not remain in Parliament for a sufficiently long period which will make them qualify for the maximum pensions. On the contrary, if one could accept the calculations of the statisticians, it would appear that the average parliamentary life of a member was a particularly short one. Indeed, experience has proved that many members in fact do not even spend the qualifying period for a pension here.

In my opinion the improvements being effected by the Bill are nevertheless reasonable ones. One would have liked to compare the improved benefits to the benefits payable in terms of other pension schemes, but I am afraid that this scheme differs so radically from other pensions schemes that any comparison is virtually out of the question. Just to mention one example, in terms of the parliamentary scheme members do not receive a gratuity plus an annuity as is usual in the case of pension schemes. Our standpoint is, however, that the circumstances which determine a political career differ radically from those determining other careers for which other pensions schemes have been established, and that the idea of gratuities for members cannot be entertained for that reason. Many of the provisions of this Bill are re-enactments of existing provisions. In this connection I may mention that the payment of pensions to members’ widows and, in some cases, to their children, is based on established principles which are being re-enacted now. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that many of the provisions of the measure are self-explanatory and consequently require no comment.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill. In the main it is a consolidating measure but as the Minister has rightly said, it does clear up certain anomalies which manifested themselves in the past. Certain of the members who have had provincial council service and Parliamentary service have been in difficulties. It also improves the position as far as members’ widows are concerned. We do not think it is right that we should have before the Select Committee on Pensions petitions by either former members of Parliament or widows of members of Parliament. I think it is right that this Parliamentary pension scheme should be put on a proper basis even though it demands increased contributions from members. In the past the contributions by members have been lower than 8 per cent. It is now increased to 8 per cent of the member’s basic salary. I would remind members that in commerce and industries today frequently in pension schemes one finds a 7½ per cent surcharge for pensions of which 2½ per cent is borne by the employee and 5 per cent by the employer, and in this case we require the full 8 per cent from members of Parliament. This will put the scheme on a better basis. It also takes into account the service of Ministers and special service allowances and it also has regard to former members of Parliament and former Ministers who in some cases have made representations to Parliament. When this Bill is passed it will make some concession to them. Having regard to the fact that it is desirable that this should be put on a proper basis and remembering also that this is a consolidating measure we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I doubt very much whether the soft words and sentiments uttered by the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill will be echoed outside this House, and I also doubt very much whether the words of the Chief Whip of the official Opposition will be echoed either because I do not consider this merely a consolidating measure. To some extent it does consolidate existing legislation, but it also introduces considerable changes and considerable additional benefits for certain members who have served in special capacities in this House, more particularly Ministers. I would also say this in reply to the hon. the Chief Whip who has indicated that as a result of this measure the Parliamentary contribution will now be put on a proper basis in that it will come to 8 per cent, and who rather gave the impression that this would put members of Parliament, if anything. in an unfavourable position vis-à-vis other people who pay contributions to pension schemes in ordinary civil life. Well, to the best of my knowledge we could never ever claim that our Parliamentary pension scheme is actuarially a good proposition but it certainly is a good proposition for members of Parliament. But I do not think we can ever claim that this is a proper actuarial proposition. In fact, the fund would fold up, I should imagine, within three or four years if it were to be put on a proper actuarial basis. I do not think it right to give the impression that the increased contribution is going to make this a proper actuarially sound fund. I have nothing against the payment of pensions to members of Parliament, Ministers and other persons. I think they are entitled to pensions. [Interjections.] I might say that we already have a Pensions Act and if this Bill were not introduced today, or if it were rejected today at Second Reading, we would retain pensions and other benefits, so I would not be depriving that hon. member or myself, because I have no doubt this will come back to personalities eventually, of existing pension rights. But I object very strongly to the increases which are being mooted in terms particularly of clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill. I also object to clause 4 of the Bill which puts people who were previously members of the provincial council in an extremely favourable position as regards the pension they are now going to receive.

A few years ago a Bill was introduced in this House which allowed former members of the provincial council to count, I think it was, half the provincial council service in terms of Parliamentary service. I do not think anyone can say that serving in the provincial council is anything like a full time job or even for that matter a half time job but as a result, those members were able to have increased pension rights when they leave this House. I voted against that Bill and I will vote against this one loo. All I can really say about this Bill is “here we are again”. No sooner has the dust settled which was stirred up after a countrywide outcry about members of Parliament increasing their salaries at the very time when everybody else was asked to withhold demands for higher pay, than the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions arrives on the scene and presents us with this Bill which introduces very big increases indeed in the pensions of members who occupy certain offices in this House and in the Other Place, not to mention Commissioners-General and Administrators. I do not deny that ordinary members and senators will also benefit to some extent by this Bill, but to a minor extent compared to the others I have mentioned. Those ordinary members and senators receive benefits under the previous Bill as regards pensions as well as salaries, because the increases in salary mean that pensions will automatically increase as well.

This Bill, however, brings additional benefits in two respects. Firstly, it reduces the time factor under which a member may qualify for a pension from ten years to eight years, and, secondly, it also reduces the period during which a member may qualify for the maximum pension, namely from 22½ years to 20 years. I feel that these are reasonably minor benefits compared to the other benefits which are introduced by this Bill. Since we are talking about actuarial figures hon. members should realize that they will receive after ten years, having paid the normal rate, which has been changed over the past ten years, that is, paying an amount of roughly R2 000, a pension of R3 250 per annum for the rest of their days. If they survive, as I sincerely hope they will, for another ten years, it will mean that under the new rates they will pay an additional amount of R5 200 and will then receive a maximum pension, after 20 years, of R6 500 for the rest of their days. The hon. the Chief Whip of the Opposition will agree that it is not a bad return by any standards, actuarial or otherwise.

I now want to look at the benefits introduced by clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill. I want to say at once that I am not talking on a personal basis at all, but in terms of the Act which refers to the office of the Prime Minister and to the other offices mentioned in clause 9. Under clause 8 a special pension will be payable to the Prime Minister which will now be an amount of three-quarters of the Prime Minister’s present salary.

He is entitled to it.

That is a matter of opinion. He is certainly entitled to a pension, but whether he is entitled in the given circumstances to an increase in pension from R13 000 per annum to R18 000 per annum, is of course, another matter. I think it is a very steep rise indeed. Interestingly enough, any Prime Minister in the future need serve only one day as Prime Minister to qualify for this pension. It is not a question of time or of long service as Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have had numbers of years of service, but it is quite possible that future Prime Ministers will serve for a shorter period. Irrespective of the period of holding office, however, future Prime Ministers of South Africa will be entitled to a pension of R18 000 per annum.

Now let us have a look at clause 9. Clause 9 refers to a number of people, members of Parliament and other persons who serve in special capacities in this House and in the Other Place, I would like to give the House some idea of the increases which are contemplated, For the purpose of this arithmetical exercise I have taken a period of ten years of service as a Minister, a Deputy Minister, an Administrator, as Leader of the Opposition and so on. Clause 9 (1) has paragraphs from (a) to (h) and I was interested to work out the increases which are going to result if this Bill is accepted in its present form. Anybody who has occupied the office of Minister for ten years will, at the end of that period, receive a pension of R10 650 per annum for life. I may mention that under previous rates the pension would have been R5 200 per annum. Anybody who has occupied the office of President of the Senate or Speaker of the Assembly, will be receiving a pension of R9 360, as against R5 200. Anybody who has occupied the office of Administrator or Deputy Minister for ten years, will receive a pension of R8 000 per annum, as against R5 200 per annum. Anybody who has occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly will be getting a pension of R7 350 per annum, as against R5 200 per annum. Commissioners-General who have held the post for ten years, will be getting R6 650 per annum as a pension, as against R3 400. Deputy Presidents and Chairmen of Committees of the Senate or of the House of Assembly will be getting R6 000 per annum, as against R3 400 per annum. The office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate used to carry a pension of R2 800. It is now going to carry a pension of R5 000. I could go on right down the line. I come to Chief Whips of the Opposition in the Senate or in the House of Assembly. The pension used to be R2 800, and will be R5 000. Assistant Whips, who were getting a pension of R2 200, will now receive one of R4 650. By any standards, those are enormous increases in pension.

What is the difference in contribution?

The difference in contribution is minimal, considering the difference in the larger amount which they are going to get per annum. [Interjections.] I will give the hon. members that in a minute. I have the figures here. It is a small figure, indeed. As I say, actuarially it is a very, very good return on such an investment, and can be highly recommended to any hon. member in this House.

Certain members will be in particularly fortunate positions. Those will be people who have really had very long service in this House. Once again, I do not begrudge such people a special reward. I think they are entitled to it. But I think everything should be within limits. When one thinks that people who have had really long service in this House, both as Ministers and as Members, start getting refunds after they have reached the maximum salary, and indeed, they can end up by only having to pay contributions up to the extent of eight years’ pensionable contributions, and can end up with maximum pensions of R16 000 per annum, I think that that is a very generous reward, indeed. I wonder how many people outside this House are getting anything like maximum pensions of 100 per cent after twenty years of service. I know that senior officers in the Civil Service certainly do not get that. I might say that these concessions apply also to the widows of M.P.s. They will be getting from now on three-quarters of the total amounts which their late husbands received in pension even if they remarry. All these are very large increases, and I wonder what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, in fact, to justify these vast increases. I, as I say, am in favour of pensions and I am in favour of adequate rewards, but I do not think that there can be any justification for the vast increases of this particular kind, particularly when one thinks of the mass of people outside who are struggling to keep going on their pensions in the face of the rising cost of living, and when one thinks of the niggardly allowances which have recently been given to civil pensioners.

I also object to clause 4, under which ex-provincial councillors will be in a much more favourable position than before. The hon. the Minister mentioned that they will have to pay in considerable contributions. They will have to pay in contributions— but again, if one works it out on any sort of reasonable return basis, there is no doubt whatever that members who were formerly members of the Provincial Council, are going to gain considerably by clause 4 in this new Bill. As I work it out, the additional amount which members must pay now is going to be a few hundred rand per annum, but they are certainly going to get a few thousand rand per annum in return. I would say that the deal being given to them is a very favourable one indeed, I was very interested to note that the hon. Leader of the House last night was not busy informing everyone how poor members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers were, but was challenging members of the official Opposition to say which of them did not in fact own any shares. That is rather a different tune from the one he sang a few months ago.

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill? The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

If I may say so. Sir, I am discussing the financial position of members of Parliament. Considerable capital was made out of the fact that so many members were in such dire straits.

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

Very well, Sir, I will come back to the Bill. I want to know what the payment of additional pensions is going to cost the State or the taxpayers who, in the last instance, are the ones who pay. If one looks at the Estimates, one sees that there has been a steady increase in expenditure on pensions over the last few years: In 1969-’70 the amount was approximately R240 000, in 1970-’71 R280 000 and in 1971-’72 R320 000. I wonder what sort of amount we are going to find on the Estimates by 1975 when the term of this particular Parliament ends. When the parliamentary salaries were being discussed, it was mentioned that an amount of R630 000 per annum only would be required to meet the additional cost. It was pointed out that this was a small amount in comparison with an over-all expenditure of over R2 000 million, I do not think we will find in the future that the amount expended on pensions is going to be a small amount. I say that because this is cumulative. Every parliamentary term that ends, sees the retirement of a number of members of Parliament. The usual figure of the turnover is approximately one-quarter of the members of this House. All those members who will have served eight years—not all of them will have served that period, I admit, will be on the receiving side of these greatly increased pensions. Most of all will of course be the persons who hold special offices in this House. For all the reasons I have given, I am going to vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton opposed this measure firstly because, according to her, it has not been put on a proper actuarial basis.

I did not say that that was why I opposed it.

It is very difficult to follow the point of view of the hon. member for Houghton. Is she in favour of the fact that it is not on a proper actuarial basis?

I accept that it is not.

Normally pension schemes are based on the prospect of life of the individuals who are involved in the scheme. The expectation of life is something which can be worked out on an actuarial basis. It is not to be expected, however. that schemes of this kind can be based on a purely actuarial basis, because the extent of time members of Parliament spend in this House is not capable of an actuarial calculation. More particularly, if one is a member of the Progressive Party, I would have thought it is more difficult to arrive at an accurate calculation of the time one spends here. Apparently, I misunderstood the hon. member and this is not one of the reasons upon which she bases her opposition to this Bill.

I think I am right in saying, though, that the hon. member certainly based her opposition to a large extent on clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill. Clause 8 provides that the Prime Minister of the day will fall into a category of his own with regard to the pension. It seems to me that whichever way one looks at it. this is something which is justifiable. Or else, if one does not support the point of view as expressed in clause 8 of this Bill, one must then presumably prefer the position one has had hitherto, where you have had. I recall for example, the position of the late Gen. Hertzog. As soon as he lost office as Prime Minister, it was necessary for Parliament to put through a special Bill to enable a special pension to be payable to him. Indeed. I believe that would be the situation of every Prime Minister were it not for a clause such as clause 8 of this Bill. It seems to me that it is far better to have a general principle which is applicable to all Prime Ministers so that a retired Prime Minister will not be forced to face the invidious position of having special legislation to deal with his pension.

Then the hon. member was opposed to clause 9 which deals, as the hon. member has pointed out, which certain categories of office bearers, principally Ministers. We have recently had a debate dealing with the question of the shareholdings and business interests of Ministers. I naturally will not go into it, but merely want to use it as an analogy. Let us be consistent. If we take the view that Ministers ought not to indulge in business activities and if we take the view that Ministers ought not to have shareholdings, surely one must be consistent If one takes the view that whilst they hold office which may be over a considerable period of time, they are not to take part in any activity which allows them to lay aside a nest egg for their days of retirement—I presume the hon. member for Houghton agrees with this point of view— then, surely, one must be consistent and make adequate provision for those people whom one is preventing from looking after their own interests because of the office they hold. One must make adequate provision for them so that they can live in a decent manner when they retire from that office. That is, I believe, the correct reason why Ministers and certain office-holders are dealt with differently from ordinary members of Parliament.

The hon. member did not make it clear whether she was opposed to the provisions which applied to ordinary members of Parliament or not. I assume that the hon. member supports the provisions or does not oppose the provisions which relate to ordinary members of Parliament. It is regrettable that she is not prepared to commit herself on this point. Perhaps she has her reasons.

In these days in the business world outside, pensions are one of the most important fringe benefits which one looks at in the field of business activities. Pensions are perhaps the most important fringe benefit.

Either one believes that it is of importance and of value to this country to bring into Parliament young men of ability. young men under the age of 30. or one does not. We on this side of the House believe that this is of benefit to the country. Indeed, there are young men in this Parliament on both sides who have come into Parliament at an age before they have been in a position to establish themselves in any activity outside of Parliament at all. I believe they are to be commended for coming into public life at such a young age. Those young men, if they are to perform their duties adequately through a long Parliamentary career, if they are to devote their attention to the interests of public life, then they will not be in a position at any stage, having come into this House perhaps at the age of 24 or 26. to amass sufficient funds to provide themselves with their own pension scheme. If we are to prevent ourselves from becoming a house of old fuddy-duddies which I think is a phrase the hon. member for Houghton likes to use, then we must provide adequately for pensions for the young men. Or does the hon. member for Houghton believe that the cream of the intellect and the ability of South Africa is already sitting in this House?

No, certainly not.

Does the hon. member believe that the emoluments by way of pay and pensions are so princely, so attractive, that we have attracted to this House the cream of the intellect and the ability of South Africa? If we are to believe the rather exaggerated point of view of the hon. member, then it means that there will be a complete change of personnel after the next election, because we will be creating for ourselves here, in the view of the hon. member for Houghton, circumstances so advantageous, so much better than can be found outside this House, that there will be such a rush and a scramble to come here after the next elections, that neither the hon. member for Houghton nor I nor anybody else will find ourselves here. Of course, Sir, this is absurd. If you compare the position, from the point of view of emoluments and fringe benefits, of members of this House with that of anybody outside who has any pretensions to ability, you will find that there is no comparison at all. That is why, even at the present time, I believe that there will not be a flood of people wanting to come into this House. Even with the emoluments and the pensions, such as there will be when this Bill is passed, the disadvantages of public life and in particular of life in this House, and the uncertainties which pertain to it, will not make it an attractive proposition in the view of the majority.

It is necessary, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton, particularly against this side of the House, that I make one final point in this regard, and that is to wonder, rhetorically, whether the Progressive Party would have displayed the same attitude in respect of this Bill if its representation in this House had been not that of a wealthy woman…

Here we go again.

… but that of a number of young men with families, in ordinary circumstances of life. I venture to suggest that if the Progressive Party had the representation today which it had when this matter last arose in 1961, quite a different stand would have been adopted. I say this, because the opinion expressed would have been that of young men and middle-aged men, ordinary men with family responsibilities, who would have had to look to the interests of their families, bearing in mind the chance of politics which could remove them from this House.

And no Uncle Harry.

An hon. member says “No Uncle Harry”, but the position can be tested quite easily. I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether, if she is accompanied as representative of the Progressive Party in this House by four or five young men after the next election…

I will be.

The hon. member says she will be. Will she then give us an undertaking that she will do all in her power to have this legislation repealed at that time? Of course, she will not give that undertaking.

Rubbish.

All in all, Sir, as has been pointed out, we are in the difficult position of being the only body which can deal with its own pension emoluments. This is not a pleasant position to be in, but I believe that this is something which we must face responsibly. I think that this Bill expresses that sentiment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members opposite for supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I have listened with great interest to the remarks they have made and the arguments they have produced, and I feel that there are perhaps some details of this Bill which we can fruitfully discuss during the Committee Stage. I am looking forward to that. Having said that, I am afraid that these sentiments I have expressed will not apply to my remarks to the hon. member for Houghton. I think it is absolutely useless in matters of this nature to argue with the hon. member for Houghton. Whatever arguments she advances and whatever good reasons we may put forward, I think it is going to be impossible for us ever to be ad idem on a matter of this specific nature. She plays to the gallery. We are well aware of her attitude in connection with the Bill which preceded this measure. She will get her applause in the Press…

And her salary.

… and she should be satisfied and I think she is going to be satisfied. I think she can rest assured that she succeeded in achieving what she intended to achieve.

*Sir, although it is useless to argue with the hon. member, I do have to reply to certain assertions or remarks she made. She referred to the ordinary member here, but she did not go into detail in that connection, and we get to the ordinary member last. She mentioned the contribution paid by the ordinary member. The ordinary member pays RIO 200 over a period of 20 years, and then he receives a maximum pension of R6 500 The hon. member, as was Tightly observed by the hon. member for Zululand, directed her criticism at clauses 8 and 9 in particular; she directs her criticism at the Prime Minister’s pension. I do not know why she comes forward with this now; it is a long-standing practice that any Prime Minister—and this would also have applied to Dr. Verwoerd and Gen. Hertzog—can claim the maximum pension even if he had been Prime Minister for only one day. But there is one specific case the hon. member did not mention, and that is the case of the hon. member for Houghton. If she had dealt with the case of the hon. member for Houghton, and had linked the motivation for her arguments to that, and if she were so altruistic and so concerned about the feeling of the people about these amendments, which I regard as highly necessary, then surely she could have said that she did not want these privileges. We have kicked the ball, it is in her hands now, and what to do is one of the easiest things in the world for her to do. It can do the Progressive Party a tremendous amount of good if she has the courage of her convictions.

Sir, she raised something else to which I think I should reply. She asked what the scheme was going to cost. It is estimated that in the very first year it will cost approximately R110 000 extra. It is roughly estimated that the extra expenditure in the first number of years after the first year will be at least in proportion to the additional income we shall collect. Since she mentioned actuarial valuations, I just want to repeat what I have already mentioned. A scheme such as this has nothing to do with actuarial values. I explained to her why the Parliamentary scheme cannot be compared with a pension fund. A political career is totally different from an ordinary career; I motivated this soundly, and she knows it. She also knows why she is opposing this measure. I just want to tell her that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Let the hon. member, in an exemplary and excellent way in front of the public whom she expects to applaud her, return that extra amount she is going to receive to the people who need it so much. Then we shall have much more respect for her as a person who has the courage of her convictions.

Motion put and a division demanded.

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

Bill read a Second Time.

Three important announcements we had from the State recently are in my humble opinion, going to affect fundamentally, and in many respects even change, the future growth pattern of the Boland. In the first place, we had the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister himself last year in regard to the new process for the enrichment of uranium. It is a fact that the first proposed nuclear project of its kind will be established here in the Boland and, in my humble opinion, this is going to have a fundamental affect on our future growth pattern. In the second place, we had the announcement by the Minister of Economic Affairs last week in which was set out the final stand taken by the Government as far as the proposed Saldanha-Sishen iron-ore project was concerned. In the third place, we had the announcement earlier in the Session by the hon. the Minister himself in a private motion in which he indicated that he would come back when this particular Vote of his was dealt with to make an important announcement in regard to the intention of the Government in respect of the proposed Mamre project.

Over the past few years experts here in the Boland repeatedly expressed their concern about the future growth pattern in the Boland. Let me say straight away that I, as a person who is intimately concerned with the Boland, has shared and is still sharing this anxiety. In the first place, it is true that all the powers of development in the Boland have up to now automatically sided with centralization in and around Cape Town, In the first instance, that is true as far as our population growth here in the Cape metropolis is concerned. We find the phenomenon that the appeal of the Cape Peninsula in the greater Western Cape portion to our population growth exceeds the joint effect or the growth potential of all the towns around the Western Cape. This is true as far as all our population groups here are concerned. Particularly our Coloured people are still emigrating to the Cape metropolis at a tempo, calculated at this stage, of 3,43 per cent per annum. Seen against the natural growth of this area, this is something which, to my mind, is disturbing. In the second place, the social problems and backwardness of a large portion of our Coloured people on the Cape Flats make almost superhuman demands on the policy of upliftment of our Government and are causing concern. The social problems of over-concentration are simply becoming impossible to handle. In the third place, there is the drain of the Cape Peninsula on the water potential of the Boland, a matter I do not have the time to elaborate on. Fourthly, we have city centre obsolescence. Even at this stage it costs us literally millions of rands. The fifth aspect is the fact that millions of rands have already been spent on freeways to avoid traffic congestion. We in Cape Town boast of our freeways and we have every right to do so, because here we have something we can boast of. In reality, this is one of the finest proofs of over-concentration which exists in this area. In the sixth place, there is the swallowing-up and urbanization of rural areas or the areas surrounding greater Cape Town, and this causes more and more concern. The seventh point is that the lack of thorough advance planning during the past years is beginning to show its effects on the general growth pattern of Cape Town and vicinity. As an example of this I want to mention the refinery at Milnerton. It stands there today as an outstanding example of a lack of planning or, to put even more aptly, of no future planning whatsoever in the past. But also the wider growth pattern from Cape Town northwards is causing concern today. Through the years we have had a growth tendency in a northerly direction. One can see it with the naked eye—Maitland, Parow, Bellville, Kraaifontein, Paarl and so forth. This growth line is developing along our main traffic route to the north. I cannot elaborate on this matter, except to say that what is causing concern today, is the fact that at certain points of this particular growth line some of the best agricultural land in the Boland is being sacrificed. Against the background I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister today and inform him that it is time that the growth urge in the Boland should be directed and guided along much clearer lines. In future we will have to direct this urge along a new line of development, a line stretching from Cape Town in a north-westerly direction towards the vicinity of Saldanha Bay. We can see this even today with the naked eye, Milnerton, Blauberg, with its development, Melkbosch and the proposed nuclear power station and the proposed Mamre project. The Minister said that, in the course of the discussions of his Vote, he would make an announcement on behalf of the Government in regard to the proposed Mamre project. In this connection I want to ask him to try to direct the growth urge which is going to exist there in an outward direction and not in an inward direction towards the Cape Town metropolis. In the first place, circumstances favour a move of this nature because the buffer area which has to develop around the proposed nuclear power station in a southerly direction towards Cape Town offers that advantage. On the other hand, I think the stimulus has to be provided, and for that reason I want to appeal once again even at this advanced stage to the hon. the Minister to ensure in his planning set-up that we be granted border area benefits in a northerly direction from this proposed complex in the vicinity of Darling. If we were to do this, we would direct this growth urge which arises along a new line of development within the future pattern of the Boland in an outward direction. I think if there is one area suitable for this, it is this one in which a new complex will develop between Whites and Coloureds. Between these two communities we will be able, by means of thorough advanced planning in the future, to bring about a binding factor and create new structures. This could become a model area all of us could be proud of.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the Indians of the East Rand. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he and his committee and the board that finally decides on proclamations under Group Areas bother to study specific reports which are pertinent to the communities that they are planning to move. It so happens that only last year a very full survey was done of the position on the East Rand of the Indian community by the Department of Economics of the University of Natal. It was entitled “A sub-economic survey” and was conducted on behalf of the Benoni Town Council. Despite this survey which goes into considerable detail about the socio-economic conditions of Indians scattered along the East Rand the Group Areas Board has proclaimed that all the Indians presently residing in the different towns of Germiston, Springs and other towns on the East Rand are all to be centered in future at Actonville and nearby in Benoni. I want to know what criteria are used by the board when it comes to decisions like this.

I want to point out that these people have been living in their separate communities now for decades. Most of them in fact seem to have got the grants of land on which they are living from President Paul Kruger. Despite the fact that the traditional life of these people is centred in the different towns along the East Rand the board has taken the decision that all the Indians living on the East Rand, approximately 12 600 of them, are to be centralized in the one area at Actonville in Benoni. They all object, every single one of them. I do not say that the houses in which they are presently living are ideal. I do not say that there are not pretty bad slum conditions amongst many of them. But I have said over and over again in this House that it is not necessary to uproot settled communities in order to improve their conditions of living. Slums can be cleared and urban renewal can be carried out in situ leaving the communities where they were living before.

Removing people involves the most tremendous uprooting. not only of their homes of their businesses. of the communities generally, it affects schooling for children and employment of workers. Many of these people do not work in the exact vicinity where they live. They work in Johannesburg which is a good deal nearer for instance, if they lived in Germistion or Alberton, than is Benoni. They object strongly to the increased transport costs which they are now going to have to pay. Many of these people live below the poverty datum line. Just the increase of a few cents per day in respect of transport costs makes an enormous difference to their standard of living. I want to know just what is taken into consideration other than the convenience of the White people of this country when group areas are declared and Coloured and Indian communities are uprooted.

The question of transport is a very important issue. We saw what happened at Gelvandale where, after the whole of the Coloured community had been shifted from one side of the town to the other, fares were increased and there was this gathering of Coloured people at Gelvandale. The municipal official who carried out a survey said that the poverty and other conditions at Gelvandale were largely instrumental for the tremendous frustration felt by these people and that it was the direct cause of the gatherings which took place in March. But I want to know something else. I asked this of the hon. the Minister of Transport and he replied with his usual old-world courtesy which gave me no information but was extremely rude. He said that I ought to know that an interdepartmental committee was appointed to consider the question of transport where communities were resettled. After a little more investigation I discovered that this inter departmental committee is only concerned with rail transport and that the question of doing anything about the provision of road transport when people are moved from one area to another and the subsidization of that transport falls right outside the terms of reference of this interdepartmental committee. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me exactly what steps his board takes before making proclamations which are going to shift thousands of people around, miles away from their places of employment, to ascertain how adequate the transport facilities are before people are moved and what the additional costs are going to be to those people in terms of the pay-packets. They want to know how they will then he able to organize their lives which are pretty well below the poverty datum line as it is now. This is one matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister.

I now want to come back to the question of the East Rand Indians. In all 2 022 households are going to be moved. This figure represents about 12 600 people. There are 3 000 people living in Germiston who have been living there since time immemorial. They have certainly been living there for 70 years. There are Indians in Primrose who were given land by Paul Kruger. There have been Indians at Alberton-Elsburg since 1890; Indians at Boksburg were granted 99 years leases by President Kruger and there are about 1 000 people there. Since 1886 there have been Indians living at Springs and in Nigel since 1895.

There is another issue I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. This question of proclaiming areas was raised last night as regards the Indians at Newcastle, by the hon. member for Hillbrow and I want to raise it again. It has also happened as far as the Indians at Nigel are concerned. An area was proclaimed, then deproclaimed, a new area proclaimed and now they are going to be moved yet again. How can one expect these people to retain any faith in the goodwill of the White people? Let us take the position of the Coloured people in King William’s Town. They have now been uprooted for the third time. The Coloured people at Schornville have written to me complaining bitterly that they have been moved twice before and now find that they are going to be moved once again. These people are in despair and are wondering at what stage they will be able to settle down permanently as a community without fear that sooner or later some White people, for some reason or other, are going to find it inconvenient to have a Coloured township to close to them. I think the hon. the Minister should give us some assurances about this matter. I raised it with him by way of a question and he invited me to raise this issue with him during the Planning Vote. Originally I raised the matter as far as the Coloured people at Ceres are concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will now give me an answer about this question of proclaiming, deproclaiming and reproclaiming areas which in every case involves the shifting of a settled community of either Coloured or Indian people.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to reply to all the points which have been raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the Department of Statistics and said that the department was doing good work. I should very much like to endorse this. We saw this last year with the census survey which was the best census survey we have ever had in South Africa. We are now processing all the information collected during the survey and it is expected that this will be completed by the end of November, It is measured against all standards—and the hon. member for Hillbrow can verify this with his friends who have knowledge of these matters—both at home and abroad, a particularly fine achievement to have completed such a large piece of work within 18 months.

The hon. member also put a question to me in regard to further publications. The impression the hon. member created was that the only information available is the statement I made last year in this House. However, quite a number of publications have appeared since then. For example, a very valuable publication was issued in February of this year, i.e. the Population Census. It contained comprehensive information on all the population groups throughout the country. In addition we have published all 31 statistical news reports for every town and city. Cape Town was No. 3. Pinetown was No. 20. Johannesburg and districts were No. 2. We have issued all these publications. We have also issued random test tables dealing with the ages of Coloureds and Asiatics.

Towards the end of the year there will be reports on the educational qualifications. the occupations, the industries, income, marital status and religious affiliations of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. There will he information about the Xhosas, Zulus, etc. There is still quite a lot of other information which will be published before the end of the year. I really think that as far as publications are concerned the Department of Statistics did very well indeed. I do not want to spend any more time on this matter. As far as our annual report is concerned, I think it is obvious—I think the hon. member will accept it in this way too—that the need to prepare for and undertake the census survey and the consequent processing of the data is an adequate reason for the annual report being a little late. I am not going into the other matters. We are already working according to the random test method, where one takes samples; we have found it to be reliable. I can just add that the statistics we collect are specified in terms of section 2 of the Act. The private sector also makes requests to us from time to time when a need arises in a specific sphere, and the Statistics Board advises me of this. The hon. member also put a question in regard to the Riekert Report.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I should just like to ask whether it is possible for the Minister to indicate how those publications can be made available to us.

We cannot hear.

The question was in regard to the making available of publications. They are laid upon the Table here in the House. If hon. members feel that we should make these available to hon. members individually, or at least those which we deem to be the most important publications, I shall give attention to this matter. It seems to me that a good case can be made out for doing so.

As far as the Riekert Report is concerned, the hon. member said that the publication was taking too long. However, it has not been in the hands of the Government for all that long. The fact that the Minister of Finance discussed it in his Budget speech was because he made a special request as to whether the chapter on the incentives could not be expedited and sent to him. He obtained a provisional consensus in regard to that from his colleagues, and was then able to discuss it. The actual report only came into our hands very recently. The White Paper, as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said last week will be laid upon the Table at the end of this week. This is still the intention. I made inquiries this morning. They are doing their utmost to lay it upon the Table on Friday, or if that is not possible, Monday. Since we are discussing this, I just want to refer to what the objective of the Riekert Report is. I am not going to discuss it now; nor is it necessary. The hon. member referred to the Physical Planning Act and my work in this connection. I just want to repeat here (translation)—

That is to say, the Riekert Committee Report does not want to prejudice the development of the existing areas, but seeks to promote decentralization on an acceptable basis within the framework of the Government’s policy.

The decentralization policy remains. We in the Government, as Ministers and officials, are pleased about every industry we are able to establish in or near a homeland. We regard it as a service to our country, I just want to say here—and all of us know this—that the Government is not prepared to allow the 70 million people we will have in South Africa in 40 years’ time to establish themselves in the major metropolitan areas on an uncontrolled basis as great masses and in great concentrations, with all the problems, political, economical and social, which will result from that.

As far as group areas are concerned, four hon. members referred to them, the hon. members for Hillbrow, Pietermaritzburg District, Port Natal and Houghton. I am not going to react to the principle of the matter today. Hon. members said that we proclaim group areas “for the sake of the greed of the White man and these are vast ghettoes of frustration”. We are not going to discuss this today, but we shall do so at a subsequent stage. I just want to say that I feel I must express my disapproval of these statements.

Why not today?

Does the hon. member not know that I was requested by the Chief Whip of the Opposition to speak briefly? I do not mind discussing it. We can thrash out the matter of group areas today, if the hon. member wants to. In this case I should like to ask the Opposition whether they now adhere to the principle of group areas or not.

Yes, of course.

Then I just want to mention what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. He said: “When you start moving people around, you are imposing on a whole society this dogma of separation”.

Yes, it is a dogma.

The Group Areas Act contains the idea of group areas proclamation. If one says: “This is being done because of the greed of the White man; these towns are ghettoes of frustration” and “this is imposing a dogma of separation on the whole society”, then 999 people out of 1 000 will say that any person who says this is inexorably and unyieldingly opposed to the idea of group areas.

No, opposition is to the application of the Act.

Where does the Opposition stand then? I want to state today that the Opposition is sitting on two stools. The Opposition is becoming an integrationist party through and through in South Africa. The Opposition is preparing the way. However, the Opposition has told me that we must discuss the matter now. I did not want to discuss it now, because I wanted to do so on a subsequent occasion. I want to ask hon. members, since they are in favour of territorial separation and residential separation, whether it should be statutory or voluntary separation?

There always has been separation.

The hon. member is now telling me that there always has been separation. In other words, the hon. member for Maitland is saying by implication that they reject compulsory separation and the Group Areas Act. That is why we may as well leave the matter at that now.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When last did the Group Areas Board adhere to the majority view of the people who gave evidence before the Board?

Mr. Chairman, I would say that that happened in most cases; in fact, in nine cases out of ten.

Ladysmith?

The hon. member asked me “when last”; he did not ask me a question about Ladysmith, which he now quotes as an exception. I am telling him what the rule is according to my personal experience as Minister.

*But we can go into that later on. I did not want to deal with this matter on a political level this afternoon.

As far as the annual report is concerned, I am prepared to give information in every annual report—I gave an instruction to this effect this morning—in regard to the previous year’s Group Area proclamations and deproclamations. As far as the information is concerned, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District told me yesterday evening that there had been 50 cases of deproclamation.

Yes.

But that is not true.

But that is what the report says.

Is that the reply I gave in this House?

Yes.

Then I shall prefer to check up on my reply first, because according to the information I have, that is not nearly the figure.

But the Planning annual report says precisely the same thing.

That there were 50 deproclamations during the past two years?

Yes.

Does the hon. member not have the report there so that he can send it over to me, because I do not think that that is what is stated there? [Interjections,] In 1968-’69 there was one White deproclamation and two Coloured deproclamations in the Cape. In the Transvaal there was one White and two Coloured deproclamations, and none in Natal. In 1969-'70 there was one Coloured and no White deproclamation in the Cape; in the Transvaal there was one White and one Coloured, and in Natal there was one Indian. In 1970-’71, up to 9th June, there was one White deproclamation here in the Cape, two Coloureds, nothing in the Transvaal, and in Natal there was one White and one Indian.

But the report states that there were six last year.

Where do hon. members get those figures from. There is a vast difference between 6 and 50.

The paragraph which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District quoted yesterday evening—the short paragraph which has now been inserted in the place of the information which was always contained there—reads as follows—

Not “deproclaimed”.

Where did the hon. member come by “deproclaimed”?

The paragraph goes on to read—

Only six.

Not 50.

What did Jacobs say? You lie.

You are rude.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister speaks in that way, am I not entitled to say so?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word ” rude”.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister withdraw what he said?

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

On your instruction, Sir, I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Tourism said “you lie”. Must he not withdraw it?

Sir, I said it and I withdraw it. But the hon. member and the hon. member for Hillbrow said that 50 had been deproclaimed. [Interjections.] You gave wrong information; that is typical of you.

Are you the Minister of Planning? I shall produce the Minister’s answers.

Order! hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to continue his speech.

I do not know whether there was a misunderstanding or whether I misunderstood the hon. member. I will look up his Hansard but I was under the impression that he made the statement that there were 50 deproclamations and actually there were only six.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also said so.

Fifty in toto.

No, the hon. member said 50 during the last two years. He can send for his Hansard before I sit down and send it over to me and I will show him where he said it.

*I think the hon. member for Hillbrow was labouring under a misconception in regard to Newcastle, but I do not want to go into that now. I want to say that as far as Newcastle is concerned, the Government has decided to on it as the site for the third Iscor. Now this of course opens up the prospects of great development and we had to make provision for that development, and plan for it. The Department of Planning then went into this matter in conjunction with the Department of Transport and Water Affairs, the local town council, the I.D.C. and all interested parties. They all worked on a great overall guide plan to direct the development at Newcastle in an orderly manner. Firstly, for the immediate purposes, they planned up to 1980, and further up to the year 2000.

I just want to say, as far as deproclamations are concerned, the hon. member said the following—

But what did you say? You said it was in the report. [Interjections.]

In any case, I take it that the hon. member took my replies during the past few years and worked out a total, but we can calculate it again later. I take it that he is correct, however.

We have made immediate plans for the Greater Newcastle until 1980 and further plans up to the year 2000. In the meantime the Group Areas Board advertised an investigation there. But I put a stop to that, and I said that we should first complete the guide plan and make it available to everyone. This plan has now been completed and it will be published within the next week or two and it will be available to everyone everywhere. I may just add that the City Council of Newcastle has confirmed in writing that it accepts this general guide plan which I am now discussing. The City Council did in fact indicate to me verbally that it would like to see the Indian group area developing in a certain direction. That is quite correct. I do not want any misunderstanding on this score.

Is this a subsequent plan?

This is the one I am now going to release, which no one has seen yet. This is the plan which is now accepted by everyone, including the provinces. Everyone in Natal accepted it enthusiastically, and this plan now makes provision for the future residential areas of Newcastle. Now there will be a new investigation by the Group Areas Board, that will determine where the Indian area should be in that whole complex. The investigation will include the existing Indian area and it will include the area which the City Council would like to have. It will also include alternative areas. Everyone can come and give evidence there, any member of the public, the City Council, the Indians and the White community of Newcastle. All the interested parties can come along and do so, and then the Group Areas Board will make recommendations to me in regard to what the future arrangement of the Group Areas in Newcastle should be. This is what is going to happen.

I will try to go faster and I will just say that the position of the Coloureds in Natal—and this is all I will deal with, is as follows. I do not want to deproclaim any group areas. It is not my policy to deproclaim group areas. When the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and I issued this statement, I meant every word I said. The position now is that we want to develop what I call regional areas for Coloureds in Marburg in Durban with its three Coloured areas, in Pietermaritzburg with its Coloured area which we are going to enlarge, and also in Ladysmith and in Estcourt, for if you have a sufficient number of people together you can, after all, develop a proper community with its schools, its churches and everything which goes hand-in-hand with that; but if you have a small community of ten. twelve or fifteen families, it is not a community. But it is not my intention to disrupt those people and to shift those people around to places where they do not themselves want to be. I have now received approval from the Cabinet to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I will, in the case of those smaller communities where we do not want to proclaim a group area because there is no community, accommodate the people there on a temporary basis so that they, too, can at least live under good conditions. On the basis of the housing we are able to provide, this will be for a period of 15 years.

Is the temporary basis therefore 15 years?

The most temporary accommodation we are able to provide is for a period of 15 years.

And after that?

After that the position may change to such an extent that it may seem to us that the community there justifies a group area being proclaimed. After that we may even find that the children have moved to Newcastle or Ladysmith because there is so much work, and that the old people have followed them and that that little community might consequently have disappeared. But we shall try to deal with this matter in a sympathetic way.

Does the same apply to the Indian community now?

As far as the Indians are concerned, we do not really have any problem in Natal. I shall look into the matter. I have actually given this matter a great deal of attention from the point of view of the Coloureds. I cannot say that I have the same amount of information in regard to the Indians and that I have given that matter the same amount of attention. But I shall look into it. However, as I have said, we do not really have that problem in Natal to such an extent as can arise in the Transvaal.

I should like to say something about Grey Street. I think I might as well speak in Afrikaans The hon. member for Post Natal and all the others understand me very well. I regret that this matter is taking so long. Apart from the fact that I had a great deal of work, this was to me a very important matter. I just want to say briefly today that as far as Grey Street is concerned, it will not be possible to make a proclamation in terms of section 23. In other words, it will not be possible to proclaim it as a full Indian group area, that is for any purpose such as business, industrial, residential, etc. On the other hand I am prepared to say that as far as I am concerned, it will not be possible to proclaim that area as White either. Consequently I want to say that my intention with Grey Street is that it should remain a commercial area for Indians. The matter I have always been working on and still am. is whether this can be done in terms of section 19 of the Act. If it can in fact be done in terms of section 19 of the Act, I shall proclaim Grey Street to be a section 19 area. However, if it cannot be done in terms of section 19, the Group Areas Act will have to be amended. At present I am holding talks with the law advisers of the Government in regard to this. I therefore want to say that the Grey Street area will be proclaimed either in terms of section 19 or in terms of an amendment of the Act,

But not for occupation,

No, not for occupation, It will not be possible to use section 93, in terms of which it may be proclaimed for occupation, etc. I do not want to make any final promises, but I will commit myself provisionally by saying that I shall issue a statement before August in which I shall announce my final decision. If legislation is required, I shall introduce it at the beginning of next year’s session.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can I take it from what the hon. the Minister has said that Grey Street is to remain Indian apart from the residential aspect, and that all that needs to be done now is for the hon. the Minister to sort out the legal side of how this can be done? It will remain Indian as regards business and industry?

Yes.

If that is so, can I then further ask the hon. the Minister whether, when he does this, he will bear in mind that there are 12 000 residents in the area for which provision has to be made? Will the hon. the Minister give an assurance that these people will not be moved until alternative accommodation is provided for them?

As you know, that is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Community Development. [Interjections.] I really do not know why hon. members laugh. That is the law as it stands, and my experience is that my colleague is treating these people in an extremely sympathetic manner. I may say that I have been told that they receive a far higher return on their money by leasing parts of those buildings, which are at present let as flats, for office use. This will be a gradual process, but it will in due course take place. As I have said, this is a matter for my colleague to deal with.

The hon. member for Houghton has also asked me certain questions. I can only say that as far as my information goes, there are certain small groups of Indians living all over the East Rand, some of them under very bad slum conditions, and it is the policy of the Government to proclaim an area to develop it and to create for those Indians better housing and living conditions. If Actonville is too small, we shall have to develop an additional area on the East Rand, but until such time as the whole matter has been sorted out, I shall keep to the policy as it has been implemented up to the present stage. I believe that there is a very good train service, and I think the hon. member should leave matters as they are now so that we can investigate the position as it develops.

*To the hon. member for Langlaagte I want to say that the growth points committee is now being established as a result of certain recommendations by the Riekert Committee. This will be under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Planning. We shall select the growth points which will then be developed very rapidly. The hon. member mentioned the infrastructure which will have to be supplied. My Department will provide it in conjunction with the provinces. I have already had talks with them, and in principle they are in favour of this. I might possibly introduce legislation in this connection next year. Hon. members will understand that a small city council does not have sufficient staff or planning ability to justify borrowing large amounts. If we are able to act in conjunction with the provinces after we have proclaimed growth points, we will be able to develop that growth point rapidly as a result of our larger staff, our knowledge and our drive. As soon as the development has begun to gain momentum, we will then be able to return the area to the province in question. We will then be able to ensure them of an asset. I am going to approach this matter in this sense, and in this sense, I think, we will introduce legislation to this effect next year.

I come now to the Cape Flats, Mamre and the greater Western Cape. The hon. member for Moorreesburg discussed this matter. I should like to say that I agree with the views he expressed here. Last Sunday afternoon I had the privilege of having lunch with people in Durbanville. Afterwards we stood on the hillside there gazing out at the Hottentots Holland mountains and the Drakenstein mountains, and I then said to the person standing next to me: “Just look, in 30 to 40 years’ time the Cape will extend right up to those mountains”. For that reason I want to state today what the views of my Department in regard to this matter are, and what we are doing at present. It is our task to ensure that future development is led into channels. Provision has to be made in the Greater Peninsula which is going to develop, for residential areas, working areas, recreational facilities, open spaces, roads, etc. All those facilities must be planned now. We must also take into consideration our valuable Boland agricultural land which is situated in those areas. We must reserve agricultural areas for the future. If we bear in mind in this connection that our Coloured people comprise the most rapidly growing group in our population, we must take this into account as a factor in the entire process. In this connection I have decided to proclaim Mitchell’s Plain, the only remaining area on the Cape Flats, for Coloured occupation. This is the area, which is more or less bounded by Strandfontein Road on the west and Swartklip road on the east. On the south it is bounded by the present Strandfontein beach area. There is a long strip lying there, 2 000 morgen in extent which I think should be developed into a fine Coloured beach township, on a completely economic basis.

Economic or sub-economic?

Purely economic. Above the Strandfontein area, between Strandfontein Road and Swartklip Road, lies Mitchell’s Plain which I am now going to proclaim and where the Cape City Council and the Divisional Council will be able to build over the next four to five years. A large number of Coloureds can be accommodated there, something for which a great need exists at present. I have already asked my colleague to give consideration to the construction of economic housing only, as far as possible, in that part which lies closest to the sea and which adjoins Strandfontein. That is what I would like to see happening. It will link up well with the development along the sea. As far as I am concerned, this is the last piece of land which we will proclaim for Coloured housing in the Cape Flats. There are simply no more left. The other open land lying there, belongs to the department of Defence, a nature reserve of the provincial administration, and so on. From there, we must now look ahead, but in which direction? The hon. member for Moorreesburg has already said that we must look to the West Coast.

Before you go further, can you tell us whether the coastal area at Swartklip is going to be proclaimed a Coloured area or a nature reserve?

The coastal area at Swartklip is not included at all under the proclamation I mentioned. Swartklip lies a little way on, towards Macassar, to the East. Swartklip is therefore not affected in any way by this proclamation. As I have said, if we now want to look ahead, we will have to took in a northerly direction, up along the West Coast As far as Mamre is concerned, I have decided to proclaim the following farms there: The farm Groot Springfontein, the farm Hansmelkkraal, the remainder of Witsands, the remainder of Melkbos, Hartebeeskraal, which includes Fisantekraal, the Pella mission grounds, the farm Buffelsrivier and section 734 of Bokkerivier, and State-owned land of 45 morgen. All this amounts to 7 065 hectares. There are two farms which I have not yet decided on, i.e. Cruywagenskraal and Midlands. I have not yet decided about these two farms. I still wanted to give thought to this matter and will at a later stage make a final decision.

I hope that we will plan and establish a fine piece of Coloured development at Mamre. When I speak of a fine Coloured development, then I mean as much economic housing as possible. There will also be sub-economic houses, but we should like to have better and larger houses, if there is room. This is all, of course, a question of money, finance and costs and what the people are prepared to pay. I leave it with every confidence in the hands of my colleague. We want fine residential townships there. We want to plan and establish full community services there. I want to proclaim an industrial area there which will have to be of a considerable size and value. It is going to be possible to establish wonderful beach resort development for the Coloureds. We are looking forward to that. Everything is possible. The expansion is up towards Saldanha. The Provincial Administration is also already planning a road which will go through Mamre to Saldanha. Once Saldanha has developed as we expect it to develop, it is not impossible that a railway line running directly from Saldanha to Cape Town will be planned. That is why the development at Mamre links up with the development at Saldanha. Officials of my Department went to Saldanha this week. Plans are already being drawn up for the development of a large complex. The planning will therefore extend from Cape Town northwards or in a north westerly direction. The line runs through Duynefontein, where the power station will be constructed, through Mamre with its development during the next decade, through Darling and Malmesbury which will benefit from this development to Saldanha where we all hope there will be major development and expansion. Consequently the population settlement and economic development in the coming years will extent outwards from Cape Town and not inwards. It will move northwards along the sea in particular. Not now, hut subsequently, we will also think of development points such as Gouda and Saron, Vredenburg, and others. All this cannot take place overnight. Money and manpower is scarce. But the road and the task ahead is clear and encouraging.

What of your promised statement in regard to the Coloureds of Zululand?

With regard to the Coloureds of Zululand, I uphold the policy statement that was issued by my predecessor. I am not quite sure about the date. This policy statement was to the effect that Zululand is primarily the area of labour for the Zulu people. Indians and Coloureds from outside will only be allowed into Zululand on permit. The indigenous Coloured population of Zululand will be allowed to stay there on permit but will be treated by me in a most sympathetic way. We are going to proclaim an area of residence for the people who will be in Zululand temporarily between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay. I will as far as possible treat all applications by residents of the Eshowe Coloured township for residential extension in a sympathetic way. My policy statement therefore boils down to the fact that I am not going to proclaim a group area in Zululand for Coloureds or Indians.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal explanation. While I was out of the Chamber I understand that the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that he was asked to speak briefly in this debate because he was requested by me so to do. I have not spoken to the hon. the Minister for the last week and I made no request to him to speak briefly. He must have received those instructions from his own chief Whip but not from me.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Concerning the Cape Flats proclamation, there are a number of farmers involved and you say that development will take place within the next four or five years under the auspices of the Divisional Council and the municipality. How soon is it anticipated that those farms will be acquired and will these farmers be paid reasonable compensation?

I can only tell the hon. member that most of the farming units in that whole area, including those east of the Strandfontein Road, are excluded from the proclamation. I am not now referring to the Philippi area, which falls completely outside the area under discussion.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 43—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”, R81 500 000, Loan Vote G.—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”, R1 680 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 25.—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”, R5 456 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? We are discussing the Coloured Affairs Vote this year at a time when relations between White and Coloured in South Africa seem to us on this side of the House to be at a most critical stage. Not only I am of this opinion; the Chairman of the Coloured Representative Council, the Executive and leader of the pro-separate development Federal Party on the 18th of May, according to a report in the Sunday Times, warned the Government—

He is not the only person who has given warnings of that kind. We have warnings from certain senior police officers and from certain senior municipal officers. I think many of us have found them in our own experiences with the Cape Coloured people in the last year or so. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that the Government finds itself in a dilemma. The philosophy of the Government has always been that there are only two courses that can be followed in respect of race relations; one leads to complete integration and the other leads to complete separation. Its logical development would be in the case of Bantu, a Bantustan, and in the case of the Coloureds, a Colouredstan. The Government has found both these courses untenable. The consequence is that it has now opted for a third course, which it calls ” parallel development”. The trouble is that this is something new for the Government and that they have no clarity at all as to what they mean by ” parallel development”. The result is that we still find members of the Nationalist Party saying that they believe that a Colouredstan should be the ultimate objective. The hon. the Prime Minister says that it is not practical politics, but that it is a good thing that they talk about it. Well, some of them have done some pretty good talking and some of them are doing some pretty fast somersaulting on that particular subject at Waterberg at the moment. Then there are those on the Government side who say that the Government’s Coloured policy means that the Coloureds are going to develop further away from the Whites. I do not know how one’s development is parallel if it is further away from the Whites. At the same time there are people on the other side who say that the objective of Government policy is “dat die Kleurlinge voller vennote van die Blankes sal word”, in other words, that the Coloureds will become fuller partners of the Whites. That seems to me to be getting closer towards them and it also does not sound like parallel development. I am afraid all these statements and this lack of clarity seem to have led to confusion in Government thinking and to un certainty at a very critical time in our development. We on this side of the House, we in the United Party, have always believed that there are not just two alternatives; we have always believed that there is a third alternative and therefore we are accustomed to dealing with this problem. Our federal scheme avoids all the difficulties with which the Government is faced. It avoids the danger of complete integration and it avoids the danger of the establishment of a Colouredstan. But, Sir, it does lead to a common understanding; it does lead to co-operation and it does lead to a common loyalty for all the inhabitants of South Africa to one state and one central government. It seems to me that the Government is being led by their noses by the Progressive Party. You see, Sir, they are both making exactly the same mistake; they are both working to develop blueprints with regards to their policy and while they are squabbling over the blueprint they are neglecting the present problems of the Coloured people and the hurts go on and lead to further bad feeling between White and Coloured people in South Africa. No wonder, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he could not see the end of the road and that the ultimate solution must be left to our children. Sir, I think a useful way of discussing this Vote would he to contrast the two plans for the political rights of the Coloured people, the plan of this side of the House and the plan of the Government. I should think it must he obvious that if there is not going to be a Colouredstan, then there must be representation of the Cape Coloured people in the Central Parliament of South Africa. But, Sir, despite the promise of the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, that he would not remove the Coloured representatives from this House, they have disappeared; they have been removed contrary to the wishes of the Coloured people, and there is no indication or any suggestion that the Government intends giving the Coloured people representation in this House or in the Other Place. We, on the other hand, are prepared to face up to that problem. We are prepared to give the Coloureds representation in this House, either by their own people or by Whites —let them choose—elected on a separate roll for the whole of South Africa. We have made it clear that that re presentation will be limited to six representatives in this House and two representatives in the Other Place, and we say that there will be no change in that representation without a referendum or an election specially called for that purpose. Mr. Chairman, we at least give them representation. Hon. members on the other side may say that it is not big enough. I know how generous they are becoming towards the Coloured people, But, Sir, it is representation and it means that they have a say in the Parliament which controls their destiny. Below the Central Parliament, we believe that there should be one communal council for the Coloured people for the whole of South Africa. Sir. it is something rather similar to the Coloured Representative Council, but there are certain fundamental differences, and one of the fundamental differences is that our communal council—the one we would like to see—would be wholly elected; it would not be partly elected and partly nominated, In other words, there would be no packing of that council by the Government of the day with those whom he thought would support its policy. There will be none of that packing which has led to such disastrous results with the present Coloured Representative Council. What have we had? We have had the situation that when that Coloured Representative Council was opened by the Prime Minister of South Africa, the Opposition boycotted the opening.

But we had further difficulties. We have seen frustration and bitterness developing amongst the Coloured leaders in that Coloured Representative Council, amongst the elected Coloured leaders, all over South Africa; and yet this Coloured Representative Council is said by Government members to be the quid pro quo for representation in this House, a quid pro quo for the removal of those representatives from this House whom the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said it was not his policy to remove from this Home. We know that Die Burger wrote the other day that it was the ” einddoel”. the ultimate objective, that this whole council would be elected. It may come as a surprise to the hon. the Minister, but that is what his supporting newspaper is writing, I can only say that if that is the “einddoel”, I urge him to hasten it, because the present situation is most unsatisfactory and it is leading to bitterness and frustration and bad race relations.

Then there is a difference between us also about the powers of the council. We do not want this council to be just a spending agency of money granted it by the Central Government. We want it to have power to raise money by way of taxation or levies amongst its own people, so that it learns the responsibility of raising money, as well as of spending it. You will recall, Sir, that that was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat on this matter. They recommended that this council should have taxing powers, but it was turned down at the time when this matter was discussed in this House. I would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider that, because that is one of the essential powers for the harmonious working of a council of this nature.

Then I think there is a difference between us also as to the powers that the communal council should have as opposed to the present Coloured People’s Representative Council. We believe that they should take responsibility not only for education, as I believe they are beginning to do at present, but for health amongst their own people and the law of status among their own people and for local government amongst their own people. That means, if local government falls under that communal council, that they will have their own municipalities, which will be responsible to that communal council. But what do we find happening at the present time? Once again the Government is taking away the municipal franchise from the Cape Coloured people in the existing mixed municipality before there is any adequate alternative municipal franchise available to them. Sir, it is a tragic situation that we see developing. Under the Group Areas Act there is provision for the creation of certain local authorities and it is provided that those who are on the municipal roll, on the existing municipal rolls, cannot be registered on the rolls of the new local authority. But there was no question of disfranchising people under the original Act of 1966. It was hoped that these local authorities would develop. What has happened? I do not believe there are six local authorities for the Coloured people functioning in the whole of the Cape Province at present.

I want to say quite frankly that we of the United Party, although we stand for social and residential separation between the races, and are in favour of the different racial groups managing their own affairs at local government level, take the greatest objection to the removal of rights from these people at a time when there are no adequate alternative rights made available to them. If there were Coloured municipalities established and if there were local authorities that could take responsibility and have a say in their local government, this situation would be different.

Then there is a difference between us in regard to something else, and that is in regard to liaison between the Coloured Representative Council and Parliament, and what we would like to see by way of liaison between the communal council we would set up and Parliament. The Government told us it would discuss it with the Representative Council. They have agreed that there would be liaison by way of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, meeting the Prime Minister at least once a year and holding consultations with the hon. the Minister. Whether they have made any agreements or not, that would be happening, because they have certain executive powers. They get their finance from this Parliament, but this is no liaison with the council. This is liaison between Minister and Minister and the executive. What we would like to see is something different. We would like to see a statutory standing committee on which the representatives of this House and representatives of their council serve, so that when matters are discussed in this House which affect the Coloured people, there will be people sitting in this House who know their views at first hand. They will know the view not only of the majority party, but that of the minority party in that council as well, in this case the elected party. We believe there should be provision for both Government and Opposition members from this House to serve on such a statutory standing committee. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister said that this may not be a final solution, but I do hope that in considering the final solution. attention will be given to the possibility of a statutory standing committee as envisaged by us because I have not the slightest doubt that it will lead to a far more harmonious working between that Coloured Council and this Parliament.

It seems to me that as the system exists at the moment it just is not working, and the Coloured people are becoming more and more overwhelmed by their grievances. I know it is fashionable to talk of the grievances of the Coloured people at the present time, and one hears all sorts of outlandish theories as to what those grievances are, but I am going to confine myself more or less to the grievances outlined by the Chairman of the Coloured Persons Representative Council himself. What was the first of the grievances he indicated? He said it was the sharp contrast between the treatment given non-Whites from overseas and the treatment handed out to local non-Whites. He said how indignant they feel when a Negro from America is given V.I.P. treatment at a five-star hotel while the best local Coloured people, some of them 95 per cent White, cannot enjoy any of the facilities because they are Coloured. I think there is no doubt whatever that this raises the whole question of petty apartheid, whatever that may mean, and whatever its definition is, and the question of amenities for the Cape Coloured people as opposed to those for Europeans. We are both in favour of separate amenities and always have been, but it does seem to me that provision should be made, as I have said before, for some restaurant in the city and also in other cities in the Cape Province, where a civilized European can entertain a civilized Coloured man. In deciding on these matters, far more attention should be given to local option, and the ideas of the local people than to the decisions and planning from Pretoria.

Then there is this question of amenities. I have said that we are all in favour of separate amenities, but those amenities must be adequate. They must not be such that the Cape Coloured people always feel that they are being pushed out into the bundu and that they are not getting their share of the fair things that are available in South Africa. Here again there is a strong plea on our side of the House that there should be provision for local option. Look at the situation we are landing ourselves in. The whole thing seems to be becoming ridiculous. Cape Coloured people are not admitted to the Nico Malan Theatre, and apparently this was a decision taken at fairly high level. The Eoan Group, the most opera-minded group in South Africa, White or non-White, is not allowed into South Africa’s best opera house, and when there is a rehearsal they are not invited but they are permitted to attend, or so we hear from the M.E.C. in charge. It seems to me that in these matters Government policy is wholly irrational and is governed by prejudice and the blood pressure of the people deciding and not by the sound use of their logical powers and without any thought at all to the hurt they are doing to the people with whom they are dealing.

I now want to deal with another complaint of the chairman of the Coloured Representative Council. This complaint has to do with job reservation. We all know the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House as far as job reservation is concerned. We do not believe that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act should continue to be applied, and particularly not to the Cape Coloured people. But what is the Government doing about it? They are granting exemptions all over the country. However, they know that when they grant exemptions, there is no security of tenure for the man to whom the exemption is granted. The result is a lack of training. It is very often inefficient labour. The result is insecurity of jobs and the fact that these people do not receive the right treatment which they should receive for those jobs. This is a problem to which the Government has to face up. There was an interesting article in the newspaper this morning, reporting a Prof. Terreblanche at a symposium at Stellenbosch. He is ” hoogleraar in die ekonomie aan die Universiteit van Stellenbosch”. He points very clearly to the fact that the time is coming in South Africa when we will have to make more and more jobs, semi-skilled and skilled, available to the Cape Coloured people—not only in their interests, but in our interests and in the interests of the people of South Africa.

Then there is a third objection which the Chairman of the C.R.C. outlined, namely the disparities in salaries paid to Whites and non-Whites doing the same work.

Are you teaming up with Colin Eglin now?

My friend knows very well that our view is that there should be in industry the rate for the job. What is happening to the Cape Coloured people, is that they are getting a rate for for the job, the minimum rate. They are not getting the same Tate as Whites doing the same sort of work. I think we are entitled to ask what the attitude of the Government is in this regard. I was most interested to read the statement of the Federate Raad. They say:

That is the statement of the Federale Raad. What does it mean? Does that mean equal pay for equal work, or does it not? There was a statement in a leading article of Die Burger, in which they refer to a claim that Coloureds must be given equal pay for equal work in public works. They say that it should be admitted—

What does that mean, Sir? Does it mean equal pay for equal work, or does it not? Then there is Prof, Terblanche, saying in his “referaat” at Stellenbosch that—

But where are we getting with this Government? Are they doing anything about it? They know it is one of the great causes of dissatisfaction. Sir, if it is a cause of dissatisfaction with industrialists, it is an even greater source of dissatisfaction in professional posts. There we know that the gap is widening between what is paid to professional men in the Government and provincial services. We in the United Party have taken the stand very firmly that we believe that a United Party in power must make the funds available to narrow that gap with the ultimate object of closing it. Of course, there are other reasons for dissatisfaction as well. One of them is the position with regard to education. It is not only that there is a lack of compulsory education, but the fact is that many of the schools are overcrowded. They have to work in shifts. There is a shortage of teachers; there is a shortage of buildings as well. Education, it is being recognized, is a better investment than investment in buildings and even in many of the technical devices we have at the present time. Read any of the modern educationists and you will find that they tell us how vitally important this is. I know all the problems: the shortage of buildings, the shortage of teachers, the lack of facilities, It seems to me that what is definitely necessary is something this side of the House would be prepared to give, namely a definite commitment to introduce compulsory education for the Cape Coloured people, first of all, regionally and to phase it by means of a planned programme.

Then there is another grievance, namely the application of the Group Areas Act to the Cape Coloured people. I know that that has already been discussed under the Planning Vote. The figures have been given, if not agreed, as to how many Coloureds, White and Indian families have been affected and what a small percentage it is that are White families. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows what misery, what dissatisfaction, what unhappiness is being caused by the lack of adequate housing, and the overcrowding in the housing that exists for these people. Anybody living near Cape Town who provides houses for his own staff, knows how difficult it is to keep out the casual boarder, the other family that is being taken in, the relative that cannot find housing anywhere else. That conceals the shortage, but it does not eradicate the evil of overcrowding and poor housing conditions. We feel in applying this Group Areas Act, quite definitely the line should be no further removals until there is adequate housing for those who are still without housing and no removals until there is adequate alternative accommodation, no interference with the means of livelihood of the people concerned. Let us see more of attraction and less of compulsion in the application of this Act. It has become unfortunately one of the most important factors leading to militancy and unhappiness amongst the Cape Coloured people. When you survey Government policy, it seems to me that the whole policy is doomed to failure. It is doomed to failure, first of all because the leadership class, the professional class amongst the Cape Coloured people, is frustrated. They are becoming anti-White. Many of them are emigrating. There is an enormous brain drain and they are not accepting the responsibility of uplifting the masses of their own people. Many of them are emigrating because they are looking for better opportunities for their own children, opportunities which they do not believe they can get in South Africa under this Government.

Then you have the middle-class Coloured people. With them you find that the biggest difficulty is a lack of economic opportunity. They have sons and daughters who have reached the educational standard qualifying them to become apprentices, but they cannot get apprentices because the White journeymen and artisans will not accept them as artisans. You find that the opportunities in commerce are limited. There is no question of the rate for the job. They get paid the minimum allowable. The siting of their commercial ventures is limited to Coloured areas. They are faced with the fact that there is a lack of capital which is not being coped with.

Then last of all, you have the lower class with inadequate leadership from their own people. You get the degradation, the alcoholism, the high birth-rate, the high rate of illegitimacy, which are all symptoms of that poverty syndrome which even Prof. Terreblanche writes about. We have had many of these factors mentioned in that report we received from the Director of Coloured Housing at Port Elizabeth, the Cleary report after the disturbances down there. It seems to me that this is a policy of confusion which is leading to crisis conditions, which can lead to catastrophe in South Africa. I think we have to ask ourselves this afternoon: What is needed? We on this side of the House believe that what is needed is a sort of Carnegie commission mentality, the same determination, the same approach that we had in the thirties to the upliftment of the poor White in South Africa, a determination to root out the causes of their economic situation, a determination to tackle this problem on a national scale. This will be more difficult than it was in the thirties, because here we are faced with certain psychological factors which are well-known to the social workers who work with the Coloured people. We know what those problems are. It makes the challenge all the greater, but it makes it all the more worth-while, because we on this side of 1he House are satisfied that the Coloured people have a common destiny with us here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make out a case about the way in which the Coloured Persons Representative Council is elected and pointed out that one-third of the members are nominated. A Select Committee of this House made a unanimous recommendation in this regard. The supporters of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed that one-third of these members be nominated.

He also discussed the question of housing, and launched an attack on the Government in this regard Sir, the Government merely provides the money, and the funds provided every year are not even used in full by the local authorities responsible for the provision of housing in their areas. It has become the custom in debates on Coloured affairs for that side of the House to read us on this side of the House a moral lesson. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again donned the high priestly cloak of justice and read us a moral lesson. We on this side of the House will not run away from our responsibilities, but that party over there regards itself as an alternative Government and an Opposition also has responsibilities. The leader of an Opposition in this country has specific responsibilities. His salary is more than that of any other ordinary member in this House because he is the Leader of the Opposition. I now want to say the following: It is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stopped reading us moral lessons and first put his own house in order. Since 1948 the Opposition has changed its policy in regard to the Coloured people on various occasions. They plunged South Africa in a constitutional crisis on the common voters’ roll and where do they stand today? Today they recognize a separate voters’ roll for the Coloureds, and in terms of that they want to give to the Coloureds six representatives in this House, who can be either Whites or non-Whites. Their policy therefore changes ever so often. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to put his own house in order. In this connection I want to refer to a report published in the Cape Times of 31st May. A youth symposium was held on the Rand and according to this report the hon. member for Turffontein acted as chairman of that youth movement. He attended that symposium and moved two motions himself. One of the motions concerned the sports policy of the United Party and the other motion dealt with the race federation policy of the United Party in regard to the Coloureds and, Sir, both these motions were voted down. I read in the report that the hon. member for Hillbrow also attended the symposium. Probably it was him who schemed behind the scenes to persuade the youth to vote against the Leader of the United Party and his representative, the hon. member for Turffontein. The United Party youth movement, which is part of the Opposition and which is officially recognized by them, rejects their policy in regard to the Coloureds. They reject the race federation policy and they ask for a common voters’ roll and for total integration.

What is your policy?

I shall deal with that presently. Sir, what we are dealing with here, is not what individuals have to say; we are dealing here with a United Party organization which rejects out of hand the policy of the United Party. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is time he spoke to his own people, but what does he do? He comes to this House to read us a moral lesson, but he is as silent as the grave as far as that matter is concerned. Sir, this House and the country expect him to reiterate the standpoint of his Party. What we are dealing with here, is the double-barrelled policy of the United Party—one policy for the urban areas and one policy for the rural areas. We are dealing here with the urban youth of their party on the Witwatersrand, but it would be quite a different story if they were to hold such a symposium in the rural areas. Sir, this is the biggest political scandal we have had for decades; it does not redound to the credit of the United Party to keep quiet on this score. This is the biggest scandal one can imagine. Sir, we had the same thing from the deputy leader of the United Party in the provincial council; he appealed to people to boycott the Nico Malan theatre, and up to the present day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has kept quiet about it. I suggest that there was common cause between that deputy leader of the United Party and the Labour opposition in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council which proceeded to boycott the Festival; this was done on the example set by a leader of the United Party, but the Leader of the Opposition remains silent. He is as silent as a sphinx.

Sir, how different are the actions of my party and my leader. Individual statements have been made by people who supported a homeland. What did our leaders do and what did our party do? When statements of that nature were made, a Cabinet decision was issued through the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, stating precisely the standpoint of the National Party and the Government and the policy of the National Party. But, Sir, we went even further. A meeting of the highest authority in the party, the Federal Council, was called. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from that document. The standpoint of the party was emphasized once again. What we had, was leadership; leadership one could have confidence in and could believe in. That is the difference between the leadership of the United Party and the leadership of the National Party.

Back into the mountains!

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a great deal to say, and then it is being asked: What course is the National Party following as far as the Coloured people are concerned? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said today that the National Party now had a new policy of parallel development. Sir, I want to remind him what was said years ago by the late Dr. Malan, i.e. that the policy of the National Party in regard to the Coloureds was a policy of parallel development. On that occasion he used the following image: he said the position and the relationship between the Whites and the Coloureds could be likened to a railway line, where two rails were running alongside each other in the same direction. And he said they were neither convergent nor divergent; their courses lie parallel to one another; and there are sleepers which link the two. This party is applying just that in practice in its policy today. [Interjections.] The links created by this party are the sleepers which form the connection between the lines. They now ask us what the final goal and the ultimate object are as far as the Coloureds are concerned. Sir, human beings are not static. One could only ask this question of lifeless things, and not of human beings.

There is no final goal. This liaison will exist from generation to generation as problems arise from day to day and from year to year. [Time expired.]

In the course of the debate we shall support the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the various matters he raised, but for the time being I want to confine myself to the political aspect. In the apartheid manifesto published by the National Party in 1948 it specifically set out the principles which it would pursue in respect of the political position of the Coloured people. In the first place the Coloured voters would be placed on a separate voters’ roll. In the second place a Coloured Persons’ Representative Council would be created for them on a Union-wide basis.

It is there.

This Union Coloured Council was to be given the important status of appointing the representatives of the Coloured people in Parliament. The fourth point is the most important: the standpoint of representation in this Parliament as being a dearly accepted principle of the National Party. It is true that, although they want to give out that “parallel development” is something new, these four points of policy were even then enunciated and called parallel development. In other words, in actual fact it is not a new concept or new expression in respect of the Coloured people. It has been said since the Nationalist Party first came into power that the Coloured people and the Whites were in fact to develop side by side, on a parallel basis, and that, as far as possible, each group was to develop its own institutions parallel to that of the other. But on one principle there was never any doubt, namely that, no matter how parallel the development of the White and Coloured groups, sufficient common interests would always remain for there to be some or other point of contact. That point of contact was to have been a certain representation in the highest Parliament of the country. Without that, the early leaders of the Nationalist Party realized full well, no policy of parallelism would have a moral leg to stand on. And this view was unequivocably upheld by Dr. Malan, who was the creator of apartheid; it was upheld by Mr. Strydom, and it was even upheld by Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd would have liked to remove the Coloured representatives from this House and he certainly considered doing so, but in the end he was nevertheless deterred by the consequences it would have had. As my hon. Leader indicated, he undertook not to do so, in this Parliament and In the presence of all. He also admitted frankly that we could not have two Parliaments in the same political area, no more than one can have separate Parliaments for the English and Afrikaans speaking people in this country.

It was the present Government and the present Prime Minister who destroyed that essential point of contact between Whites and Coloured people here in Parliament, which is the only sort of contact that can give a policy of parallel development any moral content, and thereby deprived the policy of what moral foundation it had. I want to concede that the old representation was incomplete. No one would deny that. But instead of coming along and improving the point of contact, that side destroyed the entire principle. Time will show that this was the most reprehensible political act yet committed by the present Government. The Government thereby deprived its own policy of parallelism of every vestige of moral justification it had. That is the crux of the Government’s problem today. What is at the bottom of all the conferences, all the deliberation, all the soul-searching about Coloured affairs that is taking place in the National Party today? What is at the bottom of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration’s “national territory with its own destiny away from the Whites”, the Herstigte Nasionale Party's search for a “homeland”; the “cantons” that the Minister of Defence puzzles about; the plea for “partnership” by the member for Moorreesburg; and the standpoint in favour of political “co-ordiation” between Whites and Coloured people adopted by the Afrikaans-Calvinistiese beweging? These are all signs of a lack of confidence in the present policy of the Government and a search for a moral foundation, which is lacking in the present policy of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The only man who has now suddenly become an enthusiastic supporter of the Prime Minister’s policy is Dr. Andries Treunicht, who told us over the weekend why he is now suddenly supporting the Government's policy. I read from Rapport of 6th June, 1971 (translation)—

He went still further and expressed himself clearly about the Coloured people and said…

This is Mr. Vorster—

In connection with the question of a “separate homeland” he added—

These are the reasons why he now supports the Government.

This fully confirms our own view of the statement by the Federal Council: that, as it stands, it gives the Coloured people considerably less than the National Party envisaged for them even in 1948. It is a retrogressive step from the programme of 1948. Then it was parallel development with a point of contact in Parliament, in the provincial council and in the municipalities; a point of contact in the homelands province, at least, where two-thirds of the Coloured people live. Now the policy is parallel development without points of contact, in other words, parallel development leading to nowhere, which is nothing but the old White supremacy and the most offensive form of White imperialism. This is where the policy of parallel development without points of contact is standing today: White imperialism of the worst kind.

I am surprised that an hon. Minister such as the Minister of Coloured Affairs can be satisfied with that. Does he not feel ashamed when he thinks that this Government is going out of its way to recruit people in their thousands from overseas, people who come to this country, some with no more than a standard six education? They can come from countries with a very mixed background and the moment they arrive here, the Government tells them: “In five years’ time you will be citizens of South Africa, and you will have the Parliamentary franchise.” But the Coloured people, who have a background of 300 years in South Africa and who are European in all respects, are told: “You will remain subordinate to the Whites for as long as you live, and not only to the Whites of South Africa, but you will also remain subordinate to those foreigners we are importing in their thousands and who can gain citizenship in South Africa within five years.” I say that this is an absurd situation. If anger and bitterness against this sort of treatment develop among the Coloured, we on this side say it is the Government that must bear the full blame for it and nobody else. The policy being followed by the Government today has no future. No matter what happens, sooner or later the Coloured People are going to get rights of citizenship. There is not a single intelligent man in South Africa who does not realize this. But instead of realizing this and guiding the process into the right channels, the Government adopts an attitude which will turn the young rising generation of Coloured people not against the White man, but specifically against the Afrikaner and his language, because the Government is regarded as being largely a government of Afrikaners. This is what W. A. de Klerk would call a “tragicomic situation”, that this party, which pretends to be the pillar of the Afrikaner, in fact going to be the reason why the Coloured people, by the time they get full rights of citizenship, will not only be totally estranged from the Afrikaner, but will also be hostile to the Afrikaner in South Africa. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout followed his leader’s example faithfully by placing himself on a high moral pedestal and from there dishing out rather vehement accusations. I am inclined to accept that the hon. member’s party is also looking for a moral basis, and not only that, but also for support from the electorate for the policy they advocate. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition, on the occasion of their youth congress, spoke rather worriedly about the future and the future views of the young people of South Africa. I have the Cape Times here in which a report of his speech on that occasion appears. He said infer alia—

Hear, hear!

There are hon. members who are saying “hear, hear”.

We are saying “read further”.

Those hon. members will get their turn to speak. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the young people were not supporting the National Party. But when, at that same meeting, they had to pass judgment on his leadership and on the policy of his party, what happened? The meeting, according to the report in the Cape Times—

They voted it down. In other words, the United Party, which is again today with much gesticulation and in all earnestness pointing a finger at the policy of the National Party, stands here as a party with a policy which is not supported by its own young people. It is not a case here of a few people holding different opinions here and there, as we also have people among us who think differently. Here a responsible congress of their young people decided to draw a line through their policy of race federation. No. Mr. Chairman, the hon. members must climb down from their pulpit. The hon. members must come down to earth. They must join us in looking at the reality of the South African situation, of the aspirations and the ideals of the Coloured population and of the practical problems of the Government to expand the citizenship of these people. I want to inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I agree with him that the Coloureds will receive their citizenship. In fact, they are busy doing so. It is not the United Party which will give it to them. The National Party and the National Party Government are in fact giving the Coloured population full citizenship, and is developing it for them. I am prepared to admit that the political rights of the Coloured population today are incomplete political rights. There is much room for improvement in this respect. You will agree with me that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the executive council of that body were established fairly recently. This body, with its executive council, is doing its work in a responsible way. It is in the process of finding its way. Towards what? For the very purpose of giving the Coloured population its citizenship, and developing it for them.

In the few minutes left to me, allow me to approach the entire matter of the development of the Coloured population from another angle. During the years following the Second World War up to the present time the Western world has acquired important experience and learnt important lessons in regard to aid to and the development of underdeveloped countries and areas. Over the years it has been found that it does not pay, politically or economically, to overburden a specific nation with money in an attempt to help it. There is in fact only one tried and true method, and that is to help a nation to help itself. We in South Africa are not over-hasty. In fact, that is the basis of our entire approach. We are not in a great hurry with the political, economic and social development of our Coloured population, or their educational growth and development. We must not be over-hasty with this because it is necessary for these people to be taught and helped to help themselves.

Hon. members on that side of the House actually want to make the Coloured population a political appendage of the United Party to support their views and to recruit the people they cannot recruit from amongst the Whites, from amongst the Coloured population.

There is another point which I want to emphasize in the few minutes left to me. We can. for example, begin on the level of housing. So far we have built a tremendous number of subeconomical houses — economic houses as well, but predominantly subeconomic houses—for the Coloured population. But I think we are now reaching a stage where we must give serious thought to curbing the rate of the provision of subeconomic housing and to concentrating on economic housing. As far as I am concerned, the question of self-building schemes must be investigated…

Tents.

No, the hon. member can keep his tent story to himself. That is probably what his Party will provide them with. Economic self-building schemes must be encouraged amongst the Coloureds, also with State-aid. I want to tell hon. members what I mean by that. It is a source of concern to us that the Coloured population, in many cases, if one takes a superficial view, do not set great store by these subeconomic houses. They are not very concerned about keeping them clean. They are not very concerned about the grounds itself. Sometimes I get the impression that these people feel that it is the White man’s property, if I may put it like that. I think we must make a serious attempt to move in the direction of encouraging ownership for our Coloured population as much as possible in our urban areas, and in our rural townships. With a view to that, I think the Department of Coloured Affairs, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, should give consideration to the establishment of a directorate of self-building schemes for the Coloured population. We cannot begin with this on a large scale. The Western Cape in an area which I know well. In his area there are thousands of these people working in the building industry for example. They are good artisans, reliable people, competent people, people for whom you and I can have respect if we work together with them. I know many of these people. We must try to organize these people into using their spare time, late Friday afternoons and Saturdays, in a creative way instead of spending it in the canteens, where they consume R20 to R30 worth of liquor over a week-end [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since 1948 history has proved beyond any doubt that it is only along the road of parallel development that the Coloureds as a community will be able to maintain, develop and realize their own identity, and will in that way be able to take their proper place as a worthy section of the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Piketberg that it is the task of the National Party to help the Coloureds in such a way that they will to an increasing extent be able to help themselves. That is why the National Party Government gave the Coloured Persons Representative Council such a major and responsible task to carry out among its own people. In my opinion, this body is today going through a trial period. This council will have to prove itself to be a responsible body, to whom more and greater authority can be entrusted in future.

What I actually want to say here, is that the Coloureds have a wonderful opportunity, within the political structure, which has been created for them here, to give greater substance and significance to its own franchise. As the Coloureds themselves find that their franchise is a real power factor as far as controlling their own affairs is concerned, so their political aspirations will also, to an increasing extent, be satisfied. For this reason it will be necessary for us to entrust to them more powers, also legislative powers in respect of their own affairs which the Representative Council is entitled to as they become more and more competent to assume those powers. This is in brief the course of development we see for the Coloureds in the political sphere.

But if we consider the other side of this picture, I see that while all right-minded South Africans were celebrating over the Republic week-end, the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Hillbrow held a youth symposium for the United Party on the Witwatersrand. There, those young United Party supporters were subjected to certain proposals by the hon. member for Turffontein, who is a leader of the United Party youth movement in the Transvaal. I just want to point out that we were told repeatedly last year that the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Florida were the epitome of the support the United Party is receiving from the youth of South Africa. Sir, in what position does the hon. member for Turffontein find himself now? He does not have the support of his own people.

Sir, it is very clear that as far as Coloured affairs and the relationships policy in South Africa are concerned, there are only two schools of thought in South Africa among the youth: the school of thought among the young people who accept and follow the policy of the National Party in this respect, and the other people who differ with the National Party, who do not support the United Party, but who do in fact support the Progressive Party.

Sir, you may perhaps ask me why this should be so. It is quite understandable. The young people of today are realistic; they are sober and consistent. That is why they reject this half-baked standpoint of the United Party, and that is why they are either Nationalists or Progressives. Sir, the leadership of the United Party, the Leader of the Opposition, owes this House an explanation; he must tell us what his standpoint in respect of this matter is. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the father of this new policy of the United Party but it cost him his head, for the Progressives, the Liberalists in that party, asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to remove him as leader of that party’s Coloured Affairs group. He was replaced as leader of that group by the hon. member for Newton Park, who knows nothing about this, and who has therefore not yet been able to make a contribution here. Sir, I maintain that the Leader of the United Party owes this House and the people outside an explanation, but he also owes his young people an explanation. For that reason he must rise to his feet and state his reaction to the attitude adopted by the youth of the United Party.

That hon. member and the hon. member for Turffontein are asking for certain things “to avoid the danger of complete Integration”, and, as the hon. member for Turffontein said in Johannesburg, to prevent the evils which occur along the way of political integration; it is easy for them to talk about it, but today they are opening the doors for political integration. This is what we have been saying all along to hon. members on the opposite side: If you are prepared to share the political authority in this country with the non-Whites, then you cannot refuse to make concessions; then you are force to accept total integration.

Sir, hon. members on the opposite side have opened the door to bringing in Coloured representatives on a group basis here. But tomorrow or the day after the present hierarchy of the United Party is no longer there; then it is Mr. That of the Witwatersrand and others, who saw to it that the motion of the hon. member for Turffontein was voted down, who will take over the United Party. They stand for total political integration.

Sir, that day, when the hon. members’ opponents take over control of the United Party youth, we will be setting back the development of the Coloureds in this country for decades because, Sir, the old dispensation of political integration was the most useless and the most futile period in the history of the Coloureds. That was the period when they were most neglected; that was the period when they were simply used as voting cattle and when other interests of theirs were not looked after. Sir, the suspicion-mongering, the incitement and the corruption which went hand in hand with that, dragged those people down into a bottomless political morass, while nothing was done for them in any other spheres. It is not us, Sir, who says this. I want to show you what the Federal Coloured Council said about this. They issued a statement dealing with this period. They dealt with the different periods, and my time is limited, but here they say (translation)—

Then he went on to say—

He also said—

I think I must stop here, Sir. I had wanted to quote a few more passages, but apparently my time has expired. [Time expired.]

The bankruptcy on the Government side is very dear from the exhibitions we have had in this House this afternoon, and that is why they latch onto a matter which they all know virtually nothing about. I should just like to put one matter right, because I take the strongest exception to it. The hon. members for Christiana and Stellenbosch adapted a view here, by way of interjections, about the fact that we held the symposium on a Sunday. This is the biggest untruth that has ever been uttered in this House. It is also typical of the hon. member for Parow. He said that while South Africa was celebrating Republic Day, we held a symposium in Johannesburg. That is not so.

I said the weekend.

The hon. member said on 31st May, when we were celebrating Republic Day. He must check up on it in his Hansard.

With respect to the Coloured question in South Africa, one has a clear opportunity this afternoon to depict here the differences between the United Party’s attitude towards its young people and the Nationalist Party's attitude towards its young people. I should like to ask hon. members opposite… [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot follow the hon. member.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who has such a big mouth, whether he agrees with the M.P.C…. [Interjections.] I am not being blatant. I am just asking for a clear reply. In the provincial council the M.P.C. for Langlaagte made the following statement. I quote from the Transvaler. He said (translation)—

I want to know. When we come to the Coloured question in South Africa, are hon. members opposite prepared to listen to their young people? No, they accept a slogan which states that one should “Work, not Think” as their slogan for their young people. [Interjections.]

Order! hon. members must give other hon. members the opportunity to make their speeches.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I want to say that at this United Party youth symposium I was unanimously re-elected as leader of that movement, but in the same period Mr. Niek Richter, the Nationalist Party Jeugbond leader in the Transvaal, resigned because his seniors did not treat him properly. [Interjections.] I do not merely want to make statements; I want to quote him. He states (translation)—

He states further—

I am quoting this to illustrate the Nationalist Party’s attitude towards its young people. I now want to come back to the symposium that we held and to the attitude of the United Party towards our young people. [Interjection.]

Order! Will hon. members row pay heed to the Chair, or do they want me to take other forms of action? The hon. member may continue.

A letter was written, as a result of a report on this symposium about the Coloured question, to the editor of the Rand Daily Mail by the person who introduced this discussion about Coloured Affairs at the symposium. I want to quote this letter for the sake of the record and also again to indicate what the attitude of the United Party is towards its young people. The writer states—

These are now clearly the attitudes of the United Party and the Nationalist Party towards our youth. I now want to go further and challenge hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Valsbaai, who is having such a good laugh. Let us go to the youth of South Africa and hold an open symposium. Let us then hear what the young Nationalists in his party say. If there is one thing that is clear in connection with this matter, it is that both the Nationalist and United Party youth reject the Government’s approach to the Coloureds of South Africa. Young South Africa takes a positive attitude in wanting to work out only the best of solutions for the Coloured community of South Africa. When I listen to hon. members opposite speaking about the Coloureds, I come to the conclusion that their approach is still that of 1948. Like never before in the past. South Africa, and that includes young South Africa, is slashing open, to the very bone, and discussing the political future of the Coloured community. One can only express the hope that when the Whites venture into this field they will not be prejudiced towards this community, hut will see the whole matter in perspective. When one reads the newspapers, it is very clear that this matter needs the urgent and necessary attention of the people of South Africa. I read in the Argus—

He states: “Afrikaners are, and will remain, the closest”, when it comes to White-Coloured relations. He continues (translation)—

That was said at a Nationalist Party youth symposium.

The monthly journal “Woord en Daad” writes ” Something new for the Coloureds”. The voice of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who shouts such a lot, together with the people of ” Woord en Daad”, people who voted for him, who say (translation)—

Another report reads—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I have done to the Leader of the Opposition. On both of my Votes he rose and spoke first. His conduct last night I subsequently understood very well, but I still do not understand why he did so this afternoon. At this stage I can only think that Mr. Colin Eglin made things so hot for him in the City Hall the other night that he had no alternative today.

Before proceeding, I just want to refer to something. I said on the Planning Vote. I said that I had to make a short speech, because I had been requested by the Chief Whip of the United Party to do so. I should very much like to say that what I said at the time, was based on a misunderstanding on my part in regard to a message which I had received from the Cape Whip of my party. I misunderstood his message, and misinterpreted it. I am sorry if I caused any inconvenience.

There are quite a number of people in South Africa who have been looking forward to the discussion of the Coloured Affairs Vote in Parliament this year. This debate which we started here this afternoon, is to my mind a very important one. For that reason I think that we should conduct it thoroughly. There are people who get on to a platform and start writing in newspapers, and then they gate into the future and turn out a product. There are people who notice in the country one or two things which do not please them. Then they blow and hold them up as the alpha and the omega of the National Party’s policy for White-Coloured relations in South Africa. Although I am here to reply to all the questions, and will remain here as long as hon. members want to discuss Coloured Affairs, I want to ask today that we do one thing first—let us look hack. I want to put a question and reply to it. I want this House to reply to it. Has the National Party’s policy of separate development brought along with it benefits, progress and development for the Coloureds, or has it not? I think that we here in this House and, through us, everybody in this country should first of all obtain perfect clarity in this regard. I want to make the statement that the policy of separate development has brought major benefits and development to the Coloureds.

Our policy would have brought much more.

In view of the fact that I am going to prove my statement, I am pleased that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has admitted that in advance. He said that it had brought benefits, but that it should have brought more benefits.

No, I said another policy would have brought many more benefits.

I am sorry; I misheard him. The hon. member said that another policy would have brought more benefits That is in fact a point which we must discuss in this debate.

Let us take a look at education. The policy of separate development provided the Coloureds with a university of their own. It is a university which is peculiar to the Coloured community of South Africa in every possible sense. In 1960 that university started with 164 students, and today, in 1971, it has 975 enrolled students. The hon. member said that another policy would have brought more benefits. What other policy in South Africa could have given and guaranteed the Coloureds this university training? To date 326 degrees have been conferred on Coloured students. I also want to refer to the training colleges, where our Coloured teachers, male and female, are being trained. I want to refer to the technical colleges, such as the Peninsula Technical College and the seven centres throughout South Africa where our Coloured apprentices are being trained. Differentiated education has been made available to them, and they have also been provided with numerous other training facilities, where Coloured children receive training on a post-school basis. The number of Coloured children attending schools is 536 037. We have 16 450 Coloured teachers in South Africa. At the moment we already have 12 Coloured inspectors. To my liking this number is far too small, but we shall discuss it in a moment. There are 5 subject inspectors. In regard to other training, there are 7 health inspectors. Then there is training in the hotel industry, agriculture, etc. The point I want to make, is that as a result of this policy of parallel development we have entrusted the entire education action of the Coloureds to their own administration. That Coloured education action extends from the primary school level right to the top, i.e. the Director-General of Education and the chief education planners. All of this forms one extensive, strong Coloured action. Tremendous progress has already been made along those lines, and I attribute it to the policy of separate development.

In the sphere of social welfare, what have we not done already for the aged amongst the Coloured population? At De Novo we have the institution for the infirm aged. Then there are nine State-aided old age homes, where there are 886 Coloured people. There are 9 old age homes, which are in a very advanced stage of planning, and we shall be able to accommodate 787 elderly people there. There are 68 creches, where children of preschool age are cared for. There are rehabilitation resorts for Coloured men and women, for alcoholics and other people who have fallen by the wayside. We have resorts for children in need of care, youth camps for Coloureds youths and a cadet training centre, where we are trying to impart discipline to Coloured youths. We are trying there to impart to them the idea of discipline and to prepare them for employment to some extent. Opportunities for employment are being created for social workers, male and female, in the Department of Social Welfare. In 1969 alone we created 25 new posts in that department. There are, therefore, university and other training as well as channels for putting that training and that knowledge at the service of their own people.

Let us now take a look at the economic progress. In the business world we are trying today to help the Coloureds by means of the Coloured Development Corporation. All the figures in this regard are at the disposal of the House. The hon. member for Maitland put quite a number of questions in that regard this year. Through money and through expert advice Coloured businessmen are helped to find their own feet in their own areas: We established Superama, with its various branches which are managed and staffed exclusively by Coloureds. There are Coloureds in the hotel industry. As far as Coloureds in the liquor trade are concerned, 54 double licences for on and off-consumption have already been granted to Coloureds or groups of Coloured. As far as Coloureds in banking are concerned, we founded a bank for the Coloureds, and it already has two branches. Apart from the general manager, all the employees at those branches are Coloureds. There are Coloureds who are transport contractors, and builders and contractors.

Then there is also economic progress in the form of opportunities for employment. Do hon. members know that at present there is in the Public Service a total of 18 863 Coloureds, who are employed as messengers, typists, clerks, nurses, supervisors. superintendents, teachers, inspectors of schools, etc. I have already said that there are almost 16 500 Coloured teachers. There are 1 400 Coloureds in the Police Force. There are seven police stations which are under the command of Coloureds, and through which they can advance to the rank of officer. We have a police training college at Bishop Lavis. There are 678 Coloureds who are employed in the prison service. We have 34 posts offices that are staffed exclusively by Coloureds today. The South African Railways is training Coloureds for its service in various forms of employment, such as gatekeepers, signal staff, staff in ticket offices, etc. I also want to refer to the Coloured Corps Division of the South African Defence Force. I have been mentioning these figures to point out the progress that has been made in the economic sphere by a people and a community that have only just started to develop.

Let us take a look at political progress. Let me say in passing that in the course of my speech I am going to reply to all the points that were raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as political progress in concerned, let us see what happened under the old policy of integration and what has been happening of parallel development. After all, it is true that previously, under the old policy, only the names of a few of them were included in the voters’ roll. Their names appeared there, not for the sake of the Coloureds, but for the sake of the Whites. When the Whites had finished their meetings, they spoke to those few Coloureds at the back of the hall. That was the old policy. As against that, the National Party has, under the policy of separate development, extended the franchise to every Coloured man and every Coloured woman in South Africa.

One man, one vote, but what sort of vote?

All those matters must be settled before the end of this debate. We and the country must know where all of us stand. The Coloureds have been granted a political institution of their own, which they did not have under the old policy.

Where is that going to lead them?

We shall discuss that as well, for that, too, is one of the matters which will be settled before we rise here. As I said, we granted them a political institution of their own. What did they have before?—a delegated political opinion. There were dear and good people, for whom I had the highest respect. We have now granted the Coloureds a platform, on which they can express in South Africa a Coloured opinion of their own. This was not granted to them for this or for that reason, but as a result of the policy of separate development. They decide on their own affairs. The champions of integration reject this separate institution in essence, for to them there is in the final analysis only one legislative body in South Africa, i.e., this Parliament. The highest, parallel political posts in South Africa are now open to Coloureds. What was open to them under the old policy? Along with the Coloured Legislative Assembly we found the emergence of a separate Coloured public service. This is also a fruit borne by the policy of separate development. How much progress has there not been in the sphere of housing for Coloureds, in spite of the weaknesses, in spite of the criticism? I have figures in this regard, but I shall not tire the House with them. Economic houses, sub-economic houses, and so forth, have been made available to them.

This progress cannot be denied. Hon. members may develop this idea of progress further, but I want to say today that I have arrived at the conclusion that this policy has to a large extent benefited the Coloureds as a group, in every respect. Their development has been given a major boost. I have furnished the proof. It was under this Government, with its policy of separate development, that these things could be carried into effect. The proof I have furnished here, must be refuted. The hon. Opposition may rise and deny it. If they deny it, I should like to hear it. But if they do not deny it, and until it has been refuted in this debate, it will stand recorded as the opinion of this Parliament of South Africa that there has been major progress for the Coloureds under the policy of separate development. Then it will stand recorded as the opinion of Parliament that there has been major progress for the Coloured population of South Africa under the policy of separate development. Everything that will in future be written or said about the Coloureds, will have to be viewed and assessed against this background. It was for that reason that I said that this was the first question that we had to settle. I made the statement, it was proved, and everybody who is still going to discuss this matter, in this House or outside this House, everybody who is going to write about it, or whoever, must have regard to this opinion of the Parliament of South Africa.

Although this is true, what are the Opposition and its press doing? The Opposition is not divorced from the press which supports it, although one supposes that it may rightly say that it does not own the press. But all of it is one major political action. If they find a tin shanty somewhere, they take the worst photographs of that tin shanty, distribute them all over South Africa and say: “See what separate development looks like”. But they remain silent about the tens of thousands of tin shanties which were cleared under the policy of separate development, under which the inhabitants of such tin shanties were placed in better houses. Sir, whenever there is a shortage of one classroom or a few classrooms at the beginning of the year, when a school is opened and a few pupils have to go home again, it is reported in the papers in bold letters, and the impression is created that this is what Coloured education looks like under a policy of separate development. But not a word is said about the hundreds of classrooms that were built and are being built, and nothing is said about the almost superhuman efforts on the part of White and Coloured officials to meet this major need.

The Opposition and the press that supports them, place our speeches under a magnifying-glass in order to see whether they cannot find one single sentence or word which they may misrepresent or to which they can pin a yard-long tail. This amounts to suspicion-mongering, to a misrepresentation of our words, of our best intentions and our deeds. These things are not presented positively; they are presented negatively. Sir, I paged through five newspapers which I found lying about at home, and I wrote down those things which we and the Coloureds have to read day after day and week in and week out; in these editorials reference is made to “hardships”, “frustrations”, “bitterness”, “injustices”, “alienation”, “discrimination”, “bitter resentment”, etc. In the debate on the Planning Vote, and once again in this debate this afternoon through the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition used words and phrases such as “pushed out into the bundu”, “overwhelmed by their grievances”, ” frustrated”, and “anti-White”. These are the words and phrases which the Leader of the Opposition used in this House this afternoon, and during the debate on the Planning Vote the members on the opposite side referred to group areas as “the greed of the White man”; they referred to the Coloured townships as “ghettoes of frustration”. [Interjections.]

Do you agree?

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred here this afternoon to the feeling, which was allegedly not what it should be. I almost feel tempted to say that I would not be going too far if I said that the Coloureds were systematically being incited against the National Party and against the Afrikaans-speaking section. Sir, I do not want to say anything which is not true, but what is happening? I work with this portfolio. I also lie awake at night, asking myself whether I am doing my work properly and correctly, but the Coloureds are continually being made to believe that the black sheep are sitting on this side. I am not saying that this is only being done by the United Party; it is being done by the press which supports it. I say that this is one major, joint action, and the Opposition cannot escape from that. The Coloureds are continually being made to believe that the black sheep, the callous people, the heartless people, the oppressors, are sitting on this side, and that the blameless beings with golden wings are sitting on that side. Sir, I cannot help saying that in my opinion the Opposition and the press which supports it, have finally realized that they have lost the battle of separate development on the White political front and that they have now joined that battle on the Coloured political front; that this battle does not concern the Coloureds, for the sake of the Coloureds. It concerns White politics.

For the sake of the U.P.

That is why I should like to know from the United Party in this debate where it stands. Hon. members on that side are welcome to put questions to me and to remind me of each of those questions. I shall reply to each of them, but I want to ask them now to reply to my questions too.

What about the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition?

I shall deal with his questions; my speech still lies ahead. Does the Opposition support the policy of parallel development, or does it not?

What is the policy of parallel development?

Sir, there is no doubt in my mind that the newspapers which support them—and I think that no reasonable person will have any doubt in his mind either—reject the policy of parallel development. Those newspapers are champions of integration.

But. surely, our Leader did state our policy today.

The newspapers which support the Opposition, are newspapers which advocate integration. I do not think I that any student of politics in South Africa has any doubt about that. Where does the United Party stand?

Tell us what the policy of parallel development means.

This will become apparent to the hon. member if he does not know it yet. Where does the United Party stand? Does it accept parallel development, or does it accept integration? If it ostensibly does not know what parallel development means, does it accept integration?

Do you accept economic integration?

Or is the truth perhaps that half of its members are supporters of integration and that the other half are supporters of parallel development?

Like its youth?

I am waiting for a reply, and until they do reply, I want to remind them of this old English idiom: “They run with the hares and hunt with the hounds”. Since they do not know what separate parallel development is, I want to put specific questions to them. [Interjections.] I am coming to the questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think they ought to reply to this. Take the Group Areas Act. It is separate, parallel development. Hon. members should not laugh about it: I shall explain it to them in such a way that all of them will say that they are satisfied now. In the meantime they are welcome to carry on laughing. Does the Opposition endorse the Group areas Act? They must reply to that question.

We have said time and again that we stand for residential separation.

The hon. member says that they have said it time and again, and he is correct. They stand for residential separation. The hon. member for Maitland also said it today in the debate on the Planning Vote, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said so two years ago. But I want to know whether the Opposition stands for the Group Areas Act. That is the question I am asking. We do not know what their attitude is in that regard.

Go and read Hansard.

No. I am not going to read Hansard; why should I go and read Hansard if the Opposition is sitting in opposite me and can reply to this now? Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg wrote a letter in The Argus, in which she said, “When we come to power, we will repeal or amend the Group Areas Act”. Is the Opposition going to “repeal or amend” the Group Areas Act?

The Leader of the Opposition told you today what our policy was.

The only thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said today, was, “There must be no removals until enough accommodation has been provided for the backlog”. He only said that we should not move these people in the meantime, until such time as the backlog had been made up. This is typical of the way the Leader of the Opposition does everything; one cannot pin him down. I am asking them this question: Is the Opposition going to repeal the Group Areas Act or amend it?

Review it. [Interjections.]

They say they are going to “review it”. We are dealing with very serious matters now, but I shall tell you why I want replies to these questions. I have told you that we are the black sheep. But if you are proposing the same things we do, why should we alone be the black sheep?

†The Opposition is going to review the Group Areas Act, and when they have reviewed it, what are they going to decide? I am sure they are going to review it, but have they not even thought about it? Have they not even made up their minds, being the alternative Government?

You have not been listening. You have not done your homework.

The Leader of the Opposition said nothing about it this afternoon. He only said that they are in favour of separate residential areas and that all removals must be stayed until certain things are done, but he did not commit himself on the principle. [Interjections.] It is peculiar that I have to struggle so much to get a reply.

We said there should be consultation, a compensation and alternative accommodation.

I think it is very fair to have consultation. I also accept compensation and alternative accommodation. I accept all three of those things. But I still want to know whether the Opposition stand by the Group Areas Act or not. If they are going to repeal it, which sections are they going to repeal?

*I may as well leave Group Areas at that. But I have not finished with the Opposition. I shall come back to it in the course of this debate. In the meantime they may as well give thought to it, for we must know and the Coloureds must know. We cannot play a double role and a dishonest role as far as the Coloureds are concerned. [Interjections.] Is the Opposition going to abolish the university, or is it going to develop it further? But they do not know what separate development is! Are they going to develop it until it is quite parallel? For if you follow a parallel course, it does not mean to say that all of you should have reached exactly the same stage at a given moment. One is lagging behind, and there are very good reasons for it. But one tries to take him by the hand, and one tries to take him along with one on that parallel course. [Interjections.]

Where does it lead to?

It is no use distracting my attention by making interjections and asking where it leads to. We are coming to the question of where we are going. But is the Opposition going to abolish the university? We want a reply—yes or no—in this debate. The Leader did give us a reply on the Coloured Council, and for that reason I shall not insist any further on a reply, for the Leader of the Opposition said they wanted to establish a “communal council”. We can now debate on whether a “communal council” is better, and whether the name is better, but what is its Afrikaans name going to be?

“Gemeenskapsraad”.

So, we cannot connect to it anything relating to the Coloureds, We cannot link up the name of the Coloureds with it. We are merely going to call it a communal council. Fine, in that case we have clarity. Then I want to know where the United Party stands in regard to separation as far as the sector relating to serving the public is concerned. Is the United Party going to retain separate facilities for serving the public in the Post Office?

Absolute silence.

You see, Sir, we must know, the Coloureds must know, the Press must know, for we are being blamed. Suspicion is being cast on us. The Coloureds are being made suspicious of us.

They are voting against your policy.

I ask the hon. member for East London North whether they are going to retain the separate service facilities in post offices, or whether they are going to abolish them? If hon. members do not want to tell me. then I ask them to be so kind as to tell the Coloureds of South Africa. [Interjections.] They do not want to give a reply to the post office matter either. Everybody is a witness to it. If they were to build new stations, would they, as the National Government did in the case of the Cape Town station, plan and build a beautiful separate station for the Coloureds? Would hon. members do that?

Is the hon. the Minister aware that at the new railway station at Eshowe there is not one single notice reading “White” or “non-White”?

Is that your policy? [Interjections.] I am asking you.

Granted that that is so; let us assume that those notices were to be erected at the station…

Are you in favour of that?

I do not know what the position is…

If you are so anxious I will have them put up tomorrow.

Surely there are certain communities…

I can put them up tomorrow if you want them.

I do not know what number of people are using the station. That is National Party policy. The hon. member knows it. If there is a request or a complaint, those notices could be put up.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech. We cannot all speak at the same time.

I do not want to do something to which the Leader of the Opposition takes exception. It is this party’s policy, and there is some reason or other for Eshowe.

†The hon. member put a question to me this afternoon under the Vote Planning. In the long term the Coloured people are temporarily in Zululand although I personally would like to see the indigenous people being treated in the most sympathetic way. But in any case this is our policy. We would like to know what the United Party’s standpoint is. I have told the House why we would like to know. We are being blamed for things for which the Opposition is perhaps as guilty as we are. It is not right. Let us take the example of railway coaches. Are you going to remove the notices, namely “Whites” and “non-Whites” from the coaches7

But they made those notice boards.

Then you must also explain why Minister Sturrock had those notices prepared.

*Sir, when they conduct election campaigns in the area where I grew up, there are senators who say, ” We made those notice boards.” The hon. member for Newton Park is having a good laugh. He does it, too. [Interjections.] Then those people also speak of separate development and of apartheid. They say, ” We are actually the apartheid people; Sturrock made those notice boards.” That is what is being said at, for instance, Van Wyksvlei and Carnarvon. Sir, that is no concern of mine, but what I do object to, is that the impression is being created in South Africa that the oppressors are sitting here. Take the case of the buses. They want to keep Sea Point White by using the National Party as a pretext, whereas the Johannesburg City Council introduced bus apartheid, and that is a city council which is staffed by the supporters of those hon. members. Sir, we are being blamed and the Coloureds are being incited against us, and that is not right. If the United Party’s standpoint is the same as ours, they should bear the blame along with us, if in a fact certain quarters in South Africa want to apportion blame.

Now I want to express a few thoughts on the present and on the future in respect of us and the Coloureds. Then I shall reply, as I go along, to the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I said in the past that I extended the hand of friendship to the Coloureds. I said so on various occasions. I said so in the Cape Town City Hall, when approximately 800 Coloureds were present. I said so last year, here in this House; I said so on other occasions when I addressed Coloureds, and I said so on the radio. On all these occasions I said, “I extend the hand of friendship to the Coloureds”, and today I say it again. I find it natural to say this, for this is the way I feel. Any person who has any doubts about this basic attitude of Christian love prevailing in the hearts of our people, does not know the Afrikaner. I said last year that we and the Coloureds had to follow this course together. Today I say it again. We can only follow this course in either of two ways. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, ” You have opted for the third course.” That is not true, Sir, That is one of the very matters which this debate must clear up. We can only follow this course together in one of two ways. The one is mixed, on a basis of integration…

A homeland.

… and the other way on which we can follow this course together, is on the basis of separate political development.

How far does the development go?

There is no other course in South Africa. This Government accepted the policy of separate development a long time ago. We have received so many mandates for it, and it is our policy. In connection with the third course, i.e. this homeland story, I want to say that I do not want to discuss it, for I am realistic.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What moral basis does this parallel, or separate development. have?

I shall answer. We have this policy of separate development, as far as the Bantu population is concerned, for historical reasons… [Interjections.]

I say you are rejecting it now as far as the Bantu are concerned.

No, Sir. Please, if the hon. member for King William’s Town wants to say something, he should say something which is true and which is intelligent. Ever since 1948 we have been advocating in this country the policy of separate development as being our policy. Amongst the Bantu we have given a certain shape to that policy, for historical and practical reasons. Amongst the Coloureds we have also given to the policy of separate development, for historical and practical reasons, a shape of parallel development. This is the only policy that can be pursued, and if this policy is not pursued, the only one that is left, is that of integration. There is no other alternative. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to rise when they want to put a question. I simply cannot allow these constant interjections any longer.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the parallel development of the Coloureds lead to their own sovereign Parliament?

I shall deal with their political future in a moment. That hon. member who is laughing so, looks simple to me. He cannot help it. [Interjections.] In that case I withdraw it. It will not do us any good to grin at one another. On the basis of this policy the Coloureds can develop to their full potential and their full human dignity,

Up to the stage of having a sovereign parliament?

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast put a question to the hon. the Minister, and he is replying to it now. In spite of your appeal, however, hon. members are not affording the Minister the opportunity to reply.

I have now made an appeal to hon. members on two occasions, but in spite of that interjections are still being made all the time, interjections which are only aimed at preventing the hon. the Minister from making his speech. If any hon. member wants to put a question, I am prepared to allow him to do so; however, I cannot allow any further interjections, and I shall he strict now. The Minister may proceed.

On the basis of this policy the Coloureds can develop to their full potential and human dignity, even if they are lagging so far behind today. On the basis of this party’s policy, the retention of the identities of the various population groups is being guaranteed. On the basis of this policy good relations can be established and built up. In a moment I want to explain how this will he applicable to the various spheres, such as politics, education, economics, and so forth. Then it will become progressively clearer to the hon. member for South Coast that under this policy—where the Coloureds are following a course of development parallel to ours as regards their township development, political institutions, public service and economic development—no ceiling will be imposed on the Coloureds. To me this policy is—-and I really and truly believe this —just as moral as any other policy of which I have ever heard, and more moral than is any other policy of which I have ever heard in this House. This policy does not even impose a ceiling on the development of the Coloureds. It is a long road and there is a vast amount of work, but this is a just policy for the present and for the future.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does he foresee that the time will arrive when this Parliament would have absolutely no control over Coloured affairs?

As far as the political future of the Coloureds is concerned, and this is actually the point the hon. member is raising now, I want to say that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, and this was the objection raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is at present partly elected and partly nominated. In the past, in quite a different form, it consisted of nominated members only. In any case, bring me any example of constitutional development in South Africa which did not follow this course. This happened to us in the Cape Province, and it also happened in Natal. It started with a fully nominated council, followed by a partly elected and a partly nominated council, after which it was a fully elected council; later still is was a representative government, and that was followed by responsible government, and so forth. After all, I cannot outline today what the course of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is going to be in the future. However, this is the course which the Coloured Council will follow in South Africa. After all, who doubts that this Coloured Council will eventually, in the fullness of every stage of time, become a fully elected council? Who doubts that more and more powers will in the future, on this course of parallel development, be delegated to it?

Such as what?

Oh. now they want me to outline it in full. We started with education, etc. In due course we may delegate to that council its postal services as well as its police service and courts of justice. As time goes by we shall in fact find the way. After all, this is an evolutionary process. This is something which time will have to show us. We are not going to undertake any wild scheme, but time and experience from year to year will show us what to do.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Is it the objective of this Government, then, to grant sovereign independence to this Coloured Parliament?

No. That is not the National Party’s objective. I do not know where the hon. member gets that idea from, but surely he can speak later on. These steps will be taken.

Then we come to the important matter, namely the binding factor, the liaison which exists between this Parliament and the Council, which will develop in the future. We have a form of liaison today. Whether or not this is liked by the members, we established this form of liaison because the Coloureds told us that this was what they wanted. We were satisfied with it. That is the form of liaison which we established for the present. The Prime Minister said this was not a final form of liaison—as the years go by it would be adapted and changed. That is what the future will show us.

That is also the case as far as local authorities are concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has certain objections to the way in which we are doing it, but basically there is no difference between what we want to do in regard to local authorities and what he, as he outlined here today, wants to do in that regard. We are on precisely the same course, i.e. that of granting the Coloureds municipalities in their townships.

What is the future as far as the economic aspect of the matter is concerned? Perhaps I am making too long a speech now. I do not want to bore the House. As far as the economy is concerned, I just want to say that we must gradually create more opportunities for employment for the Coloureds. We must open up more spheres of employment to them. Job reservation, which was discussed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the province of my colleague the Minister of Labour. This is a topic which he has discussed with him on more than one occasion. The Leader of the Opposition may ask the F.C.I. here in Cape Town for a report on the labour situation in the Western Cape, In that report he will read that job reservation is by no means a factor in the labour situation in the Western Cape, and this is the heartland of the Coloureds. Job reservation is of no consequence here. What the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here—and I listened closely to him—was not the statutory colour bar; he was speaking here about the traditional colour bar. The Government cannot be blamed for everything that happens outside in the private sector, in the trade unions for example, namely that the Coloureds are denied certain spheres of employment. In fact, we are trying to open up those channels of employment to them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister something? The hon. the Minister said there would be no ” ceiling” on the development of the Coloureds. Does he mean by that that they can have a full-fledged legislative council for deciding on their own interests?

Yes.

If the Minister replies in the affirmative, I want to ask another question. Does he mean by that that there are going to be two parliaments in the country—the one a Coloured parliament and the other a White parliament?

Yes, that is what it will eventually lead to, i.e. that they will govern their own people as regards everything that has been delegated to them. They will be able to levy taxes, etc. In that way there will also be liaison, and we shall build up a system for living side by side in the political sphere as well. But those are things for which you had three days for putting questions to the Prime Minister, and it was only when the debate had almost come to an end on Friday afternoon that you availed yourself of that opportunity. And now I have to spell out everything, but I shall do so.

Now we come to salaries. I want to say that we are often blamed for salaries. I do not want to bore you, Sir, but these are the figures given to me by the Department of Statistics, and do you know that in the public sector we are paying the Coloureds better salaries than they are paid in the private sector, commerce or industry or mining or any of those? In our industrial legislation you will find no distinction being drawn between Whites and Coloureds, In the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act and the Apprenticeship Act there is no discrimination. I just want to add this. What I actually want to do today, before I deal with the other point that was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is to make an appeal to everybody in South Africa, to the public sector and to the private sector, to pay our Coloureds more. I think they deserve more money than they are getting at the moment. I refuse to believe that the economic contribution and productivity of the Coloureds living in Cape Town and its environs are so low that between 60 and 70 per cent of them still fall in the subeconomic group. I want to make this appeal today, and I hope we shall be able to do something about it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “We must narrow the gap with the ultimate object of closing it.” The National Party issued a statement, i.e. the statement of the Federal Council. I am prepared to say today that we are striving after a situation where we shall come to accept equal pay for equal work. But our statement, as it has now been issued by us, can and must be read as an acceptance of the principle of narrowing the gap. In recent times I have been exerting myself for that. I had hoped that by this time I would perhaps be in a position to say something in that regard, but at the moment this matter is receiving attention, and that is all that I can say about it. But there are historical circumstances. I do not want to create a misapprehension on the part of the Coloureds. We cannot close that gap all at once, but we can strive after closing it eventually, and at the present time in which we are living, we must narrow that gap.

To what spheres does the statement of the hon. the Minister apply? What spheres are covered by it?

The entire Public Service, the teaching profession, all the professional and skilled persons employed in the Public Service, nurses, social workers and others.

And pensions?

In regard to pensions the position is as it was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. There have been no further developments in that regard.

And now I want to hasten myself. I am sorry that I have been speaking for such a long time. I think I should now start omitting a few points and ask my hon. Deputy Minister to discuss them. But I shall in any case not be able to finish, and I shall have to speak for a few minutes after the adjournment. As far as the hon. member for Piketberg is concerned, I should like to say that the idea he expressed is an excellent one, and the Minister of Community Development told me that he happened to have received this week a recommendation to the same effect from the National Housing Commission, and that they would attend to the matter. I just want to say that the task of upliftment amongst the Coloureds is the task of all of us, and therefore their task as well.

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

Evening Sitting

Sir, in conclusion I should like to say a few words about the university. It is our endeavour at the university to make an active effort in future to appoint more Coloured professors and lecturers. I am not satisfied with the progress we have made up to now. Although, in saying this, I do not wish to suggest that this will be done in the immediate future, we did have talks with a view to establishing at the university a faculty of medicine and, in recent times, a faculty of dentistry as well. We shall be working along these lines, although it will necessarily take quite a number of years, but we are already engaged in discussions with the province in this regard.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister with regard to his suggestion that there will be a medical faculty and a dental faculty. What are his intentions with regard to leaching staff?

Where would he get them?

At this stage it is not possible for me to answer that question. I realize that teaching staff are in short supply for any medical faculty in any part of South Africa,

Will it be linked with one of the others?

Yes, the idea is that we may be able to link up, but I do not want to enlarge upon that at this stage.

*In connection with housing I just want to say that people very often fix their minds on the housing for Coloureds they see today. I just want us to remember, as regards the Coloured townships that exist at present, that once the term of those loans has expired, urban renewal will also take place there. The second phase of those Coloured townships will look very different from what they look like today, and the third phase will also look very different from the second phase. I have here an interesting quotation, which I want to read out, of what was said to me the other day by Mr. Pieter Swartz, a young member of the Coloured Council. He said (translation)—

Then he praised the new extensions we were effecting at Belhar by saying—

Sir, these are people who also have overseas experience.

Sir, before concluding, I should just like to say a few words about the major task of upliftment which has to be undertaken amongst the Coloureds, Amongst the lower income group, the under-privileged group of the Coloureds, a tremendous task awaits all of us. For all of us there is, figuratively speaking, a lifetime of work, and I want to express appreciation to everybody who is assisting in that work, White welfare organizations as well as Coloured welfare organizations. In this regard, too. there is still a very extensive sphere in which the Coloureds can make their contribution. They have a much greater task to fulfill than they are fulfilling at the moment. I want to express my gratitude to everybody. I want to express my gratitude to the business men of Cape Town, who established here in Cape Town a fund, which they call the Mission Trust. I also want to express my gratitude to everybody who has been supporting that Trust so splendidly, and for the wonderful idea linked with it. From the House of Assembly I should like to give tonight recognition to the work done by them. No matter what policy or course we may be following in regard to the Coloured people in South Africa, basically we cannot get away from the fact that those people are with us and must be uplifted by us. This is our all-important task. There is not one single person who is looking for work amongst the Coloureds and who does not have enough work to do. We need not discuss the Coloureds and seek solutions all day, for here we have the first major task and the first major solution which we have to undertake.

In conclusion I say, therefore, that the National Party has a policy with which we can enter upon the future, namely that of ordering the relations with the Coloureds. This is not a final pronouncement on every point. Adjustments, changes and improvements will have to be effected from time to time and from generation to generation. All of us and I must in the time in which we are living, do our share of the work correctly and properly. Whenever I hear of and see problems, I think, “I must keep my side of the matter clear and search my own conscience”. In the final analysis, I cannot do more than that. The Coloureds also have a contribution to make. They also have a responsibility which they cannot shirk. Others can help, but in the final analysis a people and a community must help themselves.

I want to express gratitude for the cooperation I have been receiving on the part of the Coloureds. In the spheres of politics, education and culture there are men and women whom I hold in the highest esteem. They are rendering a special contribution on behalf of their people.

I want to refer with appreciation to Mr. Tom Swartz and his Executive. They constantly have the cause of their people at heart and have been advocating it in every sphere, and they have been advocating it strongly. Their actions are those of wise men. They are leading their people, not into cul-de-sacs, but step by step along the road of progress and of the possible, as it develops.

I also want to thank Dr. Van der Ross and his committee of 24, who arranged the Republic festivities, for the success they achieved. To all who made a contribution in that respect, I also want to extent my sincere thanks. In spite of the rain, the cold and the propaganda, the Festival for children was attended by 25 000 children. On Republic Day more than 40 000 Coloureds attended the Festival. In all more than 125 000 Coloureds attended the week of celebrations in its various facets. I say that the future can be rosy. Let us make it so!

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. the Minister. There were two things, in particular, that struck me and made an impression on me; the one was the Minister himself. I must say that the hon. the Minister impressed me by the thoroughness with which he has acquired the knowledge for his portfolio. I am further impressed by the informative, firm, deceive and dedicated way in which he handled these matters. There is one matter I am very convinced about, and that is that in the person of the hon. the Minister we have someone who can handle this particular question of relationships in South Africa very well. That is the first impression made on me.

The second impression was that this year the National Party could come along, look back over the years since 1948 and be very thankful for the progress that has been made in the unfolding of the National Party's policy. One notices every year that there is good, sound development.

By way of an interjection the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that these matters could be handled much better by another party with another policy. I think the hon. member was actually referring to the policy of his own party. It is very easy to sit on the Opposition side, for as lore as the hon. Opposition has now been doing so, and then to make statements of that kind. The Coloured problem, if one regards it as a problem, cannot simply be seen as separate from all the other questions. But when the hon. Opposition so easily says that it would have done better, it must also remember that its policy must be seen in the solution it offers for all South Africa’s questions. If one must be retrospectively prophetic, I fear that under the policy of the United Party the same conditions would have prevailed in South Africa as do prevail in the rest of Africa. In that respect my opinion is as uncertain as their pronouncement about us can be.

Mr. Chairman, the world at large thinks that questions of human relationships are confined solely to the Republic of South Africa. People out there think that the question of relationships between various peoples and races had their sole origin in South Africa and that if they die out here they will die out everywhere. The people out there believe that South Africa is the only country in which there are problems concerning the relationships between peoples and population groups. We also find that same idea in many people in the Republic itself. There are many people, such as the hon. members of the Opposition, who think that all difficulties in connection with the problem of relationships in South Africa began with the policy of the National Party.

I think so.

You do?

Yes.

I then also want to say that those hon. members, and perhaps the hon. member for Houghton as well, think that when this National Party and its views are one day removed in toto from the South African scene, all relationship problems will be solved. This is a very naive argument. As long as those hon. members argue along those lines, they will not see the realities of the South African problems.

It is also said very frequently that there must again be discussions about the Coloureds. But that is nothing new. I remember very well that from the earliest days, from 1948, and even before that, new approaches to big questions have repeatedly been considered. There is, for example, nothing new in academicians, politicians, writers or young people today coming to discuss the question of the Brown people, I am reminded that in student political circles there has, at all times, been a revival in the discussion of these matters. Then I also want to say that the young people of today are very eager to discuss these problems. There is nothing new in this. Today’s students are not the only ones who do so. I know that young people and students of 10, 15 or 20 years ago discussed these matters.

I should like to make a few remarks about the hon. member for Turffontein who unfortunately, it appears, cannot be present. In this House the hon. member has now, for the umpteenth time, perhaps because he is young, referred to how youth generally are rejecting the National Party and how they are accepting the policy of the United Party with open arms. There is nothing so far divorced from the truth than this specific statement. Let us now just have a look, for example, at the student youth of South Africa. If this side of the House, the hon. Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton were to go to the English-language universities and state the three policies, as we see them, for those student leaders to judge, I can say that the United Party would come off third best. In Cape Town recently Mrs. Taylor, the hon. member for Wynberg, and the hon. member for Houghton appeared jointly in connection with certain political aspects. With a large majority the students of the University of Cape Town…

Where were you?

I was not present. I read the report in the newspapers, and the students of the University of Cape Town rejected the hon. member for Wynberg and accepted the hon. member for Houghton. I want to go further and say that if a person such as Mr. Alan Paton were to come up against Mrs. Suzman, the relevant student leaders of the present-day English-language universities would, through the mouth of their organization, Nusas, prefer Mr. Alan Paton to Mrs. Helen Suzman. I say this because there is a certain tendency prevalent in connection with these questions. When one relinquishes conservative principles and ranges oneself behind the thoughts and principles which the liberal Western world wants to put to one today, one cannot fail to end up where Mr. Alan Paton stands today. I also want to state the obverse.

If we were to go to the Afrikaans-language universities today, where all three of these parties state their views, I have no doubt at all in my heart of hearts that the National Party, with its standpoint, would gain the overall majority of the support of those students. I am convinced of the fact that the so-called verligte Afrikaners, or the so-called intellectual Afrikaners, with which the English-language newspapers boast to such an extent, are fundamentally and in their principles and attitudes much closer to the Progressive Party than to the United Party. Many of the older members of the United Party will then perhaps not be there any more, but this evening I want to stage, as far as the politics of relationships is concerned, the youth of South Africa are confronted by two courses of action, and this is unavoidable. The one relates to the views of Mr. Alan Paton, who is very far removed from the hon. member for Houghton, and the other is the policy of the National Party. Hon. members may disagree with me about that this evening, and there may be a few members, such as the hon. member for Hillbrow, who would smile a little about it, but this is a prediction I hazard in my knowledge of young people.

I want to say further that the convictions and the activities, with which the Progressive Party is making its present-day impact on the youth of South Africa, have no effect on the supporters of the National Party. They do get some support today from amongst the supporters of the United Party. I want to say that if I were to attend a symposium or a meeting, arranged by me as a House of Assembly member of the National Party for the supporters of my party, in other words selected individuals, and I were the subject of a motion of no confidence—as was the case with the hon. member for Turffontein—after I had put forward the Coloured policy of the National Party, I would not be able to sleep for weeks. [Interjections.] I shall say this anywhere in the country. Hon. members know that I come from the Transvaal, but I shall state the National Party’s policy on the Coloureds on any Nationalist platform, and that policy will be accepted by everyone. I shall do so anywhere, from the Cape to Waterberg. In Waterberg the policy of the National Party is accepted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour. The hon. member for Rissik tried to create the impression that there are only two political avenues in this country in which the young people are interested. He says that the Nationalist Party is the one pole that gains the political support of the young people. I want to refer the hon. member to all the discussions and the political inquiries after last year’s general and provincial elections. I want to refer the hon. member to the documents and statements by prominent people, including academicians. These people very clearly pointed out that young people were inclining, in their thinking, towards the United Party.

I want to mention the name of Prof. Harry Lever. Five minutes ago, in my office, I saw the cutting of the statement which he made just after last year’s election, when he said that the reversals the Nationalist Party has suffered are to be ascribed to the fact that young people are inclining towards the United Party. That hon. member can surely remember the meetings that Mr. Dirk Riezelman, his expublic relations officer, held in the Florida constituency. From that election it was all very clear, owing to the statements made by Mr. Janis Rautenbach’s wife, who is the secretary of the Aasvoël branch of the Nationalist Party in that constituency. She said very clearly that the reason why the Nationalist Party had suffered reversals is to be ascribed to the fact that the young people are inclining towards the United Party and because the old big-wigs, the old stalwarts in the Nationalist Party, do not want to listen to what the young people are saying.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. It is surely nothing but the biggest ludicrousness to think that the young people will jump from one extreme to the other. The reason is that the people like the United Party’s policy because it is not based on a dogma, as in the case of the Nationalist Party’s policy. That is the reason why they are not successful.

But I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. Last year we said that we did not want to attack the hon. the Minister too fiercely because it was a new Vote he had taken charge of. At the time we treated him with the utmost sympathy. We expected that after a year…

Order!

I want to appeal to hon. members not to make interjections, otherwise I shall be compelled to take stricter action.

Last year we treated him with the utmost sympathy. We expected that after a year he would be able to give us the answers to the questions about the Coloureds. But what did the hon. the Minister do? He stood up here and said that under the Nationalist Party’s policy of separate development there had been fantastic progress amongst the Coloureds. He referred to their own university, training colleges, technical colleges, to the 536 000 Coloured children at school and to the 16 000 Coloured teachers. These the hon. the Minister mentioned as examples to prove what progress there had been for the Coloureds under this policy of parallel development. However, what is the obvious point of this? In the 23 years of Nationalist Party rule we have always separated only one group in South Africa, i.e. the non-Whites. They were placed to one side. But the Whites have remained in exactly the same position. They have not had separate development, and yet progress has also taken place there. But that hon. gentleman uses separate development as an example of the progress there was amongst the Coloureds. Where has the progress come from, in the field of education, when it comes to the Whites in this country?

Then the Minister said that we should just have a look at this individual political institution they created, the Coloured Persons Representative Council, He also said that the highest posts were now open to Coloureds. However, questions were then asked by hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for East London City asked him whether this Coloured Council would eventually become a fully independent sovereign body. The hon. the Minister then said these questions ought really to have been put to the hon. the Prime Minister. These questions have already been put to the hon. the Prime Minister, and his reply has been just as inadequate as that of the hon. the Minister. All the hon. the Minister has done today, has been to add increasingly to the confusion in connection with the future of the Coloureds in South Africa. The hon. the Minister says that the Coloured can progress to a development stage worthy of full human dignity and that essentially— these were his words, I wrote them down —there is not a ceiling over his head. If that is now parallel development, i.e. that basically there is so ceiling as far as he is concerned, but that at the same time he would not obtain sovereign independence, what is then the eventual outcome of this policy of separate development with the Coloured Persons Representative Council? The hon. the Minister and his supporters on that side of the House said that the Coloured Council would obtain increasingly greater powers in the course of time. I now specifically want to ask the hon. the Minister what these eventual overall powers are which they will be able to obtain, or will not be able to obtain. During the Prime Minister’s Vote, the hon. member for Malmesbury made a speech and, according to Hansard, said the following—

That is what he said in connection with the Coloured Persons Representative Council. If it is just Defence and Foreign Affairs which this council will eventually not have, I now want to ask the hon. the Minister if the Coloured Persons Representative Council, for example, will be able to take over Transport? I want to ask him whether they will also be able to take over Water Affairs?

And Finance?

They now have a measure of control over that. Would they, however, be able to take over State finances? I am also thinking of departments such as Tourism and…

Immigration.

Yes, Immigration. However, the hon. the Minister then makes this meaningless statement to the effect that essentially they have no ceiling over them. I should now like to know the meaning of all these statements we have had in the past few months. There was a statement by the Minister of Defence at their congress in East London. After the Cabinet meeting on 4th December of last year, a statement was also issued by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Then there was also the eventual statement of the Federal Council 14 days ago.

As clear as a bell.

Sir, that hon. member says “as clear as a bell”. They were not satisfied with the Cabinet statement, because the confusion in the National Party continued, and there were still people proclaiming their own trends of thought; that is why the Federal Council also had to convene to endorse the statement the Cabinet made on 4th December of last year. Sir, I want to refer hon. members to the confusion that still reigns. For example, I just want to refer to the election taking place in Waterberg, where the Nationalist Party has a candidate.

“Dr. Hertzog, ladies and gentlemen”.

I want to refer to what Dr. Treurnicht said on that occasion when he was taxed about the question of mixed sports teams here in South Africa now. He said (translation)—

Sir, he is prepared to make these concessions, but the biggest and best concession the hon. gentlemen on that side ought to make, i.e. allowing Coloured representation in this Parliament, they are not prepared to make. But, Sir, I want to refer the hon. member to another statement Dr. Treurnicht made at Nylstroom, according to Die Burger of the third of this month.

Why do you not put up a candidate?

He said (translation)—

Sir, now we have obtained the definition of eventual integration. The hon. gentlemen is afraid of the non-White ladies in the offices, but he is not afraid of the non-Whites on the sports field. He also said that there was nothing wrong with having social functions arranged after matches; there is as little integration in that, as the integration when Dr. Hertzog, for example, had a meal with non-Whites. Sir, he is afraid of the one, but not of the other.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister did absolutely nothing to eliminate the confusion that exists in connection with Coloured affairs. He asked whether the United Party supports parallel development. Does the hon. the Minister want to imply that he has not yet received a reply to this basic question from the United Party? The United Party has already said repeatedly—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did so again this afternoon— that it is not opposed to separate facilities being provided for the various race groups in South Africa. The United Party has always declared itself to be in favour of social separation and separation with respect to residential areas, the normal conventions we have always had in this country, because the United Party believes, like a reasonable individual, that it would be dangerous to allow the masses in South Africa to mix, because one could have racial friction. The hon. gentleman now asks us what separate development is, but he himself does not know what separate development is.

The hon. member for Malmesbury tells us that separate development is like two tracks running alongside each other with the sleepers as links. That is a good example the hon. member used, but I want to tell him—since we do not have monorails in South Africa—that only one train can run on that track, and that one train can only follow another. There is one train in front, and another train cannot come from the opposite direction, because then the two trains would collide. The United Party’s attitude is that since one has social and residential separation, there is no reason why the two race groups in South Africa cannot have the closest co-operation. One can have all the links in the world, but the best link between ourselves and those people will always be through their representatives in this House. The hon. member tried to create the impression that the Coloureds themselves were not in favour of their people being represented here, but surely the hon. member knows that he is wrong. Here I have the report of the erstwhile commission on improper political interference. On that occasion the Federal Party itself came along to give evidence, with Mr. Tom Swartz as their spokesman, and on no fewer than two occasions, when he gave verbal evidence, he complained that the Coloureds wanted their own representation. He referred to the mandate the Nationalist Party obtained in 1948 when they gave them representation in this House on a separate voters’ roll, and he said that that should remain in force. That was the first point he made. On a later occasion he said again—

And how correct he is! Just a few paragraphs further on he says the following—-

And on page 148 he repeated this three or four times. How can hon. members make that statement to the effect that the Coloureds are also in favour of the fact that they are today without representation in this Parliament? Something we are apparently all agreed on is the fact that one cannot give them a separate state; one cannot give them an individual sovereign and independent Parliament. One cannot define their powers properly. One cannot draw a proper distinction between their Parliament and our Parliament, because we are so intertwined. Then there is surely only one way to retain the best liaison, maintain the policy of leadership, as far as those people are concerned, and give them the right guidance, and that is by means of representation in this Parliament, And the hon. members on that side surely know that it was the late Dr. Verwoerd who held out that prospect in the letter he wrote to Mr. Robert Menzies when the latter asked him if it was not possible to give the Coloureds representation in this Parliament. He then said that this was something for the future. So, if the view of those hon. members’ departed leader, for whom they all had great respect, was that this could be the eventual outcome in the future, with reference to ourselves and the Coloureds, how could he ever have viewed this as the beginning of integration? How could he ever have seen this as a danger point for White civilization in South Africa? No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentlemen on that side cannot want their bread buttered on both sides. If they cannot create a separate state for the Coloureds, they have only one other alternative, i.e. to accept the course as sketched by the Leader of the Opposition, even though they do so gradually. They have no other alternative. I think that it would be in South Africa’s interests to take that step.

I now want to come to the second aspect, i.e. the position of the socio-economic development of the Coloureds. I should like to make a number of points which, in my opinion, are of importance in connection with the Coloureds. At a later stage this evening, if I have the time, I briefly want to refer to the Cleary Report. It is most certainly no easy task to create a large-scale development programme among the Coloureds. However, the fact that this would be difficult is no reason why we in South Africa must shrink from doing it, It is, however, no task that can only be done from one side. Two parties are involved in this matter: those who will have to do the work of upliftment and furnish the incentive for it, and also the others who will have to receive that upliftment. The incentive for a large-scale upliftment among the Coloureds is obvious, Inasmuch as a country cannot leave some of its own areas undeveloped, so it cannot leave certain of its population groups without development. Un trained and uneducated people must necessarily remain a burden to the rest who have already had that training. South Africa’s tremendous manpower shortage is so serious in dozens of spheres, that a mass of untrained people simply cannot be tolerated. One must acknowledge that our economic machinery can only run at a pace consistent with our supply of trained people. It is also generally accepted that the basic training of a country’s citizens has become the responsibility of the State. The establishment of facilities for the specialized training of our human wealth, particularly our Coloureds, is also accepted in the modern world as being the duty of the State. To keep himself abreast of the latest developments and to adjust constantly to new developments, becomes the task, however, of the individual after he has received his basic training.

In the sphere of Coloured education there has been a considerable improvement in the past 10 years. But the situation is still very far from being a good one. Too much money is wasted on the training of Coloured children who later drop out and do not complete their full training. When people do not complete their training and, for example, only reach the end of the primary stage, a large amount of money is wasted. Too many of the Coloured children drop out today. They are only fit for ordinary pick and shovel work, and perhaps for certain household tasks. The school and its environment always forms the focal point we must use for the upliftment of the Coloured child. With so many untrained, and to a large extent uneducated parents among the Coloureds, we cannot expect them to do that task. They are simply not in a position to do so. That is why the biggest role, as far as the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloured child is concerned, will have to be played by the school and its environment. I have no doubt that there is still a tremendous shortage of adequate school facilities for the Coloured population, particularly in their Coloured areas. There is simply not enough classroom space. The progress in making additional school space available for these people is still taking place at altogether too slow a rate. We all know—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this—that so many of the teachers in these schools have to work double shifts to be able to provide the children with what is necessary. One of the first priorities ought to be the establishment, on our part, of adequate classroom space for the Coloureds. Experts, for example, estimate that at present there are about 100 000 Coloured children that can be accommodated in the schools, but that there is simply no provision made for them. This is a problem that will have to be solved quickly and in the most competent manner possible. If not, any talk of the training and education of the Coloureds is completely without meaning. I am greatly worried, and so, I think, are all members on this side, about the masses of Coloureds who have apparently lost all ambition for want of training. I do not now want to discuss the causes that gave rise to that, but it is a fact that the overall majority of Coloureds have lost all ambition. They display an alarming tendency to drunkenness; there is adultery and the illegal procreation of children. This is already accepted as the normal course of events among the Coloured people. But fortunately there are many of their leaders who have an understanding of the matter, and they are very worried about it. It will become the task of the hon. the Minister and his department to imbue these people with a new idealism, and also to instil in them a new spirit of serving their community. We as White people cannot give the Coloureds that training. We cannot inculcate that ambition in them. The only people who can do so successfully are their male and female teachers, and their professional people. But then we must also be prepared to indicate that we appreciate the task which those professional people, the male and female teachers, are doing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the very first place I want to express my appreciation of the fact that our esteemed Minister of Coloured Affairs has concentrated on the positive points and has painted for us an excellent panoramic picture of recent events and of the beneficial influence the implementation of the policy of the National Party has had on the material and spiritual state of the Coloured. [Interjections.] This has not even been denied by that side of this House. For that reason hon. members on the opposite side should hold their peace in this regard. It has not been possible to refute any of the factual statements made here by the hon. the Minister. And virtually everything he has said, has a factual basis. In the political, educational and social spheres a new day has dawned for the Coloureds. This day has gradually become more and more bright as our policy in respect of the Coloureds has been unfolding itself and as the Coloureds have come to realize that we do not begrudge them, when they are developing on their own, anything we demand for ourselves. [Interjections.] You have been swindling (verneuk.) the Coloureds all along.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. the Deputy Minister use the word “swindle”?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, they have been deceiving the Coloureds.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not withdraw the word.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but for it I substitute the euphemism that they have been deceiving the Coloureds all along.

Why do they vote for us?

Naturally they vote for the opposite side because they have been deceived.

You are swindling them.

Order! I have just asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to withdraw the word and now the hon. member is repeating it. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I am warning the hon. member for King William's Town.

Mr. Chairman, the truth hurts.

The hon. member for Newton Park objected to the comparisons drawn between the progress which have been made under the National Party and that which was made under the United Party in earlier years. In my opinion he harmed relations between Coloureds and Whites by disparaging that progress. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself, because during that period of 50 years when the United Party and all the other parties had to look after the Coloureds, their position deteriorated to such an extent that they were flat on the ground economically.

For whom do the Coloureds vote?

Order!

That has always been the problem—for whom do the Coloureds vote? This question of for whom do the Coloureds vote, is the reason for some of the policies we have today.

For what policy?

Order! I have already called for order three times, and I am warning the hon. member for East London North that I will not tolerate any further interjections.

The simple, honest and unsophisticated person often votes for the policy he has dished up to him, honestly or dishonestly. Some time ago I read in a Sunday paper, Rapport, that racial tensions in Malaysia were so severe that the Constitution was going to be amended so as to place a total ban on the public discussion of certain matters, even in Parliament. One-and-a-half years ago, so they said, hundreds of people were killed in racial conflicts there. Now it will no longer be permissible to discuss delicate subjects. This is one of the special privileges which the Malaysians are given and which their fellow citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are not given.

Last night a woman. Prof. Erica Theron of the Department of Social Services at Stellenbosch, made a speech in which she said (translation)—

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will recall the position of the Coloureds in the South African society. The same position has been obtaining in the past few years. We do not have a shortage of solutions to this problem, as they call it. Just recently Dr. I. D. du Plessis said on the occasion of his investiture as Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape-

There must be discussion. I think we are exhausting ourselves, both physically and emotionally, with arguments as to a separate homeland or integration. I think we should reflect on the present situation for a change. In this connection I agree with the woman professor. I do not want to doubt her motives in the least. This is what the Government is doing today. It is reflecting on the present situation and it is acting in accordance with the practical problems confronting it with regard to the Coloured people, without its bedevilling everything from day to day with hypotheses and speculations amongst the people whose welfare it is seeking and others. What is it that we may fruitfully discuss in the present situation? we may fruitfully discuss these people who form part of the total composition of the population of our country, their poverty and poor level of education. I am saying this in spite of everything which is being done. I want to tell that hon. member that as far as education is concerned, there has been phenomenal progress. The hon. member must concede this. For that reason I am not going to deal with this matter in any detail and I am not going to furnish any figures either. The hon. member said there were insufficient classrooms, teachers, etc. In this regard the hon. member must have been speaking either from ignorance or from what he had read in books. As regards the hon. member’s so-called solution, does he not realize that no solution is possible if one has to build classrooms for children who may possibly be there without teachers. Nor can one take teachers to classrooms which do not exist. At present we are doing our very best with a new method of building to see whether we shall not be able to erect three times as many classrooms as before, the annual increase in Coloured pupils has grown to an average of 37 000. And. how many teachers do we get for them? not half the number we need. But I leave the matter at that.

Those things which we can discuss positively, are these people’s economic position, their social position and addiction to liquor, etc. There is the question of irresponsible parenthood in many cases. This we all know. There is the question of their housing problems. I have no objection to hon. members raising these practical problems. What is of vital importance to these people is their living conditions and the things which worry them. They are not so concerned about politics and the right to vote, about which that hon. member made such a fuss. They are concerned about their welfare services, and here the task still is a monumental one. All of us are concerned, and the National Party in particular is concerned, about better co-operation and better mutual relations between us as human beings and groups. For that reason I shall be failing in my duty if I do not place absolute emphasis on the need of positive action in Coloured debates in this Parliament. I think we have reached the stage when we may as well stop playing one off against the other and making a political football of Coloured politics. If it is our ideal to uplift these people, do not use their political rights for playing off one party in this House against the other. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park kicked up a great row this evening about the exchange of ideas within the National Party on the position of the Coloureds. In the process be actually tried to indicate that this supposedly amounted to there being conflicting points of view. I want to remind hon. members on that side of the House of the history of this matter this evening. I want to remind them of the fact that each time there was mention of a split in this party on some matter it was in fact that party which split. The opposition’s problem is that it dare not allow any exchange of ideas in respect of the Coloured situation. This is the case because the result of that is inevitable. It is inevitable that it will be Progressive. The hon. member for Turffontein will concede that I am correct on that score, in view of what happened at his symposium. According to the Opposition’s standpoint, they accept as premise the fact that the salvation for the Coloureds lies purely in their political rights. Now I want to ask this: Did the afflictions of the Coloureds under that regime not in fact result from the single fact that they had limited political rights under that regime? Every five years they were transported to the polls and simply left there, physically and otherwise. This evening a great fuss was made about the fact that Coloureds have been deprived of their municipal franchise. I want to ask: Was their franchise here in the Cape not in fact manipulated by the Cape Municipality? Were their rentals not in fact collected weekly, so that they could not qualify for the municipal voters’ roll? That side are not the people to discuss matters of this kind, in view of their past.

Let us now test the morality of the United Party. Throughout this entire debate they tried to place themselves on a very high moral basis. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that it is his policy that the Coloureds should be on a separate voters’ roll, that they should be able to elect six representatives in this Place and two in the Other Place, and that those representatives may be Coloureds or Whites. This is a wonderful idea provided one does not subject it to the test of morality. After the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had spoken, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout followed his leader. Listening superficially to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, one would actually have said that he did not deviate in any way from the example set by his Leader. However, what an amazing standpoint did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not adopt here this afternoon? He compared the situation of the immigrant to that of the Cape Coloured. The hon. member must not think now that I want to quarrel with him about his right to do that. It is his own opinion. I want to tell you, Sir, that the hon. member was frothing at the mouth from vehemence when he spoke about this matter. He said: “Here you give foreigners the franchise after five years. Here you give foreigners, who do not know the background of South Africa, full citizenship after five years, and you place them on a common voters’ roll, but at the same time you deny the Coloureds citizenship, although they already have a tradition which goes back 300 years in South Africa”. Sir, let us analyse that statement by the hon. member a little. The hon. member advocated full citizenship for the Coloureds. In fact, he also advocated that the Coloured should have the right to be placed on the common voters’ roll, because he compared the situation of the Coloureds with that of the immigrants. If that is the position now, and if the hon. member was advocating the right of the Coloureds to be placed on the common voters’ roll, where is the morality of his Leader and his party, for they want to keep the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll. Where is the morality of his Leader and his party then, when they say that they want to restrict the representations of the Coloureds in this place to six? Sir, I am asking the Opposition whether they agree with the standpoint which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated here in such a camouflaged way by adopting an attitude where he contrasted the position of the immigrants with that of the Coloureds.

But, Sir, I want to go further. If that is his standpoint, where is his morality toward the Indians, and where is his morality toward the Bantu in South Africa? But, Sir, we go further. The hon. the Minister came along here this afternoon and pleaded with the Opposition to tell him whether they accept the Group Areas Act; to tell him where they stand in respect of the service sector and where they stand in respect of separate facilities in the Post Office or Railway stations. But, Sir, the silence on that side was audible.

I then come to the hon. member for Wynberg, who is an active member of that group but who is conspicuous by her absence today…

She is ill.

… who often dons the great cloak of sanctity and states very grandiloquently here that her party is going to repeal all discriminatory legislation. The position is that when her own voters in her constituency begin to give her a bit of a hard time politically, then she pleads passionately for a separate bridge for Coloureds at Heathfield station. Sir, I am very sorry the hon. member for Wynberg is not here. She allows herself the liberty of airing many irresponsible opinions, and when she gets hurt, she wants to hide behind her sex. Let us go further and let us test the morality of that party’s leaders in the Provincial Council of the Cape, which is the heartland of the Coloureds. There is a certain Adv. Bamford in the Provincial Council, who also happens to be a member for Wynberg and Deputy Leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council. He calls for a boycott by the public of the Nico Malan Opera House, on a basis of morality, because the Coloureds will supposedly not be admitted to it, and of course the English-language Press, with a fanfare of trumpets, subsequently sing his praises. Now it should be quite apparent to you who is really the flea in the pants of our own hon. member for Wynberg. Nevertheless, Sir, that is the standpoint of the deputy Leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council. But right next to him, in the same bench, sits the hon. member for Constantia, a certain Mr. Jac de Villiers, a Paarl farmer who also lost a Senate election last year as a result of his party’s “lack of foresight”. Sir, four years ago in November 1966 a notice was served on that hon. gentleman, Jac de Villiers, by the Slums Court to the effect that the dwellings in which his farm labourers were living, apart from the fact that they were overcrowded, were not in a fit state for human occupation. His farm labourers are living in the worst slum conditions you can And in the Paarl district. Now you see the morality of the leaders of that side. The morality of one who leads a crusade to have these people sitting next to him in the Nico Malan, and the other who allows his people to live under slum conditions.

But, Sir, the Coloureds know that party. The hon. member for East London North asked here: “But for whom do they vote?” After all, that party’s policy has already been tested among the Coloureds, and what was the result? I see the hon. member for Houghton is smiling about this. It was tested and the Coloureds rejected it, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he can lead the Coloureds to satisfaction. Sir, all this Opposition is succeeding in doing is that it is trying, for cheap political gain, to question the integrity of the Whites through its technique of character assassination, as they again tried to do here yesterday. In the process they are subverting the word of the White man to the Coloureds, and are making sure that the Coloureds will not accept the word of the White man. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get involved in the political argument between the hon. member for Tygervallei and the United Party. I only want to say that political rights are very important indeed and that one cannot simply ignore them and expect that one can go ahead with developments for the Coloured people without them. History has shown that. I only want to say that both political parties have a shocking history as far as broken promises towards the Coloured people are concerned.

You were a member of the United Party.

My own party, Sir, takes a different line altogether. We stand for full citizenship for the Coloured people. That was enunciated very clearly and at length only two nights ago in the City Hall of Cape Town and I do not propose to go any further into that subject.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry, I only have ten minutes. Sir, one thing that I want to tell this Committee is that it always strikes me as extraordinary that White people should sit here in Parliament and solemnly debate what the Coloured people want and what they do not want. The Coloured people are perfectly prepared and perfectly capable of saying themselves what they want and what they do not want. It ill behoves us to sit here and to think that we can patronize these people any more. There are today thousands of educated Coloured people. There are very able leaders among them and they no longer need the White people to lead them anywhere. They are striking out on their own road and I think the sooner the White people of South Africa recognize this indisputable fact, the better for them.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. the Minister had to say earlier this afternoon, and I want to say at once that in my years in this House he is undoubtedly the most sympathetic Minister of Coloured Affairs I have listened to. He does indeed seem to have the welfare of the Coloured people at heart, and I will certainly at all times give him credit for anything he accomplishes. But I must say this to him: The things he mentioned this afternoon, like education, the universities, the technical colleges and the creches, etc., are not proof of separate development at all. They are surely simply the ordinary responsibility that any modern state carries out towards its people, and the Coloured citizens are as entitled to have those facilities provided as any other section of the population. So I do not look upon the provision of schooling, etc., as one of the results of separate development. On the contrary, it is something the hon. the Minister and his Government must provide, and indeed should provide to an even greater measure than is being provided at the present stage.

This shortage of teachers was discussed by one of the other members, and it is due, I might mention, particularly to one factor, although that is not the only factor, namely that approximately 2000 Coloured teachers have resigned from the service in the last seven or eight years. That is one of the reasons for the shortage. Therefore I was very glad to hear the hon. the Minister say this afternoon that it was his Government’s intention to close the gap as fast as possible in the pay scales for White teachers and for Coloureds. I do not know how long this is going to take, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that so far the gap in fact has not been dosing, but has been widening. The last figures reveal that the Coloured teacher today gets something like 52 per cent of the salary of the White teachers. If it is as bad as that, the hon. the Minister will have a great deal of work to do in future.

I was also dad to hear him putting forward a plea for increased wages for Coloured employees in commerce and industry. I support that heartily. Rut one of the things that needs to be done is for an example to be set by the Government and by local governmental authorities. They can start by upping the pay of their Coloured employees and this would set up some sort of competition in the Coloured labour market. One would then find that White employers outside of the local authorities and the Government will soon follow suit. The other thing, of course, is to open competition between Coloured workers and White workers and to remove whatever restrictions remain in the job reservation field. That would be another way in which Coloured workers will be able to be paid properly for their productivity. If this were done, other things would follow almost automatically. More children would stay at school. The huge drop-out rate mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Newton Park is an enormously significant factor, and I have mentioned it year after year in this House. If the families could afford to keep the children longer at school, they would stay at school, and that is a very important factor. A better standard of living for Coloured people would result in smaller families. Fewer children would be born. The Coloured people have the highest birth-rate of all the population groups in this country, and the only way to do anything about that is by (a) education and family planning and (b) raising the standard of living for Coloured people. Alcoholism will also drop and the general level of social behaviour amongst the Coloured people will improve as their standards of living improve.

We had some very significant figures from the hon. the Minister only yesterday in reply to a question I put to him about infant mortality rates and life expectancy. The figures are very significant because they show that while the White infant mortality rate was 21 per 1 000, the Coloured infant mortality rate was 136 per 1 000. a tremendously high rate. While the life expectancy of White males was 64,7 years, that for Coloured males was only 49,6 years: while that of White females was 71.6 years, that of Coloured females was 54,3 years.

I now want to pass on quickly to another factor. One of the factors which are rightly worrying the hon. the Minister and also his colleague the Minister of Community Development, is the shortage of houses, particularly in the Cape Peninsula. There is a tremendous shortage and, as we know, the group areas removals are aggravating the position because the backlog cannot first be dealt with before group area removals. One way in which we could help is to improve the conditions for Coloured farm labourers in the country areas. To some extent this will prevent some of the people from coming into the urban areas and so hold back the demand for houses. The way to do this has been suggested by the Coloured Representative Council and I hope the hon. the Minister is indeed studying the resolutions that come from that council, because it is a pretty powerless body if it passes resolutions that are afterwards never heard of again. One of the resolutions is that something be done to improve the lot of the 147 000 Coloured farm labourers working on White farms. There are 250 000 altogether, 147 000 regulars and the rest are casual workers. I know that the hon. the Minister has addressed a meeting of farmers’ associations about the improvement of wages. and so on, but addressing farmers' meetings is not really any good, because the good employers do not need to be addressed and the bad employers do not take any notice.

Do you know about the scheme whereby farmers can get loans to build houses for their labourers?

Yes, that is a help as well, but in the meantime if the lot of the Coloured farm worker is improved, we would have fewer people coming into the urban areas to look for better paid work. At the moment there is absolutely no legislation that covers them except the Masters and Servants laws, which are archaic and are almost serfdom laws. They apply to Africans as well and they are bad there too because they bind the man to the master. It is wrong. Better wages and better conditions are the ways in which farmers should retain their workers. On some farms wages are as low as 60c per day. They work seven days a week—light work on Sundays but they still have work—and with no paid holidays. One of the ways of payment is payment in kind and another way is to give credit at the farmer’s shop. This also binds the labourer to the employer. All these things need looking into and since 250 000 people are involved I think it would be well for the hon. the Minister to go to one of the sources of the problem, of the tremendous shortage of housing. Coloured farm workers in the Cape Western area are coming into the towns purely for economic reasons. They know that better cash wages are paid in commerce and industry.

The hon. the Minister has a very formidable task on his hands and I for one do not envy him, but I believe there are things that can be done even within the framework of the hon. the Minister’s own policy at this stage. He has mentioned one of the important things himself, namely the closing of the wage gap. Another way is to introduce compulsory education for Coloured children as soon as possible. I know there is a shortage of teachers and I do not expect this to be done overnight, but there is a tremendous paralysis—it is the only word I can think of at the moment—in this field at the present time, because there has been, to my knowledge, no extension of the areas in which compulsory education applies for a number of years. I think there are about six areas throughout the whole of the Cape Province where compulsory education applies and efforts should now he made to increase the number. I am glad to hear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has committed his party for the first time to compulsory education for Coloured children.

It was introduced by us in the provincial council.

Yes, but it has never been stated as part of your policy. I also hope that he will also commit his party to compulsory education as fast as it can be introduced for African children as well.

Mr. Chairman, like many other hon. members on that side of this House, the hon. member for Houghton easily and often makes the statement that the Government should take steps to close the income gap existing between Coloureds and Whites performing the same work as far as possible. I think it would be much more fruitful if hon. members on that side pleaded for something more practical and that is that every one of us should endeavour to raise the standard of living of the Coloureds to the highest possible level as soon as possible. I think it is completely wrong to think continually in terms of gans which arise between the earnings of a White person, on the one hand, and a Coloured person, on the other hand, for the same work. This raising of the standard of living which is necessary for the sake of the Coloured, but also for the sake of the region in which he is living, and for the sake of the market which may develop in this way here in the Western Cape so that this region will also be more attractive for the establishment of industries, can be achieved only if the Coloureds are able to occupy those positions effectively and if they receive the necessary education which will enable them to do so.

In that spirit I want to break a lance here this evening for one of the institutions at which Coloureds are trained and which is still relatively unknown, even among the Coloured people. About eight or ten years ago a separate college, known as the Peninsula Technical College, was established for the Coloureds here in Cape Town, when, for the first time, the Coloureds no longer formed Dart of the student body of the Cape Technical College. After an inauspicious start, the institution has grown to such an extent that it justified the erection of gracious buildings for the college in Bellville South. This institution is now known as the Technical College, Bellville South I had the privilege of being concerned with this institution even before its establishment, and I am still serving on its board today. I want to pay tribute to the prominent educationists who took the lead in managing that institution. In addition, I want to pay tribute to the industrialists and businessmen who played their part in guiding the establishment and development of this institution. In conclusion. I also want to pay tribute to the White staff who are working with the greatest idealism in order to develop this institution so that it may play its rightful role in uplifting the Coloured community in South Africa. But I think we must accent it as a fact that this technical college will have to be the only technical college for Coloureds in South Africa for many years to come. At present there is an enrolment of approximately 550 students. The number of syllabi offered is still relatively small as compared to the enormous field which should really exist for the Coloured as well in this sphere. However, the plea I want to make here this evening is that, since I have observed the growth pains of this institution, and at the same time the tremendous idealism and enthusiasm existing among an extremely capable and highly trained staff, and since I have also observed the very fine spirit prevailing among Coloured students in this institution, and the Department of Coloured Affairs as well as the Coloured Persons Representative Council in the role it has to play in this regard, the importance of this institution should be emphasized more strongly in the sense that the Coloured himself should be told what this institution may mean to him and his development in South Africa. In Bellville South we have the University of the Western Cape, which also experienced growth pains. This technical college is situated next to it. Since I know both these institutions intimately and have observed their problems over many years, as well as the way in which these problems have been overcome, I am completely convinced that, as far as the particular need of the Coloured population in South Africa is concerned, the technical college will perhaps have to play an even more decisive role in uplifting the Coloured in order to bring him to his rightful place, in the same way as his university is performing this task. I am saying this on the basis that within the next 30 years, new employment opportunities will have to be created for three-quarter million Coloureds here in the Western Cape alone. Since we are already providing academic training for Coloured children in schools on a very large scale, as well as to a considerable extent in technical schools, I think the greatest single need existing in regard to the training of Coloureds. is indeed that he should make use of post matriculation training in both the technical and commercial direction. If he wants to play his rightful role in his own municipalities or in any institution through which he may serve his own people, for example in the commercial and technical spheres and also as far as the teaching of commercial and technical subjects is concerned, he should give full support to the institutions which have been established for him. I know that in the course of this year, representations will be made to the Department to assist in projecting the image of this institution further afield throughout South Africa. In this regard I want to point out that there is an enormous task to be performed. Contact must be made not only with all schools throughout South Africa so that every pupil will at least know of the existence of this institution and of bursaries and other opportunities which exist for him when he matriculates, but also with employers in industries and in business undertakings, in divisional councils, in municipalities, etc., throughout the country. They should be told what type of training this institution provides; in addition, they should be told that they may send people there whom they want to help with bursaries or with loans, after which they may employ them. Furthermore, for the development of this institution itself, it is essential that practical employment opportunities should be created in which students who. for example, have to be trained as health inspectors, may gain practical experience. It is the case that certain municipalities, such as that of Wellington and, I believe, that of Upington as well in respect of the coming winter holidays, will employ student teams in order to give them the necessary training.

I think there is a tremendous need throughout South Africa, if only this were actually realized by our local authorities. I believe it is the duty of the department to assist this institution in projecting its image and all its various needs throughout South Africa. I think aid should be requested also on a national level from industrialists and from everybody who may employ Coloureds, in order to determine what the real need is for trained manpower so that this institution may plan how to introduce the various syllabi and how the Coloureds may be given the necessary training there. In praise of those students, I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister this evening that they take such pride in their own institution that hey have even made an offer to the effect that, like their fellow White students, they are prepared to assist in the neighbouring states in the spheres in which the best use may be made of them, since their services during their holidays have not been requested on a wider level in South Africa. I notice in the present Estimates that an amount of only R1 600 000 is being provided on Loan Account for supplementing further the capital of the Coloured Persons Development Corporation. If one takes into account the tremendous need of the Coloured population of South Africa and the exceptionally large amounts which, proportionately, are being invested in White industries and business undertakings throughout the country, one asks oneself how large the sum of capital actually required must be which should be made available so as to give the Coloured the opportunity of realizing himself to the full in the industrial and business spheres as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I can speak with some authority on the Coloured people of South Africa. I grew up in the Western Province. Before I knew my own mother, who was a very sickly woman, I was looked after by the Coloured people. They are my friends and they looked after me. I knew them better than I knew my own people. I make bold to say that I know some of the needs of the Coloured people. For many years I represented a constituency which bad more Coloured voters than any other constituency in the Cape Province, namely Vasco. That was before they were removed from the common roll in such strange manner by the Nationalist Party. So, having known and represented them for many years in the Provincial Council amongst other places, I knew their needs. When the hon. member for Houghton got up here tonight and said that she was delighted to hear that now for the first time the United Party is supporting compulsory education for Coloured people. she was talking about things she knows nothing about. That is the reason why she left the Chamber. In 1946 already I moved a resolution in the Provincial Council asking for compulsory education for Coloured people in those areas where it was practical. It was already then agreed to make the first two places where compulsory education was to be introduced Vasco, covering a radius of six miles round the Vasco area, and the second one at a Nationalist Party area then represented by Mr. Willem Hugo at Cradock. The hon. member is therefore incorrect. She may not have heard what the United Party has been standing for and fighting for so many years. She is 26 years behind the times in certain respects and 100 years ahead of time in other respects. That is by the way.

*I shall say what my complaints are against this Government as far as the Coloured people are concerned. This evening I want to admit frankly that the hon. the Minister is correct in saying that much is being done for the Coloured people. On a material level much is being done for them. I want to admit this at once. I shall be the first to say that it is proud of what is being done at the University of the Western Cape and in various other spheres. But the hon. the Minister should go back to the Bible. In the Bible he will find much wisdom. Amongst other things he will read: “What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” This Government is losing its soul. They are insulting people who need not be insulted. They do not have the attitude in human relationship that one should have towards another. In spite of this, they speak of parallel development. It is parallel development which never remains parallel and does not unite in the end. Surely this is not parallel development. I may be becoming more and more stupid, but I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could tell me what he in fact wanted to say this evening when I put a pertinent question to him across the floor of this House. My question was: Does your parallel development mean the same thing as far as the Coloured man is concerned as it does as far as the White man is concerned? Does it mean a sovereign, independent Parliament for the Coloured people? The hon. the Minister’s reply to that was “No”. Thereupon the hon. member for East London City asked the hon. the Minister whether it meant that their Parliament would eventually be as independent and as sovereign as this one. To this the Minister replied “Yes”. This took place on the same evening. Where are we and where are we going? What does the Minister want?

It would really be something if there were two sovereign Parliaments in this country and the one were to pass legislation which provided that sexual intercourse between White and Black was not an offence while the other Parliament said that it was in fact an offence. If one of the Nationalist Party members were arrested under those circumstances, it would be a nice to-do to see in what court he would appear and what punishment he would receive if he were in fact convicted. It would be a nice to-do if that Parliament laid down that it would import lefthand-drive motor-cars from overseas and this Government laid down that we should have right-hand-drive motor-cars. What would happen if they both were to drive on the same parallel road, the one on the lefthand-side and the other on the righthand-side? Are we going mad? We should not be so clever that our cleverness drives us into insanity. This is my advice to this Government. Do not try to be too clever. Reference was made to the end of the road story. As far as I can remember, the Government has changed its end-of-the-road objective as many as five times. Since 1932 up to this day, it has been changed five times. The most clever thing this hon. Prime Minister has ever said—and I do not often agree with the Prime Minister of the Nationalist Party—was when he said he did not know what solution our children would have to this problem. But without any further ado this hon. Minister and the hon. member for Moorreesburg solved the problem twice in one evening, and each time the solution was in a separate direction.

I think that if this hon. Minister and his whole party would rather emphasize the question of human relations more strongly, we would progress further. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that there should be no inferior people in South Africa. It hurt me when I heard that there were Nationalist Party members who had objected to an invitation to Coloured people to preach in a White church.

In that case, why do you want to keep Sea Point White?

Oh, Mr. Chairman, amongst other things to keep that hon. member out of Sea Point,

What has happened to your human relations now?

Sir, we know the hon. member for Worcester. The palm trees under which he grew up, will not impress me now. I say we should not hurt people. On a pervious occasion I said in this House that if it was necessary to pass laws in order to maintain law and order in this country, that side would find that we were prepared to support them, but if they passed laws merely in order to exploit the emotions of people, they should expect no support from this side of the House. The Coloured people have various shortcomings, of which I want to mention a few this evening, but they also have their good qualities. The Coloured people have remained loyally on the side of the Whites since the Battle of Blaauwberg Strand and up to Sharpeville, and I heard the words used after Sharpeville when the Coloured people remained loyally on the side of the Whites. I still remember the words used in this House by the late Dr. Tom Naudé. He said it would never be forgotten. Let us remember those words. I am aware of the difficulties the Nationalist Party is experiencing. I know there are evil-doers in our country who are exploiting the grievances of the Coloureds and who are inciting them. I am well aware of that as the Government is too. but it is for that side as a Government to govern with justice and to promote human relations to such an extent that the Coloureds will have respect for and trust in the Whites, who claim to be their guardians.

I want to mention one of the present-day grievances the Coloureds have which is a direct result of the policy of this Government. Mr. Chairman, are you aware of the grievance of the Brown people in this country that today Bantu come and work in the best province without their wives, as a result of which the Coloured people are becoming Blacker and Blacker? Are you aware of the friction this is causing and of the fear some of these people have? I shall mention a second matter which is hurting the Brown people. As a result of race classification, these people have been classified as Coloured. This is all very well; if this must be the position, let it be, but that Government has made the Brown people the ash-heap of the so-called peoples in South Africa. If a Brown person has a Brown child, the child is a Brown person, a Coloured, a Cape Coloured. If a White person has a child by a Coloured person, that child remains a Cape Coloured. If an Indian has a child by a Coloured, the child is a Cape Coloured. If a White has a child by an Indian or a Bantu, that child is a Cape Coloured. This is the ash-heap on which all who do not have another place, are thrown together. This is hurting those people. Why is the Government doing this? What are they achieving with this? What are they proving with this? That the Coloured people is the gathering place of all the rejects? What is an “Other Coloured”? I do not know. Does the Minister know? This is the new people now, namely the “Other Coloureds”. Must people be classified now as “Cape Coloured” and “Other Coloured”? Who are the “Other Coloureds”? This is a hurtful action, and it mars human relations. This is something which cuts a man to the core and offends his pride. Why is the Government doing this if the Minister says that they have good intentions with these people?

Sir, I have here with me this evening the crime figures in respect of the Coloureds and it is enough to frighten anyone. The figure in respect of Whites in this country is 3,2 per cent. The figure in respect of male Bantu is 4 per cent, if one does not take pass offences into account. It is only slightly higher than the figure in respect of Whites. [Time expired.]

I noted with interest that the hon. member for Sea Point, who has had such a close link with the Coloured people throughout his life has in fact forgotten so much of their real problems during this short time he has been the member for Sea Point.

Why do you say that?

It is surprising because if he knew something of the present circumstances of the Coloured people and of the education of the Coloured people and one presumes he would have kept himself informed of the situation—he would not have made the request he did make now in regard to compulsory education and he would not have put forward such a claim. [Interjections.] Earlier this year I explained very dearly why it was completely impossible at his stage to introduce compulsory education in respect of all the Coloured people.

I accept that.

In that case why are you still pleading for it?

He said where practical.

The Leader of the hon. member pleaded that it should be introduced and it was mentioned here by the hon. member over there.

Did you not hear me say in selected areas and in phases? We agree with you…

Order! That is not a question.

Thank you very much. I see the United Party is learning at a rapid rate now because this is precisely what we are doing. We are doing it in phases.

At the speed of the ox-wagon.

Is this your policy?

We accept that we can do this in phases, as circumstances make this possible. Of course it is our policy. If that hon. member were to take a keener interest in the Coloured people and were to reveal less of his ignorance in this House about the Bantu people, he would know that as long ago as 1964, compulsory attendance at school was introduced for the first time in six districts in which it was possible to do so. Earlier this year I also said that the Department of Coloured Affairs proposed to introduce compulsory education as soon as possible and that this was always taken into account in the planning of education. Hon. members should please remember this, since I appealed to them a short while ago that we should not request things here which we knew only too well were unpractical at the present time. This is the type of thing which may cause friction.

In introducing compulsory education, we must take into account the approach of the community concerned as a whole, and for that reason we must set to work progressively. Further partial compulsory education was introduced in 1968. At that time it was laid down that if a child enrolled at the beginning of the year he should attend the school until the end of the year. In this way one is gradually prepairing the parent and the community for compulsory education, and more candidates come forward. Today we have the problem of who is to teach the Coloured child. There are more than 500 000 Coloured children at school today. Last year there were 505 000 in the primary and secondary schools, and 16 000 teachers. Who is to teach all these children? We started off with something like 100 White teachers, or just more than that number. Today we already have to assist them to the extent of I think. 500 teachers. Who is to teach them? Now hon. members will raise the so-called basic causes again. There is no getting away from it; it is the non-White who will have to help the non-White in this regard. We believe that the progressive introduction will proceed gradually as we succeed in getting into gear in respect of school buildings, and in this respect one should remember one thing. I am trying to explain now.

The number of Coloured children who attend schools has increased so rapidly and progressively that we are faced with a crisis. As I said a moment ago, the average increase of Coloured children attending school, is between 35 000 and 37 000 annually, Where are the teachers to teach these children? Where is the tremendously large amount of school accommodation one must make available to them if total compulsory education were to be introduced immediately? But I can nevertheless tell hon. members this. There are encouraging signs that the community is becoming more education-conscious, and at this stage we know that the number of children attending school, has already reached 85 per cent. Let this suffice as far as this question of compulsory education is concerned. I feel I should have replied to the hon. member for Houghton as well, but she is not present at the moment.

May I ask the Deputy Minister whether he does not believe that the implementation of the policy of equal pay mentioned by the hon. the Minister will solve the problem of the shortage of teachers?

The question of equal pay per se has never solved all problems on its own. What do you mean by equal pay?

For equal qualifications.

What about a man with equal qualifications who works less hard than another with the same qualifications and who has less responsibility?

Equal responsibility, of course.

One would have to put a considerable number of conditions before one would come to the value of a man’s work. His productivity is a factor as well. The Minister said we were moving in the direction of narrowing the gap between the salaries of these people who are working on the same level. That is perfectly in order. We are moving in the direction of narrowing the gap, but when you put a question like that to me, you should qualify it better. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member has been given his reply and he knows we are sympathetically disposed towards the direction in which we are moving, which will lead to fairer treatment.

I do feel that I should say a few words about the question of the relations between White and non-White and about the relations this Government has with the Coloured and his institutions of government. We have heard here this evening what the hon. the Minister said about the progress which has been made and how we are doing day and night what we find to do in order to give these people what they need and what we feel they should have. But what is happening now? Politics are played with these people and they are given to understand that they need only seek the political kingdom and all the other things will be given to them. This is the charge I want to make. The United Party, with its policy, no matter how sanctimonious it is, and which amounts to nothing more than permanent supremacy, is still conducting discussions with the Labour Party which has said specifically that it wants integration and nothing else. They held these discussions behind locked doors in Durban. I have proof of that. It has been published in the newspaper and it has never been denied. Then there is the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party makes requests which, in my opinion, are extremely unrealistic. They request that everybody serving on those boards should now be elected by their own people. The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that at their stage of immature political development one could not allow these people to elect indiscriminately. One should guide them gradually, especially if there still are many Whites who concern themselves with the politics of these people.

The question of equal salaries cannot simply be introduced. There are responsibilities which have to be taken into account as far as equal salaries are concerned. There is more than one. There are the people who are responsible for paying those salaries and furthermore, there is the question of finance, etc. The Progressive Party made a few requests here. They were very fine requests for the future, but what interested me this evening, was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose and made the very same three requests which had been made two evenings ago by Mr. Colin Eglin. In spite of this, be still said we were allowing ourselves to be led by the nose by the Progressive Party. I find this strange. He made the very same request made by Mr. Colin Eglin two evenings ago, i.e. that everybody serving on boards, should be elected. Mr. Eglin, too, said there should be equal salaries and that people should not be moved when group areas had been declared before facilities had been established. All these points were mentioned here by him. [Time expired.]

Sir, a considerable amount of criticism has been expressed from the Opposition side this evening. [Interjection.] That hon. member, the hon. member for Turffontein, can in fact be called the hand-fed little member of the United Party. I do not know whether the hon. member next to him. the hon. member for Umlazi, is ever going to get him to grow out of puberty. He ought to listen, so that he may learn how he should act here.

Sir, a considerable amount of criticism has been expressed this evening; perhaps some of the criticism has substance, but so far I have heard no positive suggestions from the United Party side this evening. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose, one of his first statements was: “We are accustomed to the problems of the Coloured people,” but do you know. Sir, what their solution has been all these years? Their policy has been one of “let things develop”. I wonder what conditions would have prevailed in South Africa today if this National Party had never been in power, because the United Party has never been interested in the Coloured people. They have only been interested in their vote, for political gain. This has been their only interest in the Coloured people. Sir, this evening the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said an interesting thing here, namely that if they came into power, they would have six representatives, either Whites or non-Whites, for the Coloured people in this House of Assembly and that if a change were ever to come about, it would take place only by way of a referendum. Sir, suppose that referendum was held on the insistence of the Coloured people who wanted more rights and that it was rejected by the White electorate; what would the Leader of the Opposition do then? What would he tell the Coloured people? What would he do in order to satisfy them?

We simply have to accept this evening —and I think the United Party should accept this as well—that this policy of the National Party has been submitted to the electorate repeatedly and that it has been accepted every time. It was decided long ago that this was the standpoint of the National Party, and they know this. But, more than that, it is our belief that the Whites should retain their identity here in South Africa. It is as a result of that belief and that decision given by the people that we have this policy of separate development. If we had a small group of Coloured people or a small group of Indians in South Africa today, such a policy would probably not have existed, and it would probably not have been necessary to have a policy of separate development, but we in fact have this policy because we are so different from other countries. In countries where the non-Whites form small minorities, they have simply been integrated. But historically we have developed in groups. Over the years we have developed here as separate population groups. The United Party now wants to upset what has been built up here over the years and has become traditional with us, but they are too afraid to tell us what their real policy is and what they have in mind in respect of the Coloured people. Sir. my hon. Leader was blamed here this evening for having said, when he was asked what he regarded as the end of the road for the Coloured people, that he did not know. But in that same debate in 1967, when the Prime Minister’s Vote was being discussed here, the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition, “what do you see as being the end of the road for the Coloured people?” To this he, too, replied: “I do not see the end of the road”.

Nonsense! Read Hansard.

That hon. member must not tell me I am talking nonsense; I shall show it to him in Hansard, and then he will have to apologize to me. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he could not see the end of the road for the Coloured people here in South Africa. Sir, those people do not have the courage to tell us what their real policy is in respect of the Coloured people, but do you know what they do? They want to skim off the cream of the Coloured people and take these along with them, It is to those Coloureds that they want to grant so-called rights now, and they only want to take advantage of and exploit the others for the sake of their vote. They are prepared to grant rights only to certain learned doctors and ministers of religion whom they regard as being good enough, but the garden boy is not good enough for their policy. Sir, it is time that we received clarity from the United Party. We want to know whether we are going to move closer together in future as far as the Coloured people are concerned, or whether we should develop on parallel lines. Surely there is no other choice. Let them tell us now what their choice is. We say that rather than move closer together, we should move away from each other, each retaining his own identity and each with his own facilities which will be created for him here in South Africa, In regard to political rights, we have granted the franchise to every Coloured man and woman so that they may also have a say in matters affecting the Coloured population itself. In regard to matters of common interest, it is the position that we as Whites have the sole say…

Is that moral?

But in order to grant the Coloureds a say as well, we have that liaison, as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and this Parliament; and if we reach the stage where they can no longer be satisfied by that liaison, I believe we should reconsider the matter in conjunction with them. I am sure the National Party is going to keep the road open in future in respect of our youth, about whom the hon. member for Turffontein has so much to say.

Is it a parallel road?

Posterity can decide what they want to do; they can decide whether they want to proceed with this parallel development, whether they want to integrate, or whether they eventually want to create a homeland for the Coloured people which will be their final destiny. Sir, that side itself does not know what the choice of the Coloured people is. Do the Coloureds want to integrate or do they want to develop on parallel lines with the Whites in South Africa? As far as we are concerned, the main consideration is the retention of the identity of the Whites here. Unlike the United Party, we are not offering an instant solution. They want to throw in the towel because they do not have the courage to accept this problem as a challenge.

Sir, I should like to raise a few other matters with the hon. the Minister in respect of the Coloured people in the Transvaal. At present we have at least 150 000 Coloured people there. Much has already been done in the Transvaal to help the Coloured people there to lead a decent existence. But, as elsewhere, we have the problem there that Coloured youths reveal a great lack of purpose, with the result that many of them clash with the law' and eventually degenerate into juvenile delinquency, [Time expired.]

I do not propose to react to the speech of the hon. member for Boksburg because so far as I could follow him, he did little to throw any light on the ever increasing and denser cloud we are getting to cover up the unbridgeable gulf between the two factions in the Government Party, namely those that stand for bringing the Coloured people ever closer to the White group and those that stand for developing the Coloured Council into a sovereign independent body. It has obviously been thought that the coining of a new phrase, which varies every time it is uttered, but which this evening reached the stage of separate parallel development, whatever that may mean, will somehow heal this gap which exists between the two points of view. We are yet to see, particularly when one reads the recent utterences of the Nationalist Party candidate— I mean the official candidate—at Waterberg and sees how he interprets the idea of parallel development as leaving the question open possibly to be decided in 15 years’ time in favour of the point of view which he has always held, namely that of sovereignty. But I want to leave this aside. I do not want to follow on to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister other than to say that I was extremely interested to hear him say, for I believe the first time, that it is the Government’s policy that there will be compulsory education for Coloured children in South Africa.

I would now like to come to the speech of the hon. the Minister and to say how much I regret what I heard from him this evening. I wish to deal with two points which the hon. the Minister dealt with. Firstly I want to deal with his elucidation in regard to the Coloured community in Zululand to the effect that the Government's existing policy statement is to stand. That is a policy statement which in cold hard facts means that these Coloured people are to be removed from Zululand. I should like to deal with that problem in the light of the hon. the Minister’s strictures which he uttered with some vehemence, namely that the feeling of intense dissatisfaction which exists among many of the Coloured people at the present time, is not because of the policy of the Government, but is something which is artificially engendered by agitators and people of that ilk. That is what the hon. the Minister said and I want to give the lie to that statement by particular reference to a community which I know. You have in Zululand an indigenous Coloured community which has been there almost as long as the White community has been. It occupies a position between the Bantu and the Whites. There is virtually no labouring class amongst this community and they occupy a position between the skills and the education of the White community and the lack of skill and the lack of education of the Bantu. One speaks generally, of course. The positions they occupy are those in the categories of skilled and semi-skilled trade jobs. They are the bricklayers and the plasterers and perform the lower forms of mechanical work in the engineering field, be it in the factories or the garages. They also fill an important role in the sugar industry and the sugar mills. They occupy almost all the positions in the skilled and semi-skilled categories in the printing trade. In almost every sphere to which you could look in that territory in between the categories I have mentioned of the White man and the Bantu, you find the Coloured people filling those occupations. They have always filled those categories of work and I look merely at the economic side of the position as it stands at the present time. They are an intensely law abiding community and are highly respectable. They have a tremendous pride in themselves and in their positions. They are not scattered all over Zululand, but are concentrated in communities which was one of the points which the hon. the Minister said was essential in his view of the organization of things earlier on this evening. They live under good conditions, by and large; they do not live under slum conditions. The one municipality, which has a township of these people, provides good housing. For the rest, they have their own farming area in the Mangeti and the Emoyeni Reserves, which are set aside largely for the Coloured community. You could not find anywhere in this country a Coloured group better situated, from the economic point of view, from the point of view of having their own schools—boarding schools, not only day schools—and churches, or better situated from the point of view of being in properly established communities than you have in respect of the Coloured people of Zululand.

But now, what do we find? We find suddenly, in November 1969, a policy statement that these people must go. Who has asked for the removal of the Coloured people of Zululand? The hon. the Minister has himself been good enough to meet two delegations from the White people of Zululand, representative of all shades of political opinion, pleading for their remaining in Zululand. I do not know of a single responsible White body that has asked or that would go along with the removal of the Coloured people from Zululand. The Coloured people themselves wish to stay there. The chairman of the Bantu Territorial Authority, Chief Buthelezi, is perfectly happy to have the Coloured people remaining in Zululand. Now, there is not a single body of opinion White. Bantu or Coloured, that has asked for the Coloured people to be removed. Why then is it the policy of the Government? Parallel development or separate development, call it what you like—what is the reason, the motivation in this policy for the removal of a group of people, indigenous, settled, gainfully occupied, law abiding and respectable, whom not a single responsible person of whatever race you choose to find, wishes to remove. What then is the reason for this and what is the logic behind it? I presume somebody will stand up and say it is dogma, it is the ideology. Now what is the reason for this in the ideology? If there is no place for the Coloured people in Zululand because, as it was said, I believe, this is the area of priority, of involvement of the Zulu people, if there is no place in the scheme of things under the Government policy for the Coloured man, what is the justification under their policy for the White man’s remaining in Zululand? Because he is in exactly the same position as the Coloured man, except that he fulfils a different place in the spectrum of the population groups there.

Now I come to the point I wish to raise. The hon. the Minister says that this feeling of resentment amongst the Coloured people is artificially created in South Africa; it has nothing to do with the policy of the Government. I can say to the hon. the Minister: Among this responsible group of Coloured people there is a feeling of intense dissatisfaction, not brought about by agitators. There is not an agitator in Zululand that I know of among these people. But I am certain that the intense dissatisfaction is because a settled community for no reason that anyone can give is being uprooted. Their very roots are being cut from under them and they are being told that in future they can only live there under permit. What is to happen to their children? Would any responsible person of any colour encourage his children to live in a community where their security of tenure in their jobs and houses is merely a permit, which has been stated to be temporary. If we are treating responsible people and settled communities in this way, it is no use blaming their dissatisfaction on agitators or outside involvement. It is the policy which is being applied in respect of these people which brings about that dissatisfaction. This is what this side of the House has spent most of the evening trying to bring home to the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, again had a few words to say about Waterberg and about the National Party’s official candidate, to use his words. But we often asked that side of this House where their candidate in Waterberg was. Now we learn that Mr. Jaap Marais is the unofficial candidate of the United Party. They may take Mr. Stofberg as well. They need many candidates. We shall give him to them as well, because he made propaganda for them in the by-election in Potgietersrus.

Numerous attempts were made this evening at criticizing and disparaging the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and at presenting the political growth of the Coloureds in recent years, as being ridiculous. I have here two quotations from educated Coloureds which I should just like to read out to this House as proof that the Colored people do not regard this council of theirs merely as something meaningless which has been given to them. A well-known Coloured journalist, Mr. Howard Lawrence, encourages the Coloureds “to accept the apartheid inspired Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and work through it to achieve the upliftment of the Coloured community’’. This, basically, is what we are striving to achieve, i.e. the upliftment of the Coloured people. The foremost ideal of the Coloured people today is not so much the right to vote. They, and our people who have very close connections with the Coloured people, tell us and the Coloureds that the Government is creating opportunities for the Coloured people to develop their leadership qualities. They need leaders to help them with this programme of upliftment. But I should like to quote a second Coloured opinion, namely that of Mr. Kearns:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point is sitting close to me in order to bother me.

[Inaudible.]

I am not afraid of the hon. member. If he speaks slightly louder so that I can hear him, I shall reply to him. The people sitting on that side of this House want to exploit others. [Interjections.] The hon. member may have a turn to speak in a moment. The people on that side of this House are the people who face us sanctimoniously and tell us that they will give the Coloured people six representatives in this House. But I should like to put a question to them now. They want to give the Coloured people six representatives in this House, in spite of the fact that the Coloureds will have as many or more voters than the Whites; Surely that is immoral. In the first place, the ratio is wrong, and in the second place, it amounts to discrimination. But I want to ask them now whether they will allow these Coloured M P.’s to have their friends and their voters sitting in the gallery? Will they be allowed to sit with their voters in the coffee lounge? We must have those replies. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, that young hon. member for Turffontein is rather cheeky. He will still learn a lot. Last weekend he learnt a lesson in Johannesburg which he should like to forget. What is the United Party going to do if the Coloureds want one man one vote. The hon. member for Brakpan, too, put this question a few moments ago, but he has received no reply to it as yet. As it is, the leaders of the Labour Party are saying this already; Leon and Curry are saying this. What will the United Party do if the Coloureds say that they do not want six representatives in this House, but that they want representation in this Parliament on the basis of one man one vote? The hon. member for Durban Central is supposedly so clever. Can be give me the reply? Will the United Party hold a referendum? If a referendum were to be held among the Whites and the majority said “no”, but the Coloureds said they were in favour of it, what would the United Party do?

Furthermore, the United Party is very fond of telling us that we do not know where the end of the road is in regard to the Coloured people. At least we are being honest. If one asks those hon. members where the end of their road is in regard to the Coloured people, one receives no reply from them. They are not even prepared to be honest and to say: “We do not know; we shall see what the future will teach us”. They are very clever. Sir, but they do not give one a reply. I want to tell him that in regard to the Coloured people the United Party’s road is either one of integration or one of domination. The United Party should not be so naive as to think that (he Coloureds do not recognize this.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is a great pity that there are bodies and people who are causing the Coloured people to be suspicious of the Afrikaner. Suspicion is being cast on the attempts we are making to uplift the Coloured people. In my constituency there is a large organization of Afrikaans-speaking people who are doing welfare work. They are not doing it for political gain or to win the sympathy of the Coloured people or in order to soothe their own consciences. They are not doing it out of a feeling of piety either. These are people who truly believe it is their Christian duty to render assistance in uplifting the Coloureds in that community. If every one of us were to do this, we would progress, but there are bodies and people—some of them sitting in the Opposition—who are trying to cast suspicion on the Afrikaner. They allege that the Afrikaner is the suppressor and that he is taking away rights and privileges. According to them, we are hungry for land; according to the United Party we are taking District Six, which is allegedly such an ideal residential area for the Coloureds, and giving it to Whites in order that luxury flats and dwellings may be built. They will never tell the world that in District Six some of the very worst living conditions are to be found which resulted from the United Party’s lack of action when they were in power, or that a United Party-controlled City Council shut its eyes to the development of these bad conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to react to the hon. member for Worcester who has just sat down, because he said so little of importance. He made a few wild statements that really do not deserve my attention. He raised the question of the morality or otherwise of our policy, in terms of which we plan to have six Coloured representatives in this House. I should like to ask that hon. member where the morality of his party’s policy is, now that they have thrown all the Coloured representatives out of this House. Not a single one of those representatives has remained. Their policy is just a big bluff, Sir. [Interjections.] Our policy is the forward-looking one. We have accepted that we will have Coloured representatives representing their own people in this House. That is a far more moral standpoint than anything that hon. member can put forward on behalf of his party.

The hon. member quoted a certain Mr. Kearns. I should like to point out to him that when this gentleman, whom he has the audacity to quote, visited Pretoria as a delegate of the Coloured people’s B.E.S.L. organization, he was not allowed, under the policy of this Government, to enter the City Hall of that city. Yet the hon. member is prepared to quote him quite freely. Where is the morality of this hon. gentleman. Sir? Where is the morality of this Nationalist Party, a party that gives the Coloured people of South Africa a council which does not even have the authority of an ordinary divisional council? Do you realize. Sir, that a divisional council in the Cape at least has certain taxation rights. This council, which the Nationalist Party is prepared to give the Coloured people, does not even have that simple right. Where is the morality? [Interjections.]

Do you want to keep them…

We said so.

The hon. Leader said so. It is this party’s policy.

He has only woken up now.

The hon. member has apparently just come in to the debate and at this late hour has woken up and decided to make an interjection.

I want to raise another point. I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not here. Whenever she raises a matter in the debate concerning the Coloured people she makes a reference to the lot of the Coloured people who are employed by the farming community in South Africa. I just want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that if she took the trouble to tour some of the agricultural districts of South Africa, she would find that the Coloured people are well cared for by the farming community of South Africa. Within the limits of the trials and tribulations which farmers suffer under the agricultural policy of this Government they at least look after the interests of the Coloured people. The fact that some of them have to go to the cities is merely a result of the difficulties encountered by the farming community in South Africa today.

There is another matter that I would like to raise. The hon. the Minister raised the question of the Coloured cadet institution which was established by the Nationalist Government. I have no quarrel with the purpose of the Coloured Cadet Training Centre at Faure. In fact we would very much appreciate it if an institution of this kind could also be provided for the Coloured community in Port Elizabeth. But I want to say in all seriousness to the hon. the Minister that I believe the time has come when he must extent the activities of that training centre. At present it is merely there as a disciplinary institution. The serious lack of vocational training for the Coloured people, is a very serious matter as far as the progress of the Coloureds is concerned. The hon. the Minister should extend the activities of these cadet institutions to give them technical training as well as the disciplinary training they get at the present time.

In Port Elizabeth where we have a Coloured population of approximately 100 000, there are only two technical training institutions in the whole of that city. The total enrolment at those two institutions is in the region of 320 students. There is today a great need for technically trained Coloured people. Surely, one of the best ways of making the Coloured people viable, of increasing their productivity and of placing themselves in a position to earn more to enable them to enjoy a higher standard of living, is through giving them technical training.

It is also interesting to reflect that within the Coloured community in Port Elizabeth at least 2 000 of them own motor cars. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what steps have been taken to make it possible for Coloured people to train as motor mechanics. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is almost impossible for a Coloured man to become a journeyman. I believe that this is something that deserves his serious consideration. In the closing moments of this debate I ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to extending the activities of the cadet training centres and also to seriously consider providing more technical training facilities for the Coloured community in Port Elizabeth.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.