Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 210 and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 211, only members who were members of the Select Committee on Certain Organizations have access to the evidence taken by the Committee and the papers submitted to it; and
2. (2) that Mr. Speaker be authorized to publish such parts of the evidence taken by the Committee as he may deem fit.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, according to what the hon. the Minister said about this Bill in the previous debates, this legislation has the support of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The hon. the Minister told us that that Executive Committee requested this legislation. The hon. the Minister’s argument is understandable because the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council was faced with the possibility of its functions being blocked when it comes to its Budget. However, what surprises me is that this legislation is the only way that has been recommended to circumvent that obstruction. One could immediately ask: Did the Executive Committee also request that when the Committee failed to pass the Budget the Minister should be able to do so? I want to ask him whether they also recommend this to the hon. the Minister.

That the Minister can do what?

That in the case of the Executive Committee failing to pass the Budget, the hon. the Minister can do so.

In what way?

No, Sir, I am now asking him the question, because the hon. gentleman says this legislation is the result of the recommendation of the Executive Committee itself. The hon. gentleman told us that they recommended that when the Council failed to do so, it should be done by the Executive Committee. The question I am asking the hon. the Minister is the following: What is the position if the Executive Committee fails to do it? Was the Executive Committee’s recommendation such that it should then be left to the Minister to pass the Budget and to make the payments?

There is also another question I should again like to put to the hon. the Minister. Why did the hon. gentleman not adopt the same course of action as in the case of a provincial council that refuses to make payments on its Budget? In my opinion this ought to have been the course of action that the hon. the Minister should have adopted. This far-reaching measure rests solely on a possibility of an obstruction; it does not depend on reality at all. There is already a move afoot amongst the representatives of all political parties represented on the Coloured Persons Representative Council to use the machinery of the Council for the benefit of the Coloured community. That is why I refuse to believe that the whole Coloured Persons Representative Council would refuse to pass the Budget. They would themselves then be blamed by their own people if pensions, salaries and so on are not paid out to them. And, Sir, however few the powers of this Council may be at this stage, the majority of Coloureds nevertheless believe that this can be a means to an end. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to those decisions that were taken at the summit conference of the representatives of all Coloured political parties, held about ten days ago in Kimberley. There it was expressly decided by all of them that they regard this Coloured Persons Representative Council as a means to an end. Therefore I cannot see that they would completely refuse to pay out their Budget. For generations there has, politically speaking, been a fine sense of responsibility amongst the Coloureds. In that respect they have come much further than the other non-White races in this country, and yet the other races, and particularly the Black races, have a great deal more of a say in their own legislative assemblies when it comes to their own affairs than the hon. gentleman is prepared to grant the Coloureds. Therefore one may ask the question: Why this petty and small-minded discrimination in respect of the Coloureds? This Bill compels one to say that the Government is again treating a symptom of resentment instead of treating the real causes of the dissatisfaction. The fact that the Coloured Persons Representative Council is not a democratically elected body, is one of the well-founded grievances of the Coloureds. The Government is delaying too long when it comes to constituting the Council without nominated members. This Bill in no way eliminates that resentment. The fact that the Council is not a fully elected body still remains a source of dissatisfaction amongst the Coloureds. Sir, it is within the framework of parallel development that most of the dissatisfaction amongst the Coloureds occurs. One cannot, on the one hand, create all the possibilities for political and administrative development amongst the Coloureds and then, on the other hand, reveal a lack of confidence in that system. This Bill is an example of that. The Government promised the Coloureds political and administrative responsibilities, but this Bill is again proof that the Government is not prepared, in actual fact, to display the necessary confidence in the Coloureds. Sir, one is surely looking for trouble if one now wants to place a damper on the sense of responsibility of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. An amendment surely cannot be made to the Act every time a state of emergency crops up between the Government and the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Many of those things the hon. the Minister regards as problems can be left to the Coloureds themselves for their solution, and we on this side of the House believe that they are able to solve those problems themselves. When the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council had an interview with the hon. the Minister earlier this year, they asked the Government “to take steps to hold discussions with members of the Council and other interested parties about the further development of the powers of the Council”, and now the hon. the Minister comes along with this legislation, which immediately compels me to ask if that is the way in which the Government brings about a further development of the powers of that Council? Sir, this Coloured Persons Representative Council is still going to make many mistakes on its way towards evolution and a greater say in affairs affecting the Coloureds. Why can this Parliament not display confidence in them in spite of the mistakes they may perhaps make in the future. Instead of this legislation eliminating points of friction, it will be more inclined to extend and increase points of friction between the Government and the Council. If it is the Minister’s desire that this Council should have autonomous powers in connection with certain stipulated matters, the hon. the Minister must stand or fall by the instructions he has given them. The hon. the Minister may not get cold feet now, and even less may he drag his feet in this respect.

To sum up, Sir, the difference in conduct between this side of the House and hon. gentlemen opposite is this: We display the necessary confidence in the Coloureds, and it is more necessary today than ever before that our conduct as far as they are concerned should show that we have the necessary confidence in them; I fear that this legislation is an example of the hon. the Minister’s lack of confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and I think it is going to be difficult to retain the confidence of the Coloureds in the future. That is why we are opposed to the acceptance of the Third Reading.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: The hon. member for Newton Park declared here today that the United Party has full confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. May I ask the hon. member since when they have had confidence in this Council? Is it not the hon. member’s party which has thus far done everything in its power to belittle this Council and make it suspect as far as the members of the Council are concerned? Is it not as a result of the politicking on the part of the United Party that the Labour Party adopted the attitude they have adopted in recent years? Is it not because hon. members on that side of the House told those people that the Council has no significance, that they have no responsibility, that they should strive for representation in this Parliament; that their true political future lies in that direction? But now that it suits the hon. member he comes along and says here, as piously as you please, that they have confidence in this Council. Sir, it is not a question of confidence or no confidence in this Council. The fact is that we must take the situation as we have known it to be up to now. This side of the House has always had confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council and in the Coloureds, and we still have this confidence today. If we did not have confidence in them we would surely not have established the Council. This party’s history proves that we have had the best of intentions as far as the Coloured Persons Representative Council is concerned. We created opportunities for them and entrusted them with responsibilities. But what has our experience been? Our experience has been that the party that has the largest number of elected members in that Council has thus far said: “I want nothing to do with this Council; I am going to boycott all the decisions taken by the Council.” Sir, that was not in the distant past; it was still the case up to last year. The Labour Party is actually just the mouthpiece of the United Party and the Progressives. They are prompted and guided from behind the scenes by White liberalists in those two parties. The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Simonstown are the two members who are continually holding caucus meetings with the members of the Labour Party. They are the two members who have thus far encouraged these people to boycott the proceedings of the Council.

That is untrue.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: That is the state of affairs, and now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along today, as piously as you please, and asks whether we have not noticed that the Labour Party has had a change of heart. They gathered at Kimberley, as piously as you please, and said they would also co-operate in future. But, Sir, how can we rely on what happened at Kimberley? The Labour Party were represented there by a small number of members, and we surely know the people; we surely know the agitators within the Labour Party. We do not know whether they will stick to what they say. As I told the hon. member the other day, supposing the Council sits in the second half of the year and the Labour Party, with its freakishness, with the irresponsibility it has displayed in the past, with its boycott attitude, should decide at the eleventh hour that it was again going to boycott the proceedings of the Council, that with the aid of the backsliders of the majority party it was going to obtain control of the Council, and that it was not going to approve the Budget, how would the Minister and the Government look then?

That is what they want.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: That is what hon. members on that side of the House want; they want to create chaos. They want to create anew a reason for the Coloureds to be hostile to the National Party. That is what hon. members opposite ardently desire. They want disorder. If Coloured pensioners do not obtain their pensions, or if the Coloured teachers, who today have the greatest influence in the Coloured community, do not receive their salaries at the end of the month, they would not blame the Labour Party, which did not want to approve the Budget; neither would they blame the hon. member for Newton Park. No, they would use it as a basis and as a platform to launch a new campaign against the National Party, to stir up anew the feelings of the Coloureds against the White people in this country. It is in the interests of good race relations, and it is in the interests of the creation of better attitudes, that we are taking these precautionary measures, and this is merely a precautionary measure. The hon. member asks whether this is now the confidence we have in the Coloureds, because we are now telling them we are going to hold a sword over their heads; you now have certain rights, but if you do not exercise them we shall do so for you. But that is not so. No-one is preventing this Coloured Persons Representative Council from acting responsibly and doing the work entrusted to them. If the Labour Party is as responsible as the hon. member for Newton Park says, no one will place any obstacles in their path when it comes to approving the Budget and fulfilling the functions entrusted to them. It is just in case the Labour Party, which is supported by the United Party and the Progressive Party, falls back on-their boycotts and their irresponsibility, that the Government wants a measure to prevent chaos. I think the hon. member can also stop this nagging. We do not intend to have ourselves openly placed in such a position.

Then I want to continue today by just putting one other matter right for the purposes of the record. The hon. member for Newton Park again referred to one of the so-called grievances at the root of these problems with the Coloureds being the fact that all the members of that Council are not elected. It would clear up all the grievances, according to the hon. member, if they are all elected. Today I want to give the hon. member a bit of history, and hon. members on the other side of the House who sat on the commission of inquiry, like the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Transkei and the former member for Gardens, will be able to confirm every word I am saying here. The fact is that when we deliberated on these matters, in connection with how the Coloured Persons Representative Council should be constituted, I, as a member of that commission,, proposed that all the members of the Council should be elected, and I very strongly advocated this to my colleagues and to the commission. I said all the members of the Council should be elected, but who were the people who objected to that? Mr. Bloomberg, a Coloured representative at the time, said: “No, it would be catastrophic if we were to have this Council fully elected; the Coloureds are not yet responsible and mature enough in politics and do not yet have sufficient experience for the Council to be fully elected.” Mr. Bloomberg asked that we should consider having at least one-third of the members nominated, and who supported him? Not I, Sir, I was persuaded, but the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Transkei joined Mr. Bloomberg in saying that 20 of these people should be nominated. Those are the facts. This fact has never been denied in this House. I do not blame the hon. members, but the fact is that I then relinquished my standpoint that the whole Council should be elected, and we achieved unanimity on the insistence of Mr. Bloomberg, supported by the United Party and other colleagues of the commission on my side as well. Those are the facts, but now hon. members come along here, as piously as you please, now that it suits them, now that they can stir up feelings amongst the Coloureds, and pretend that they are the people who initially wanted all the members to be elected, while on the commission they advocated that there should be nominated members. Why does the United Party have so many standpoints? Why does the United Party not have the courage of its convictions to tell the Coloureds what it states behind closed doors? There is surely nothing immoral in what was done. I should please like to ask the hon. member for Newton Park to confine himself to the facts; before he speaks about these things he must acquaint himself with the facts. But it was only the other day that the hon. member was made leader of the Coloured group of that party, because the leader of the United Party no longer had any confidence in the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and because certain members of the United Party insisted that for such a ticklish question as Coloured affairs the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should not be the chairman of that group in the United Party.

Then the hon. member for Newton Park, who had previously been interested in nothing but farming matters, was appointed as the leader of that group. That is the situation, but now the hon. member comes along here, in his naivety and in his ignorance, and acts the way he has been acting. I want to ask the hon. member at least to make sure of his facts before he speaks in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow has raised an interesting point in suggesting that if, by reason of a resolution of the Coloured Representative Council, the Coloured teachers were deprived of their salary, they would blame the White Parliament or this Government for the fact that their salaries were not being paid. That is the gravamen of his argument as to why the amendments being introduced by this Bill as suggested and accepted in the Committee Stage should now be accepted by this House. However, what the hon. member is omitting to take into account is the fact that if the provisions of this Bill were not introduced into the Act and the decision of the Coloured Council were to be against the approval of a Budget, the responsibility would rest squarely upon the shoulders of the members of the Coloured Representative Council as now constituted. The Coloured teachers for whom I have the greatest respect and whom the hon. member for Parow has indicated are the leaders of the Coloured community, would certainly not be so naïve as to believe that the voting of the Labour Party was not in fact the reason for their not getting their salaries.

That is what the crucial test is now before this Coloured Council: Will the Council act in a responsible manner in the discharge of the duties which have been entrusted to it? The hon. the Minister and we, if the Bill is passed, will say that we have doubts as to whether the Coloured people can be relied upon to discharge their obligations in the Council, by providing what we shall do in the event of their not carrying out their responsibility. I wonder whether this particular measure before us and its consequences have not highlighted the fact that so much political thinking is directed towards the acquisition of political rights without the emphasis upon the corresponding acquisition of political responsibility. The agitation or demands for political rights without a realization of the corresponding responsibilities which go with those rights, is something which is empty in the modern world and in our modern political dispensation and it is certainly, to my mind, evidence of gross irresponsibility.

The Government has embarked upon a policy which is aimed—here I accept the word of the hon. the Minister—at creating or giving to the Coloured people opportunities for the maximum political rights within the concept of Government policy. However, when the test is applied as to whether what they are doing is really giving the Coloured people responsibility the hon. the Minister and the Government start reversing their process of thinking. This Bill before us is a patent indication of a lack of confidence in the responsibility of the members of the Coloured Representative Council. Either the Coloured people are prepared and willing and able to exercise political rights and to discharge the corresponding responsibilities or they are not. There is an opportunity in the life of the Coloured Representative Council where that can be put to the test. That can be put to the test in a council where there are 20 nominated and 40 elected members. It can be put to the test as to whether they the members —are prepared to create the chaos to which the hon. member for Parow has referred, chaos by the non-approval of their Budget. Why should they not be put to the test? Why should we not give the Coloured people an opportunity of showing to us that they are able to meet that test and to act as reasonable and responsible persons in dealing with that situation. Without this Bill, the Coloured Labour Party particularly will be put to the test. I refer to the Labour Party because of the reports of their attitude towards the question of approving of a Budget. They will be put to the test not in our eyes, not in the eyes of this Parliament, not in the eyes of White South Africa, but in the eyes of their own electorate, those persons who elected them to the council. Their electorate will then judge whether they are fit and proper persons to represent the views of the Coloured persons. When this Bill goes through the Labour Party is invited to and can demonstrate to the utmost by voting against the Budget and by rejecting it, knowing that if one Coloured teacher misses a salary for one month, it will be the responsibility of this hon. Minister and this Parliament, because he has not acted expeditiously within the powers which we are to give under this Bill. That will be the result of passing this legislation. It will be able to create chaos which, in the minds of the Coloureds, will be due to us. This Bill will provide the Coloured persons with every reason for complaining about the way in which they are treated, should there be one moment’s hesitation with regard to the payment of the pensions to the Coloured people or to the teachers. The blame will be upon this House, this Government and this Minister. Then the Labour Party or any other group of persons within that council who may decide to demonstrate its rejection of the Coloured Council’s system will get off scot-free so far as their own voters are concerned, but they will be doing a disservice so far as South Africa is concerned. I do wish that the hon. the Minister would realize that this step which is being taken is a wrong step. It is not a necessary step. In earlier stages in this debate we have indicated to the hon. the Minister that if there were to be a crisis it can be dealt with in other ways. Other methods can be used if the council were in fact to disappoint us on this side of the House and to disappoint those hon. members on the other side of the House who have confidence in their sense of responsibility by taking a resolution of this sort in the council and negativing a Budget. That situation can be met in other ways. I believe it is a most unfortunate and hasty step which has been taken by the Minister in bringing before us this Bill as it stands today. In passing I want to deal with one aspect out of what the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Parow have attempted to make some sort of political capital. They have attempted to make some sort of political capital out of what happened in the deliberations so far as the Select Committee was concerned in dealing with this particular Council. Not being a member of this Select Committee, I can only say that when I read the minority report from which I want to quote …[Interjections.] It is all very well for the hon. member for Parow to say: “Oh yes”, and wave his hands, but the minority report in paragraph 3 says—

In so far as the minutes of the deliberations are concerned, I want to say that these show clearly that there were various recommendations before a meeting of this particular commission. The main one, and the one upon which the whole commission divided and voted, was the one that the Coloured representation in this House should continue. It was on that motion that the commission divided and upon which the hon. members for Transkei and Yeoville and the hon. Mr. Bloomberg voted. That was all dealt with in this report. I do not know what the hon. members are now trying to do. Perhaps they feel that they can discredit what has been said in this particular debate. When the establishment of this council came before this House, we on this side of the House made our position perfectly clear. We stated clearly that we believed that it should be a totally elected council. How correct we were, because the hon. the Minister has now been good enough to tell us that it will become just what we thought it should be, namely a totally elected council. He believes that that must come, but while he is saying that, there is this unfortunate open public demonstration of Government lack of confidence in the Coloured persons themselves. Where are we going in regard to this matter? According to a report of a speech of the hon. member for Waterberg over the week-end, it seems that this Coloured Representative Council should be entitled to govern a part of the Republic of South Africa exclusively, as a Colouredstan, that they are now in that high state of advancement as far as their political development is concerned, that we should entrust to them some of the soil of South Africa as their own, for which they should be responsible solely and entirely on their own as a Colouredstan. While the hon. member for Waterberg is saying that, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is saying to this House: “Please, I do not think these people will be responsible enough to vote the salaries of their teachers or the pensions of their old-age pensioners; they will possibly stop doing that and I want to have an opportunity of stepping in and doing that if they fail to do it”. Will he ask the hon. member for Waterberg to say whether, in the constitution of the Colouredstan which is envisaged, he, the hon. the Minister, should have the same powers reserved to him so that if they should mal-administer the Colouredstan, the Minister of Coloured Affairs can step in and pass the Budget for the Government of the Colouredstan?

Mr. Speaker, we have said so before; we put our viewpoint in detail during the Committee Stage, and we say now that we believe that this is an ill-advised measure, a measure that we must oppose at this Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, here we have a matter which is indirectly related to the council itself—it refers to the question of confidence. The reproach is being levelled at us, and this afternoon this was done once again, that one of the manifestations of our lack of confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council is the fact that, to use the words of the hon. member for Newton Park, there has been such a long delay on our part in making it a fully elected council. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat here this afternoon, and I am doing so in the face of the whole Opposition, that it was a unanimous resolution of that Select Committee, which consisted of members from this side as well as that side of the House, that it had to be a council of which two-thirds of the members would be elected members, and that the other third would consist of nominated members. I repeat it here this afternoon. They will be able to show me in the minutes a resolution on which voting took place for the representatives of the Coloureds in this House to be removed. They did differ on that matter, and they voted on it, but they did not vote on this question of the constitution of the council. On the contrary, this was a proposal that was put forward by the Opposition side of the Select Committee. It was proposed by the Coloured representative, Mr. Bloomberg, and seconded by the United Party through the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville. It was also supported by the hon. member for Transkei. This is true and the Opposition cannot get away from it. I must say I am disappointed in their political honesty in that they have been trying here to repeat this thing time and again. All that is being done by the Opposition, is to quote that minority report. That minority report was drawn up because they wanted to express in it their opinions on the removal of the four Coloured representatives from this House. If that matter had not been raised, there would never have been any minority report. Now they read out that one short sentence from paragraph 3, namely: “We are in favour of a democratically elected Coloured Representative Council.” It is nothing more or less than a statement of intent. That is all it is. It was not a matter of their differing on that point. This side of the House and I could also have said at the time: “We are in favour of a democratically elected Coloured Representative Council.” We have always advocated that.

You did not.

I said so

The hon. member for Parow said so at the time. We are now engaged in implementing the intention we expressed at the time. However, all of us, and let me now settle this point once and for all, agreed on the principle, the basis, the starting-point of that council. Anything else that is said, does not tally with the facts, for these are beyond any doubt. Reference was made here to the powers of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, as though this legislation sought to reduce its powers. But that is not the case. This legislation does not seek to take away one single power from the Coloured Persons Representative Council. It is still being entrusted with financial matters, and it may still, just as was the case before, pass its Budget and appropriate its moneys. We are not taking away anything from it. We are in fact taking a statutory power which did not exist. The way the Opposition argues, this refers to the question of confidence. It does not refer to the question of the power of the council, and I want to deny this vigorously. When we come to the question of confidence, I would advise hon. members opposite rather to read the speeches made by certain Senators supporting them in the Other Place. What did people such as Senators Crook and Louw say? On numerous occasions they said the Coloured Persons Representative Council was a “puppet parliament”, a “body of stooges” and a “so-called” council. Time and again they referred to the Coloured Persons Representative Council in a disparaging manner, as the hon. member for Wynberg also did the other day. Is this confidence? We, who are being reproached with ostensibly showing a lack of confidence, want to know whether the attitude adopted by the Opposition is evidence of confidence. I could also justify my standpoint and attitude from that angle, for what are the facts of the matter? I was requested by the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council to insert this provision in the Bill. I deferred to the request made by the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council by inserting this provision in the Bill. Does this, too, not amount to a manifestation of my confidence in them, namely that I had such a high opinion of their request that I endorsed it and complied with it?

Was that their full request?

Yes, it was their full request. Should I have told them that I refused to do so? Then I would have run a risk, a risk of a reproach in respect of something of which they were at that stage better qualified to judge than I was, for they are sitting with those people. At that stage it was merely with the casting vote of the chairman that they had a majority in the council. I am not saying that certain people, if they could have achieved the majority vote, would simply veto or have voted against a budget as a joke. However, it is possible that in the future circumstances may still develop, circumstances in which these people may see an opportunity of creating further chaos and disorder. There could be elements wanting to do something of that nature. But I could not run the risk of being reproached later on by the Coloureds themselves, by their own Executive, with not wanting to do something they had asked me to do. It was repeatedly stated here today that there was another way. I asked the hon. member for Newton Park across the floor of this House what that other way was. He did not reply to me.

But we did tell you.

The other day they referred to a State President’s warrant. I think this is the only alternative that was put forward in this debate. Sir, when does one issue a State President’s warrant? I did not discuss this matter with anybody, but over the week-end I gave some thought to it again. I shall tell you, Sir, that it is impossible to handle the situation by means of a State President’s warrant. If hon. members do not have an opportunity of replying to this now, they may walk across to the Other Place, where I shall be later today or this evening, and tell hon. Senators that they may attack me on this point. But I am telling you how that this is not possible, because one issues a State President’s warrant for urgent, unavoidable expenditure which crops up Suddenly and which was not voted by this Parliament. But you must bear in mind, Sir, that this Parliament has already passed its Budget. It has already voted R80 million for that purpose. This amount of R80 million merely has to be made available now. It does not have to be voted again. But if one wants to use a State President’s warrant, one has to write out R80 million again. Then it still has to be voted by this parliament in the Additional Appropriation. But Parliament cannot vote it again—it has already done so. In other words, the money is available. Now it is just a matter of someone having to deal with that money. It is not a question of money—the money is available already. In other words, a State President’s warrant does not have any bearing on this matter at all; for there is no need for the money to be provided—it has already been made available. Now, how is one going to appropriate that money properly, i.e. where it belongs—for instance, for education, etc.?

Could I ask the hon. the Minister if he could give this House the assurance that the R86 million which we have voted for the Coloured Persons Representative Council, will be used at their discretion and under their complete autonomy?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance, with the qualification that the Coloured Persons Representative Council cannot change the monthly pension that is being paid, nor the teachers’ salaries. Except for that qualification, they can do with the money whatever they wish to do Now. Sir, the money is available. I am still arguing that point, but now that hon. member does not want to listen to me any more; he has already seen that his story in connection with the State President’s warrant has fallen flat hopelessly, like a tube pierced by a thick nail. Sir, now the money is available. Now, the only body which, in terms of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act. may deal with that money is the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself. If they do not deal with it, the money will be lying somewhere and no more can be done. I have no power whatsoever. The hon. member for Newton Park repeated today that I had other alternatives. I asked him what other alternatives I had, but he did not tell me. There is no other alternative.

May I ask the hon. the Minister something? If, this Parliament,voted R270 million for the cape Provincial Council and they refused to pass their. Bydget, what alternative would the Government have then?

Here I say what my alternative is in the event of the Coloured Persons Representative Council refusing to do so. Here, for the first time, I am empowered to act in this manner. The Executive is still the Coloured people’s own organization, and in due course, once this council is a fully elected one, the Executive will consist of representatives of the majority party in the council. Let us make no mistake about that.

[Inaudible.]

Just look at the way that hon. member is laughing. But let us finish. Under this Bill the Executive is empowered to deal with that money and so am I. That is all there is to it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to resume my seat, but I just want to say—this side of the House and I are sincere in our intentions— that we have confidence in the Coloured population of South Africa and in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I said that when I took another look at the council’s constitution, when it had to be changed so as to make the council a fully elected body. I would take another look at this clause as well. But I say that in the meantime I am doing what I have been asked to do, and I am preventing a situation from arising, a situation in which the Coloured population may be the tool and may be used for sowing the seeds of disorder in South Africa. This does not derogate from the confidence we have in the Coloured population of our country, and also in the council itself, nor from the good relations we are building up with them. We have talks with them all the time, and I said what I am saying again this afternoon, namely that my doors are open to the Labour Party, and to all of them, so that we may confer and jointly find a solution on the road ahead.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Noes—45: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V,; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A,; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wain- wnght, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L.F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is one which we discussed during the Second Reading of this Bill, and the hon. the Deputy Minister very kindly gave an explanation in regard to the various matters dealt with in this clause. There is, however, still a certain amount of doubt in regard to the application of this clause after 1st October, 1972. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in explaining the provisions of this clause, indicated that it provided for the full protection of those persons who are already in receipt of a pension in terms of the War Pensions Act, and also a social pension in terms of the various other Acts dealing with social pensions. However, the proviso specifically protects a certain group. It would appear that in future, with the passing of this clause, those persons, who may be awarded a war disablement pension in terms of the War Pensions Act, may find that when bonuses granted in terms of that Act, as is provided for in the first portion of this clause, are taken into account, the effect will be to reduce their social pensions. People who apply for a war veteran’s pension, or widows of war pensioners who apply for an old age pension, may find that with the passing of this clause they are discriminated against, in view of the fact that this proviso specifically protects only those persons who are already in receipt of such pensions. In other words, the difficulty will again arise that a person whose bonus is increased, will then have his social pension decreased. Sir, section 17 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, No. 98 of 1969, was inserted in the Act to protect these people so that they could qualify for any increase which might be granted in terms of any Act. With the passing of this clause as it now stands, it would appear that we will again have the situation that a person who is on the limits of a war pension, will be subject to a reduction of his social pension in terms of the proviso contained in this clause. I realize that the hon. the Deputy Minister did say at the Second Reading that it is difficult to look into the future, and that this matter could perhaps be dealt with in future budgets, if it becomes necessary to eliminate anomalies which might have arisen. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give vs more information with regard to the effect of this proviso as it will affect those persons in the future. Obviously there are many persons who served in World War II who are in receipt of war disablement pensions but who will be subject to the means test when they reach the age of 60 and apply for a war veteran’s pension. Sir, we on this side of the House feel that this proviso is taking away a concession which has been enjoyed by this group of persons since 1969 with the passing of the amending legislation at that stage. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give further consideration to the situation of these people who will be adversely affected.

I think we are really returning to where we were before, and that is that I cannot give an absolute and final assurance in this regard at this stage. The general policy, however, and this is also expressly stated in this clause in respect of the existing persons in receipt of both the war pension and the social pension, is that they will not be in a worse position after 1 /10/1972. This is also the intention with all other persons who may have problems in future in being placed in a worse position as a result of concessions, on account of one part of their pensions then being decreased if the other is increased. I think the hon. member must accept here that no principle is being taken away from the old Act here, because the existing legislation only protects those who were in receipt of a war pension as well as a social pension at a specific date. I think he must accept that if it should happen in future that bonuses are taken into consideration and the problem then arises that there is a decrease elsewhere, it will be corrected again just as it was this year, taking into account the principle which I emphasized at the beginning, and that the idea is not to place people in a worse position in future than that in which they were in the past. But I can give no absolute assurance in this respect. is only the view I take, that this is hat we shall take into consideration in future.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I listened to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in regard to war veterans’ pensions in reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. This particular clause deals with pneumoconiosis sufferers and those who are receiving pensions for pneumoconiosis. I want the Minister to give us the assurance that where persons or their widows receive a pension for an occupational disease they will not be penalized. This is somewhat different from a person receiving a pension for war service. Here a man gets a disease through his occupation and he is disabled and his working life in curtailed in most cases. Now in these cases I want the Minister to give us the assurance, other than he has given here now, i.e. that these people will be safe until 1st October this year. I want him to give the assurance that these people will be taken into special regard in assessing their assets in estimating whether or not they will be eligible for a social pension as well as a pneumoconiosis pension. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Mines is here, because the possibility may arise where a lump sum that is given to a mine worker for disablement could count against him in assessing his assets in regard to the means test. This is something on which I would like the Minister to give us his assurance, that these awards because of a disease attributable to his occupation—that in these cases that person or his widow will not be penalized in assessing social pensions.

I just want to tell the hon. member briefly that at the moment there is no such thing as a non-recurring amount being paid. This is envisaged for possible legislation in future. I can just reassure the hon. member that such legislation would in any case go to a Select Committee, but the intention is that it will not adversely affect any other pension which such a person draws.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

I just want to say for the record that the insertion of this clause in this Bill closely affects the staff of the Vaal Triangle College for Advanced Technical Education in particular. Accordingly I should like to express my thanks and appreciation, on behalf of that group of persons, for the insertion of this clause, because those members of staff fell under the old Department of National Education in the past, and where the college is now becoming autonomous, the members of staff who will then be employed by the autonomous council are given the choice in this clause either to stay with their existing pension fund or to be transferred to the pension fund for associated institutions. It would have had far-reaching implications for the staff if this clause had not been inserted in this Bill. On their behalf I want to express our thanks and appreciation to both the Department of National Education and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the introduction of this amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as such have been singled out and not allowed the same facilities as officials of other departments, such as even those of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Why are there not the same facilities for the officials of those departments as for other officials if they assume employment with a university, for example, and there has not been a break in their service?

Mr. Chairman, this is a question which can be asked in respect of all departments and not only in the case of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It also applies to departments which do not deal with agriculture. We are dealing with a specific group of persons here. The agricultural faculties initially fell under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the persons employed by those faculties therefore fell under a different pension fund. It is now proposed that they will fall under the universities from 1st March next year, and consequently the original pension rights of these persons as a group are now being protected and entrenched, as it were. That is the purpose of this clause, as it is also the purpose of clauses 15 and 17. What the hon. member said may be relevant when we deal with groups in future. This clause, however, is specifically applicable to this group of officials.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a one-clause Bill; I objected to the Second Reading of this Bill and I gave my reasons then. I see no reason to repeat the reasons now, but I wish to record my objections to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton sees no reason for repeating her arguments, but she is the hon. member who said that she was opposed to this legislation because this Government is too autocratic, and because it is not a free democracy. For the record I just want to make it very clear that the free speech of this hon. member outside this House is unequivocal proof of the democratic approach of this Government. I also want to make it clear that no person can object to listening-in, if that person’s conscience is clear and he is not engaged in subversive activities against this Republic.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member has insinuated that the reason for my objecting to this Bill is because I am busy with undermining and subversive activities.

No.

That is how I understand it.

If the hon. member wants to imply that I am insinuating this, it is her affair. I was very careful when I made this statement in as few words as possible. I, personally, have no objection to listening-in, because my conscience is clear concerning the security of my country. It is my honest opinion that if any person objects to listening-in, where it affects the security of the country, then I cannot understand it. I cannot understand it because this amendment is of importance in order to take precautionary measures against persons who are undermining this country. I did not in any way mention the hon. member for Houghton’s name, and it is not my fault if she regards it in that light.

Order! The hon. member made this insinuation in his speech, and he must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but I want to repeat that the hon. member for Houghton …

Order! The hon member may not do so conditionally.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we shall not be opposing the Third Reading of the Bill for the same reasons we gave during the Second Reading of this particular Bill.

There is one thing I would like to have established. It is that apart from this Bill, if it becomes law, the Post Office does not have the right under any circumstances to listen in to private conversations. It has the right to intercept mail under section 118 of the Post Office Act, but I would like to know that the position remains as it was, namely that the Post Office has no right under any law to listen in to any private conversation except when the subscriber permits it for purposes which are obvious under certain circumstances. I would like to know whether that is the position and if that position will still be maintained in future. As I see it, this Bill is not going to increase the amount of tapping, but it is simply providing that tapping will not in future be able to be done for purposes of the security of the State without the Postmaster-General and the State Security Council knowing exactly what the reasons are. It does not affect the other tapping issues which we have opposed in the past and of which the Minister has always had no official cognizance, and which might take place not necessarily from official sources, but which might take place between businessmen in competition and for other reasons. Could the hon. Minister give us the assurance I ask for?

Mr. Speaker, I objected at Second Reading and Committee Stage and I am obviously going to object at the Third Reading of this Bill for all the reasons that I set out originally. I do not wish to be tediously repetitious. There have obviously been no changes since we discussed this Bill at Second Reading. Certainly, as I understand it, up to now telephone tapping was illegal and anybody who discovered that somebody was tapping his telephone, could in fact go to court about it. As I understand the position, that will remain except where this has been authorized for certain purposes. Since I do not have any confidence in the people who will be administering this, i.e. the Government and the Security Police, I shall vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I just want to give the assurance that the Post Office will not tap telephones except where it is necessary for technical reasons, in other words, when it has to be established whether the line is in working order. If complaints are received in regard to a line, it will have to be established whether the line is working. Only for that technical purpose will listening-in take place. Otherwise there is no reason for the Post Office to listen in. It is not the practice, and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it will not be done. The only other time when listening-in will take place, will be in this orderly, prescribed way in terms of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister tell me whether he has any knowledge of any other departments, for example the Department of Police, listening-in?

No, I have no knowledge of that.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.