Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset of this, my first Budget Speech, it is fitting for me to pay homage to my predecessor, Dr. Diederichs, who held this portfolio for eight years and who has now been elected to the highest office in this land. As Minister of Finance Dr. Diederichs distinguished himself particularly as a formidable champion of gold overseas, where he promoted the interests of South Africa with great dignity, conviction and success. His achievements in the field of domestic fiscal policy were, however, equally remarkable. He upheld the traditional South African financial conservatism, but also introduced important improvements to our fiscal structure in order to adjust our financial system to the requirements of the modern economy. The words of Confucius from whose works he loved to quote, are also applicable to him:

It will be my endeavour to continue building on this firm foundation, with due regard to the fast-changing circumstances in South Africa and in the world.

General Economic Conditions

The Budgets of 1973 and 1974 gave particular emphasis to the promotion of economic growth. That this aim has been amply achieved is clear from the fact that the real gross domestic product increased during 1974 by no less than 7,2 per cent. The real gross national product, which takes into account the improvement in the terms of trade (due particularly to the increased gold price), rose by approximately 10 per cent. For South Africa 1974 was thus without doubt an exceptionally good growth year. Over the past two years the real national product per head of the population has risen at an average rate of 7 per cent per annum, which is an indication of the substantial rise in the standard of living of all sections of our population.

The rise in investment was a noteworthy characteristic of our economic growth in 1974. Gross as well as net real fixed investment rose by 8,5 per cent—more than twice as fast as during 1973. In the case of private manufacturing the increase in gross real fixed investment during 1974 amounted to 22 per cent and the real fixed capital stock rose by 6,4 per cent. There was also an appreciable increase in investment in inventories. Private consumption expenditure, in contrast, rose relatively slowly, i.e. by 5,2 per cent at constant prices. The growth of the economy was consequently mainly an investment and export rather than a consumption-led upswing, which points to a healthy situation for our future development.

Another encouraging sign was the appreciable increase in gross domestic saving, namely by about R1 023 million to a level of more than 26 per cent of the gross domestic product.

Most sectors of the economy shared in this rapid growth. In the case of agriculture, thanks to favourable weather conditions, 1974 was a particularly good year, and the total gross income of farmers rose by 29 per cent. Only in the case of the wool and karakul farmers was the gross income below that of 1973.

The physical volume of gold produced declined by 11,2 per cent mainly as a result of the mining of lower grade ore, but the average gold price on the private market rose by 66 per cent. Excluding gold, the volume of mining production over the first ten months of 1974 was approximately 12,5 per cent higher than during the corresponding period of 1973.

In the case of manufacturing, 1974 in general also turned out to be a good year, and the physical volume of manufacturing output rose by approximately 6 per cent. The rise occurred mainly, however, during the first half and production has since levelled off.

The building industry has also levelled off during 1974, but the construction industry maintained a relatively high rate of growth.

In commerce 1974 saw a rise of 6,8 per cent in the volume of retail sales and 9,9 per cent in the volume of wholesale sales. In contrast with the position abroad, where in many countries there is talk of a crisis in the motor industry, the number of new motor vehicles sold in the Republic in 1974 remained practically constant; in comparison with 1973 there was a decline of only 0,1 per cent.

Although for the year 1974 as a whole a strong boom was experienced in the South African economy, this boom started to level off during the second half of the year. I have already referred to this tendency in manufacturing output and similar tendencies are reflected in several other economic indicators, such as the value of building plans passed, the volume of wholesale and retail sales and the volume of imports. The number of registered unemployed persons rose slightly after August 1974, but is still very low. The levelling off should in fact be seen as a temporary phase of consolidation after the attainment of a cyclical peak—a normal phenomenon which is to be welcomed from more than one point of view, because it brings with it a lessening of the financial and other stresses built up in the economy during the boom.

As is the case in most countries, inflation in South Africa remains an unsatisfactory characteristic of the economic situation. The average seasonally adjusted consumer price index was 11,6 per cent higher in 1974 than in 1973. The high prices of imported goods undoubtedly played a major role in our inflation, as indicated by the large rise of 27,7 per cent between December 1973 and December 1974 in the seasonally adjusted wholesale price index of imported goods, compared with a rise of 16,9 per cent in the index of goods produced in South Africa.

As against these rates of inflation the average salaries and wages per employee in the non-agricultural sectors during the first nine months of 1974 were 15 per cent above those prevailing during the corresponding period of 1973. After allowing for price increases the real increase in average wages and salaries per employee in all the population groups during the same period amounted to 4 per cent; in the case of non-white employees the rise was 9,2 per cent.

Balance of Payments

During a boom period it is normal for imports to increase considerably, and the sharp rise in the price of oil and certain other imported goods intensified this trend. The value of exports, however, has also risen appreciably, mainly due to the higher average price levels current on international commodity markets. Substantial increases have been registered in the export of maize, sugar, diamonds and base metals. In addition the value of the net gold output rose by approximately 45 per cent to R2 565 million. The net result was a deficit of R836 million on the current account of the balance of payments, which amounted, however, to only 3,7 per cent of the gross domestic product. This is low compared with similar periods of rapid growth in the past.

The current deficit was largely covered by a net inflow of foreign capital amounting to about R741 million, of which about R598 million went to the private sector and R143 million to the central government and banking sector.

The annual data disguise a remarkable change in the trend of the main components of the balance of payments, which is connected with the changing trends in the domestic economy. Thus, for example, the value of imports rose at a slower rate from the third quarter, and during the second half of 1974 the volume in fact declined. The substantial inflow of capital occurred mainly in the second half of the year, principally due to the narrowing of the gap between local and overseas rates of interest and a decline in the availability of domestic bank credit.

After allowing for certain valuation adjustments the total gold and other foreign reserves declined during 1974 by only R67 million to a level of R909 million at the end of the year. If the gold component had been valued throughout at market price, total reserves over the year would in fact have shown a rise of about R960 million. During January and February 1975 the gold and other foreign reserves of the Reserve Bank rose by a further R18 million.

Hon. members will recall that in June 1974 we embarked on a policy of controlled floating of the value of the rand. Since then the rate of exchange of the rand has been adjusted nine times—thrice in a downward direction and six times upwards. The effective rate of exchange of the rand vis-à-vis a weighted average of other currencies is now minimally lower than in June 1974, mainly due to the weakening of the rate of exchange of the US dollar compared with other currencies. It is, however, approximately the same as it was before the sterling devaluation of November 1967, and the rand can today undoubtedly be regarded as a strong currency.

Monetary Situation

The rapid rise in the growth rate of the economy in 1974 created exceptional stresses and problems for the banking sector. The demand for bank credit rose tremendously, but on the other hand the monetary authorities were forced, on account of the inception of demand inflation and the appreciable outflow of capital, to apply a more conservative monetary policy from the first half of 1974. The liquid asset requirements were, it is true, not increased but the large expansion of bank credit itself created liquidity problems for the banks and forced them to limit the expansion. Moreover, rates of interest were allowed to rise in accordance with market trends, which brought them more closely into line with interest rates abroad. This policy yielded good results and contributed to reducing excessive domestic demand and also to encouraging a substantial inflow of capital in the last months of 1974.

The moderately conservative policy of the authorities has, however, not prevented the amount of money and near-money from rising by 22% during 1974 (compared with 23% in 1973), nor the increase in bank credit to the private sector by R1 101 million.

With the cooling down of the economy during the past months the financial stresses have already been largely relieved. Despite a temporary tightening during the first weeks of March, conditions in the money market have generally become easier, the banks are finding themselves in a much more comfortable position and short-term rates have declined appreciably.

In the capital market conditions have also eased in recent months, as reflected in the moderate decline in long-term rates of interest. This falling trend has undoubtedly contributed to the notable success of the latest issues of Government stocks.

In line with many other countries the stock exchange (apart from gold mining shares) experienced a relatively poor year in respect of turnover as well as share prices. In contrast to this, the index of prices of gold mining shares rose by 69% over the year.

The flow of funds to building societies, though still substantial, was nevertheless lower in 1974 than during the previous year. This gave rise to more difficult conditions in the bond and fixed property market, which was reflected in turn in the easier conditions prevailing in the building industry. My Department remains constantly in close contact with the building societies in this connection.

Economic Prospects

An open economy such as that of South Africa must, of course, be influenced by conditions prevailing abroad. Here the picture does not appear to be favourable and many of our trading partners are suffering from a combination of recession, inflation and balance of payments disequilibrium. Nevertheless South Africa has thus far withstood the influence of these unfavourable factors quite well, and thanks to factors such as the high level of capital expenditure in the public sector and the expected further increase in non-gold mining activities, we can look forward to a year of reasonably stable growth. Due to the present cooling down of the economy and also because the prospects for agriculture, though favourable, clearly will not equal the record levels attained in 1974, the real growth rate in 1975 will be lower than the exceptionally high rate of the previous year. However, unless external factors exercise a much stronger unfavourable influence than can be foreseen at present, our economic growth rate should nevertheless still be relatively high, and we may even look forward to a new upswing towards the end of 1975.

As far as inflation is concerned it is fairly generally expected that the rate of price increases abroad will abate somewhat during 1975, mainly due to the reduction in excess demand and because it is not expected that the price of oil will again show such a large increase as it did during 1973-’74. There does exist a danger, however, that in their understandable zeal to counter the present recession by means of stimulatory monetary and fiscal measures, the most important industrial powers could unleash a new wave of inflation.

The factors which could reduce the rate of inflation abroad, could also assist in holding back price increases in South Africa. Should the prices of our imports indeed fall or, at least, rise at a slower rate, it will assist us appreciably in our fight against inflation. Furthermore we may hope that food prices, which rose in 1974 by 18,4 per cent, will increase at a slower rate this year. There are therefore reasonable grounds for hoping that our rate of inflation will reach a turning point in the coming months.

South Africa’s balance of payments prospects appear promising at present. As our economy finds itself temporarily in a consolidation phase, imports are not expected to show much more of a rise. At the same time the high price of gold should give rise to a further increase in the value of th;e net gold output. Despite the possible unfavourable effect of the world recession on certain of our exports, the deficit on current account will thus probably be relatively moderate in 1975, and this deficit could easily be covered by a reasonable inflow of foreign capital.

Conclusions for Economic Policy

I have indicated that the South African economy is at present experiencing a phase of slower growth, coupled with a rate of inflation, which though moderate by present day world standards, is nevertheless unsatisfactory. The decline in the growth rate should, however, be regarded as a normal phenomenon after a boom period which will result in an easing of certain stresses and strains in the economy and provide a breathing space for consolidation after the strong upswing of the past year. As far as State action is concerned, inflation is at present a more important problem. In order to choose suitable remedies against this malady we must analyse the causes of this affliction further.

Excessive monetary demand has indeed been in the past the main cause of inflation in South Africa, as it was in fact in the world as a whole. In these circumstances a restrictive monetary and fiscal policy is essential. Partly due to the conservative financial policy pursued last year, however, excess demand is not at present a problem. This is indicated by the general cooling down of the economy as well as by the more specific indicators such as the increase in unemployment (even though it is still slight), the slower rate of growth in real private consumption expenditure and the fall in the average level of the seasonally-adjusted utilization of manufacturing capacity, which declined from a peak of 91 per cent in February 1974 to approximately 88 per cent in November 1974. It is significant that industrialists attribute the increase in unused capacity mainly to insufficient demand.

The present inflation in South Africa should rather be seen as the cumulative result of a whole series of factors which asserted their influence over a period of years, including the rise in import prices, autonomous “wage-push” and other “cost-push” factors such as higher food prices, the appreciable rise in the wages of the lower-paid unskilled workers without, in many cases, a corresponding rise in their productivity, and finally the built-in expectations of further inflation.

In these circumstances an excessively restrictive fiscal and monetary policy will not help much in tempering the rate of inflation. It could rather intensify the present tendency of the economy to slow down and allow it to continue for too long, at the expense of our real economic growth and prosperity. The question in fact is the extent to which fiscal and monetary policy should be harnessed to stimulate actively total expenditure and activity as part and parcel of a positive anti-cyclical economic policy.

In this regard it is important to point out that the short-term policy of the monetary authorities has already been adjusted, since the fourth quarter of 1974, to the changing cyclical trend and has been made considerably more expansive. The liquid asset and cash reserve requirements of banking institutions have not been reduced, it is true, but the monetary authorities have indeed, as a matter of policy:

These tendencies were not countered by the monetary authorities, for example, through an increase in the liquid asset requirements or by open market sales of Government stock, but were accepted as a desirable relaxation in the light of the cooling down of the economy. The present indications too are that, apart from seasonal shifts in funds, these broad monetary tendencies will still continue for some time to come.

In considering budgetary policy we should thus take account not only of the changing cyclical trends but also of the adjustments in monetary policy which have already taken place. It is clear that we also have to look ahead to the year 1976, when the next economic upswing will most probably already be on its way.

My conclusion is that the present Budget should, notwithstanding the inflation, be moderately stimulatory. The qualification “moderately”, however, is important, as otherwise we might in 1976 again find ourselves in a situation of demand inflation and balance of payments disequilibrium.

The fact that a strict fiscal and monetary policy is not, in today’s conditions, the proper remedy against inflation, does not mean that the Government can do nothing and in fact does nothing about the problem. Several measures, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Inflation, have already been announced by the hon. the Prime Minister last week, and my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs will now implement these measures. Once again, however, I want to stress very strongly the basic premise of the Advisory Committee, namely that inflation is a matter not only for the authorities or for this or that group in the community, but for everyone—employers and employees, the Government and the private sector, producers and consumers.

The Financial Year 1974-’75

The Government Accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 1975 are expected to show the following results.

Expenditure on Revenue Account is estimated at R4 328 million, which is R40 million or less than 1 per cent in excess of the original figure. The increase is mainly due to additional provision for Provincial subsidies as a result of higher salaries and prices. At R4 522 million the estimated revenue is also very close to the original figure of R4 544 million. Inland Revenue is expected to collect R43 million less than the original estimate, mainly due to lower receipts in respect of income tax from gold mines (R20 million), other companies (R15 million), and individuals (R15 million), but on the other hand customs duties are expected to net an additional R36 million. The expected surplus for the financial year is then R194 million.

The accumulated surpluses of previous years on Revenue Account amount to R248 million, that is, after providing for deficits on the Loan and South West Africa Accounts for 1973-’74, for certain payments to the Reserve Bank and for a transfer of R6 million to the Loan Fund for Economic Co-operation as explained in the previous Budget. In the 1974 Budget Speech the prospect was held out that an amount of R200 million would be transferred to the Stabilization Account, but for reasons which will subsequently become clear this transfer will now no longer take place. The total balance on Revenue Account on 31 March 1975 is then estimated at R442 million.

On Loan Account expenditure is expected to amount to R1 208 million, which is R38 million less than the original figure. The reduction is due to the fact that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications will draw much less in loan funds than the amount provided for in the Budget. Due to the favourable conditions prevailing in the South African capital market internal loans netted R252 million more than originally estimated. I have consequently decided to raise fewer foreign loans (namely R212 million instead of R334 million). The Loan Account is then expected to close the financial year with a deficit of R189 million.

Due to slightly lower receipts and higher expenditure than originally expected, the South West Africa Account shows an estimated deficit of R22 million.

If the deficits on the Loan and South West Africa Accounts are covered from the surplus on Revenue Account, and if the usual transfer of R6 million is made to the Loan Fund for Economic Co-operation, the remaining balance on Revenue Account then amounts to R225 million.

The Financial Year 1975-’76

Expenditure on Revenue Account

For the financial year 1975-’76 expenditure on Revenue Account is estimated to amount to R5 023 million, which is R695 million or 16 per cent in excess of the revised figure for the current financial year.

Though this may appear to be a substantial increase, it may be regarded as reasonable in the light of the present rate of inflation as well as the rate of growth of the economy. I can assure the House that the provision is essential and that it could only be contained within these limits with the whole-hearted co-operation of my colleagues.

The most important increase relates to the Vote Defence, where an amount of R948 million is requested—36% more than in 1974-’75. I am sure that the whole House will cherish with me the earnest hope that the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s efforts at détente in Southern Africa will be successful, but until that aim is unequivocally achieved it is imperative to enable our Defence Force to defend our borders effectively. No one with understanding of the situation will suspect us of aggressive intentions, but at the same time no one should imagine that we can be attacked with impunity. In the modern world defence is unfortunately extremely expensive, but it nevertheless remains a necessity.

There is an appreciable increase of 22% in the provision on the Vote National Education, mainly due to the increased subsidies to Universities in terms of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Universities under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice J. van Wyk de Vries. I am sure that this provision will be generally welcomed.

Furthermore there is an increase of nearly 20% on the Vote Bantu Administration and Development due to enhanced payments to the Governments of the Bantu areas.

Besides the amounts included in the printed estimates I should like to propose certain additional expenditures.

Social Pensions

For many years this Government has not missed an opportunity to relieve the financial burden of the social pensioners of our country. This year it is my privilege to continue this sound practice, and I have pleasure in announcing further relief for social pensioners for the following financial year.

It is proposed that all social pensions for Whites, including the allowances payable to settlers and to parents receiving maintenance grants, be increased by R7 per month and that the bonus payable to war pensioners be increased by a further 10 per cent.

In addition, it is proposed that—

1. (a) the allowances payable to children’s homes and to foster parents be increased by R4 per child per month;
2. (b) maintenance grants and family allowances and allowances payable in respect of the children of settlers be increased by R1,50 per child per month;
3. (c) place of safety allowances be in-created by 50 cents per child per day with effect from 1 April 1975.

The subsidies payable to homes for the aged have already been increased with effect from 1 January 1975. It is, however, proposed that these subsidies be further increased as follows:

1. (a) Group I residents: by 50 cents per resident per month;
2. (b) Group II residents: by R3 per resident per month;
3. (c) Group III residents: by R5 per resident per month;
4. (d) Group IV residents: by R7 per resident per month.

It is also proposed that the subsidies payable to institutions caring for handicapped persons be increased by R3 per person per month in cases where no suitably trained staff is available, and by R5 per month in cases where suitably trained staff is available.

Similar but suitably adjusted concessions are also proposed in the case of the other population groups. Further steps have been taken to reduce the existing gap in the pensions and allowances payable to the various population groups—the additional cost involved in these steps alone amounts to R21 million per annum.

All the concessions referred to are, where appropriate, also applicable in South West Africa.

In order to provide the Departments concerned with the opportunity to make the necessary arrangements, all these concessions (with the exception of those applicable to the place of safety allowances) will take effect from 1 October 1975.

The additional cost to the Exchequer is estimated at about R58 million per annum, and for the 1975-’76 financial year at R29 million.

With the announcement of these concessions social pensions have, in the case of Whites, been increased by 68 per cent during the last five years, whilst the annual expenditure involved has risen by 88 per cent or more than R63 million from R71 million to R135 million. The expenditure on social pensions for the other population groups likewise shows a remarkable increase.

The total amount required on Revenue Account is then R5 052 million.

Revenue 1975-’76

The uncertain economic prospects abroad, coupled with the substantial fluctuations characteristic of the private gold market in the recent past, make it difficult to estimate accurately Government revenue for the next financial year.

In view of the present cooling down of the economy I expect that the collections of customs, excise, and sales duties will not show a particularly big increase above the figure for the present financial year. I estimate these at R1026 million. However, the taxable incomes of individuals and companies in most sectors should continue to rise at a reasonable rate, and I am of the opinion that the collection of Inland Revenue can increase at a rate of approximately 13 per cent. The figure appearing in the printed estimates under the heading Inland Revenue is R4 019 million, but after further consideration I am of the opinion that a figure of R3 993 million would be a more realistic estimate. Total revenue then amounts to R5 019 million, which is R33 million less than the estimated expenditure of R5 052 million.

How to cover this deficit is a problem which I shall deal with after explaining the position of the Loan Account.

†Loan Account 1975-’76

Expenditure on Loan Account is estimated at R1510 million, which is R302 million or 25 per cent higher than the revised figure for the current financial year. This is indeed a substantial increase, but here again the effects of inflation and of the rapid growth of the economy must be borne in mind. It is relevant and important to note that, in real terms, the gross fixed investment of the Central Government, including the Railways Administration and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, was actually lower in 1974 than in 1973, whereas that of the private sector increased by 13,3 per cent.

The greatest increase in Loan Account expenditure is in respect of the loan to the Railways Administration, for which an amount of R427 million is requested—50 per cent more than in the current year. The importance of an efficient railways and harbours system needs no emphasis and the provision is essential to enable the Administration to meet the rapidly-growing demands of our economy.

A substantial increase of R30 million or 35 per cent is required for the Department of Public Works, largely for certain urgent works required for defence purposes.

Loans to the Provinces, mainly for the construction of schools, hospitals and roads, show an increase of R22 million.

An increase of R39 million or 36 per cent is requested for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, principally for the purchase of land and the development of Bantu areas by the South African Bantu Trust.

On the Industries Vote an amount of R70 million is required for the purchase of additional shares in Iscor. The steep escalation of construction costs and the current difficult conditions in the overseas capital markets make it possible, however, that a substantial further amount will have to be provided. Additional share capital can also be important in order to improve Iscor’s debt ratio. Unfortunately I am not in a position at present to inform the House of the additional amount which may be necessary. The Treasury is studying the problem in collaboration with Iscor, and Parliament will be informed of the outcome in due course.

In addition to the estimated expenditure of R1 510 million, an amount of R827 million is required for loan repayments and miscellaneous items—a total of R2 337 million.

For the financing of this expenditure, the following amounts are estimated to be available:

In addition, I estimate that we can raise further loans to an amount of R180 million locally and R140 million overseas, giving a total of R2 015 million. This still leaves a shortfall of R322 million.

I should like to say something at this point about the impression which seems to exist in some quarters that South Africa has borrowed abroad excessively. This is, I believe, a mistaken impression. During the past two years South Africa’s total net capital inflow averaged less than R300 million per year, which is less than 1,5 per cent of the gross domestic product, as against a post-war average of nearly three per cent. Total net interest payments on non-direct investment in 1973 (the latest available figure) amounted to only R87 million. As far as the Government is concerned, its total foreign debt, adjusted for changes in exchange rates, increased in 1974 from R361 million to R509 million, which is equivalent at present prices to less than three months’ gold production. Interest on external Government debt for the financial year 1974-’75 is estimated at R40 million, or less than 1 per cent of total State revenue. Clearly South Africa is in an incomparably more favourable position, as regards foreign debt, than most oil-importing countries, which have had to borrow very large amounts in order to finance their balance of payments deficits.

South West Africa Account 1975-’76

Expenditure on the South West Africa Account for the next financial year is estimated at R113 million, or 20 per cent above the figure for the current year. Revenue, after deduction of the statutory transfer to the Territorial Fund, is estimated at R77 million, leaving a deficit of R36 million. As is customary, provision will be made in the 1976-’77 financial year to meet this shortfall.

Combination of Revenue and Loan Accounts

As already announced, it is the intention as from the 1976-77 financial year to combine the Revenue and Loan Accounts. This will, I believe, give a more meaningful picture of the State’s finances than the present somewhat arbitrary division between the two accounts.

For the 1975-’76 financial year, the significant figure is the combined shortfall at this point of R355 million of Revenue and Loan Accounts, for which provision has to be made.

Although I said earlier that the present economic situation demands a moderately expansionary budget, it is clear that a deficit of this magnitude should not, in present circumstances, be finanaced entirely from potentially inflationary sources.

There can therefore be no question of general deductions in taxation. On the contrary, I shall reluctantly have to seek some additional revenue. Before doing so, however, there are certain concessions which I wish to announce.

Tax Concessions

It is sometimes argued that all fixed rebates, exemptions, etc., in the tax laws should be adjusted upwards to take account of inflation. I have not heard the same arguments being advanced for the upward adjustment of the numerous specific customs and excise duties, stamp duties and other imposts in our tax system under similar conditions. In any case, this is a counsel of perfection. For many reasons, revenue even in a time of inflation does not always keep pace with expenditure, and in the circumstances of the present Budget such a general adjustment of rebates clearly cannot be considered. There are, however, a few cases where such adjustment is, in my view, justifiable.

Aged Persons

The first concession relates to the special income tax abatement for persons over 60. At present such persons are entitled to an abatement of R400, which is reduced by R2 for every R10 by which the taxpayer’s income exceeds R5 000. I think that some further relief to old persons, whose incomes are often fixed in money terms, is justified, and I propose that the abatement be increased to R600. This will have the effect that a person over 60 will only become liable for income tax when his income exceeds R1 800 per annum for married and R1 300 for unmarried persons (instead of R1 600 and R1 100 respectively as at present), and the benefit will only disappear when a taxpayer’s income reaches R14 000 for a married person or R13 000 for a single person. By way of example, the benefit of the abatement to a married person over 60 with an income of R7 000 per annum will now be R92. The loss of revenue in 1975-’76 is estimated at R2,3 million.

Retirement Benefits

For similar reasons I should like to propose some relief in the tax treatment of certain retirement benefits. A lump sum payment by an employer to an employee on the latter’s retirement is, on certain conditions, exempted from income tax up to an amount of R9 000. I propose that this exemption limit be raised to R12 000.

Likewise, I propose that the maximum tax-exempt lump sum benefit paid from a pension, provident or retirement annuity fund be raised from R30 000 to R40 000.

The loss of revenue from these two concessions in 1975-’76 is expected to be R2,3 million.

Contributions to Pension and Retirement Annuity Funds

A taxpayer contributing to a pension fund is allowed to deduct his contributions, up to a maximum of R1 250 per annum, from his taxable income. In the case of a retirement annuity fund the maximum deduction is R2 500. In view of the need to make adequate provision for old age, and in order to encourage saving, I think an increase in the maximum deductions to R1 500 and R3 000 respectively is justified. The cost to the Exchequer will be R1,3 million per annum.

Estate Duty

While I cannot consider a general reduction in Estate Duty at the present time, I think that some increase in the deductions allowed in respect of investment in Government stock and the proceeds of life insurance policies is called for. This should also help to encourage saving. I therefore propose that the maximum deduction for this purpose be increased from R50 000 to R70 000, of which not more than R35 000 may be from the proceeds of insurance policies. The effect of this is that the estate of a man with a wife and three children need not become liable for estate duty until the net value of the estate, including Government stock and insurance policy proceeds, exceeds R195 000. The loss to the Exchequer is estimated at R3 million in a full financial year and R1 million in 1975-76.

Married Women

At present a deduction of R600 is allowed from the earnings of a married woman for the purpose of determining the husband’s taxable income (in which the wife’s income is included).

At the risk of being suspected of male chauvinism I would say that this deduction has, in my view, some unsound aspects and creates anomalies in the taxation of families with similar incomes. I believe that a more intensive study of the whole problem of the taxation of the income of married women is called for as there are many facets to be considered. The Department of Inland Revenue, in co-operation with, the Standing Commission on Taxation, will therefore inquire into the problem in greater depth.

In this Year of the Woman, however, and in view of the rise in prices since the deduction was fixed at its present level in 1973, I believe that some adjustment is justified, and I therefore propose that the deduction be increased to R750. The cost to the Exchequer in 1975-76 is estimated at R4,1 million.

Housing of Employees

An employer is entitled to deduct from his income 25 per cent of any expenditure incurred by him on the erection of dwellings for persons employed by him for the purposes of his trade (other than mining or farming), subject to a maximum of R1 000 per dwelling. In view of the increase in building costs I propose that the maximum deduction per dwelling be increased to R2 500. The loss of revenue for a full financial year is estimated at R2 million, but for 1975-76 it should not exceed R0,5 million.

Apart from the adjustment of deductions, etc., there are certain other concessions which seem to me to be desirable.

Bonuses for National Servicemen

A national serviceman who undergoes training for 18 or 24 months may receive a bonus at the end of his training ranging from R750 to R3 000. It seems a little unfair that the entire bonus, which is intended to give some recognition for the extended period of training, should all be taxed in the year in which, it is received. I propose, therefore, that for tax purposes the bonus should be deemed to be spread over the whole period of training and taxed accordingly. The loss of revenue will be small.

Purchase of Land under the Bantu Trust and Land Act

Farmers whose land is purchased by the Bantu Trust in connection with the consolidation of the Bantu homelands and who consequently are forced to sell their stock may find that their taxable incomes, and hence their tax liability, are abnormally increased in the year of sale. The same applies when there are growing plantations on the land. This abnormal tax burden may hamper farmers in recommencing their farming operations elsewhere.

I think it would be fair if such an abnormal accrual of income arising from the sale of a farm under the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 be not included in the ordinary taxable income of the fanner (which would have the effect of increasing his rate of tax) but be taxed separately at a reduced rate. The loss of revenue should not exceed R0,3 million in 1975-’76.

Investment Allowances

I come now to some important concessions designed to encourage investment, which is so essential for our economic future.

There has been much discussion lately of the effects of inflation, under traditional accounting methods, on business profits and in particular on the ability of businesses to set aside sufficient funds to replace capital assets. It is argued that depreciation allowances based on historical costs are insufficient, at a time of rapid inflation, to make adequate provision for such replacement and in effect result in the over-statement of business profits.

More generally, there has been an interesting debate in accounting circles on the effects of inflation on business accounts and on methods of so-called “inflation accounting”. It should be noted that inflation affects both sides of the profit and loss account and balance sheet and that, in some cases, the effect of the application of “inflation accounting” is to increase, rather than decrease, business profits.

It would appear, however, that there is no unanimity as yet in the accounting profession on the appropriate methods to be applied, and that it would not yet be practicable to introduce “inflation accounting” generally for the purpose of determining the taxable incomes of business enterprises—nor, for that matter, the rate of return on capital invested.

I have asked the Standing Commission on Taxation to go into this whole matter, which obviously requires further investigation and consideration.

Meanwhile, I think it is desirable to give some assistance to business enterprises in making more adequate provision for the replacement of capital assets. The investment allowances already, in effect, make some considerable contribution to meeting increased replacement costs. These allowances amount to 15% on factory buildings and 25% on machinery in the metropolitan areas, and may be increased to 40% and 60% respectively in the economic development areas. I now propose that all these allowances be increased by 5%. This means that a manufacturer will now be permitted to write off, over the lifetime of the asset, 120% of the cost of a factory building and 130% of the cost of machinery, and in the economic development areas these percentages may be increased to 145% and 165% respectively.

It does not seem to be sufficiently realized that the investment allowances, initial allowances and wear-and-tear allowances together make it possible for a manufacturer to write off, in the year of acquisition, a very high percentage of the cost of new machinery and plant. In the case of a machine which is intensively used and on which an annual wear-and-tear allowance of 25% is permitted, altogether no less than 74% of the cost may be deducted from taxable income in the first year of use and, in the economic development areas, an even higher percentage.

The increased allowances will apply to buildings, the erection of which, is commenced, and to machinery and plant taken into use, on or after 27 March 1975. At present the allowances expire on 30 June 1978, and I propose that this date be extended to 30 June 1979.

The eventual cost of this concession to the Exchequer is estimated at R11 million per annum, but for 1975-’76 the loss of revenue should not exceed R1,5 million.

Beneficiation of Minerals

The Economic Advisory Council recently transmitted to the Government a number of recommendations designed to provide special additional incentives for the local beneficiation of minerals. South Africa is exceptionally rich in mineral resources, and greater local beneficiation of these minerals can undoubtedly make an important contribution to our future economic development and balance of payments. The Government has accepted the recommendations, which, will initially be implemented for five years with the possibility of extension thereafter.

The various incentives will be granted selectively on the recommendation, in each individual case, of an inter-departmental committee. The tax incentives proposed are—

1. (a) an investment allowance up to a maximum of 20% of the cost of machinery and 15% of the cost of buildings in a beneficiation plant not connected with a mining company. This will be additional to the general investment allowance granted to all manufacturers; and
2. (b) a similar investment allowance in respect of the beneficiation plant of a mining company where the company undertakes advanced beneficiation. This will be additional to the 100% write-off of capital expenditure already granted to such mining companies.

Furthermore, these allowances will be granted over and above any tax concessions which may be accorded under the decentralization scheme.

The allowances will apply to new machinery taken into use, and to buildings, the erection of which is commenced, on or after 27 March 1975. The loss of revenue may eventually be considerable, but for 1975-’76 it will probably be small.

Undistributed Profits Tax

The primary purpose of the Undistributed Profits Tax is to ensure that a reasonable proportion of a company’s income is distributed in the form of dividends where it can be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. In the calculation of the tax, allowance is made for the building up of a reasonable reserve by operating companies, while expenditure on plant and machinery is allowed as a deduction in arriving at the distributable income of a company.

Throughout the world company profits are taxed first in the hands of the company and secondly in the hands of shareholders on their dividend receipts. It is a universal problem to ensure a reasonable dividend distribution in order to obtain a fair tax yield from company and shareholder. The Department of Inland Revenue is at present engaged in an in-depth, study of company taxation but this will not be completed for some time.

In these circumstances I cannot at this stage accede to the requests which I have received for the abolition of this tax. In view of the need to assist companies in making adequate provision for the replacement of capital assets and for further capital development, however, I think that certain concessions are now justified. I propose, therefore, that the plough-back allowed on profits other than dividends be increased from 45% to 55%, and that, for public companies only, the plough-back on dividend receipts be increased from 25% to 35%. The first concession will, practically, relieve operating companies from the tax, while the second will give greater flexibility to public financial companies in reinvesting dividend income. A similar concession for private financial companies cannot be granted because of the danger of the use of such companies for tax avoidance.

The direct loss of revenue from these concessions will be small. The indirect loss, i.e. through the non-distribution of a greater percentage of profits, is difficult to estimate, but will in any case be negligible in 1975-’76.

The total sacrifice of revenue from all these tax concessions which I have announced is estimated to amount to R13 million in the next financial year though substantially more than that in a full year.

I come now to my proposals for increased taxation, and I start with certain measures which will not directly affect the State’s finances.

Customs and Excise Duties on Petroleum Products

Last December, in my previous capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs, it was my privilege to announce the Government’s decision to proceed with the construction of a second and much larger oil-from-coal project, known as SASOL II. I do not need to emphasize again the strategic importance of this project and the contribution which it can make towards ensuring the security of South. Africa.

The cost of the project at 1974 prices is estimated at R1 021 million. In view of the many other calls on our capital resources, it is not possible to meet this cost solely from loan funds, and I think it is fair that the user of petroleum products should make a major contribution to this project.

The present petrol price includes a non-statutory levy of 0,275 cents per litre. I propose that this levy be abolished and that the present customs and excise duties on petrol be increased by 2 cents per litre. Increases of duty will also be imposed on other petroleum products.

The proceeds from these increases will accrue to the Strategic Oil Fund and legislation in this connection will be introduced shortly by my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs. Other strategic oil projects, including the oil stockpiling programme, may also be financed from this Fund.

The escalating costs of road construction coupled with the effects of the various measures taken to conserve petrol have created serious problems for the National Roads Fund, which relies for its revenue on a portion of the duty on motor fuel. Despite a substantial pruning of the national roads programme, some additional financial assistance is essential. I therefore propose that the relevant duties be increased by 0,25 cents per litre, and that the proceeds of this increase be paid over to the National Roads Fund.

The combined effect of these proposals will be an increase of 2,25 cents per litre in the customs and excise duties on petrol, kerosene, diesel oil and residual fuel oil in cases where the full duty is now paid. In the case of kerosene, diesel oil and residual fuel oil which is at present subject to a partial rebate of duty (except where used for agricultural or forestry purposes or for public passenger bus transport services), I propose that the duty be increased by one cent per litre. In addition, I propose that an excise duty of 3,7 cents per kilogram be levied on liquid petroleum gas with a corresponding increase in the customs duty. Provision will be made for a rebate of this duty for Government use, but no other rebates are contemplated.

The effect of these proposals will be an increase of 1,975 cents per litre in the price of petrol, even after this increase, the price in South Africa will still be very substantially lower than that in many other countries including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote my remarks when I announced the Government’s decision to proceed with SASOL II. I said then—

The additional revenue from all these increased duties on petroleum products is estimated at R130 million in 1975-’76, of which R13 million will accrue to the National Roads Fund and R117 million to the Strategic Oil Fund.

Other Customs and Excise Duties

I still have to find some additional revenue for the Exchequer, and in present circumstances I think that it is appropriate to look to the duties on liquor and tobacco, which have remained substantially unchanged (except for a minor adjustment in the duty on cigarettes) since 1971.

Beer

The consumption of beer has increased considerably in recent years, and I think that this product can bear an increased tax. I propose that the duty on all beer (both imported and local) be increased by 2,4 cents per litre or about 0,9 cents per container of 375 millilitres (or per pint according to imperial measures). The retail price of beer should not rise by more than one cent per container of 375 millilitres, and I shall expect manufacturers, in fixing the increased price of beer in containers of different sizes, to give due consideration to the interests of the consumer. The estimated additional income during 1975-’76 is about R10,8 million.

Wine

Although the consumption of wine has increased more slowly, I feel that the consumer of fortified wine and sparkling wine can also make a contribution. I propose, therefore, that the customs and excise duties on fortified and on sparkling wines be increased by 2,4 cents per litre. The duties on unfortified wine remain unchanged. The additional revenue from this source is estimated at R1,9 million.

Spirits

The consumption of spirits has also shown a notable increase during the past few years, and the consumer of brandy, gin, whisky and other potable spirits must expect to make his contribution along with the consumer of beer and wine. I propose that the customs and excise duties on spirits be increased by 33,6 cents per litre or about 0,9 cents per tot. The retail price of local and imported spirits should not rise by more than one cent per tot. The additional revenue is estimated at R27 million.

Tobacco

I think it is fair that the smoker should also make his contribution, and I propose that the stamp duty on local and imported cigarettes be increased by one cent per ten cigarettes, that on cigarette tobacco by one cent per 50 grammes and that on cigars (both local and imported) by ten cents per kilogram. The consumption of pipe tobacco has not increased to the same extent as the other products and the duty on pipe tobacco will therefore remain unchanged. The additional revenue from this source in 1975-’76 is estimated at R22,2 million.

Cool Drinks

A rebate of the full duty is at present granted where at least 5 % of the cool drink consists of the juice of certain fruits and vegetables. In order to eliminate the cost of treating and mixing these juices and in order to grant exemption from the duty to manufacturers of pure juices, that is, those which consist, to an extent of at least 70%, of the juice of certain fruits and vegetables, I propose that an effective duty of 0,7 cents per litre be imposed on non-alcoholic beverages (undiluted or diluted with water, including carbonated water). This increase, which should not give rise to any increase in the retail price, will be implemented by means of a Government Notice to be published tomorrow. The estimated additional revenue from this source is R4 million.

All the increases in customs and excise duties, as well as the new excise duty on liquid petroleum gas, which I have announced, take effect immediately and apply to all the goods concerned that have not yet been cleared for domestic consumption.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of section 58(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I now lay upon the Table for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals with regard to customs and excise duties.

Since all the increased duties are levied at the point of import or manufacture, there is no justification for other merchants to increase immediately the prices of goods purchased at the old rates of duty. I therefore rely on such merchants to sell at the current ruling prices those stocks on which duty at the old rate was paid, and to adjust their prices only when new stocks, bearing the increased duties, are received. I fully expect that the retail prices of all goods affected by these proposals will not be raised by more than is strictly justified by the increased duties.

Cigarette prices are subject to price control, and merchants may not increase their prices without the consent of the Price Controller.

The increased customs and excise duties should yield altogether R66 million to the Revenue Account, which will then show a surplus of R21 million.

As our problems are largely concerned with the Loan Account, I think some additional financing for that Account is justified.

Loan Levies

During the financial year 1975-’76 the 1969 loan levy will be repaid; this amounts to R75 million, of which R26 million will accrue to companies.

Even when allowance is made for the effects of inflation, companies have had a very good year. In 1973-74 the index of profits in commerce rose by 51,4%, in manufacturing by 44,0%, in gold mining by 84,3% and in coal mining by 34,9%. Where our rate of company tax is lower than that in most comparable countries, I think an increase in the loan levy on companies is justified. I therefore propose that this levy be increased by 2,5% of company income tax in respect of all companies other than diamond mining companies (which already pay a higher levy than other companies). For companies other than gold and diamond mining companies, the tax plus surcharge will now be 41% and the loan levy 2% of income.

The additional levy is expected to yield R48 million in 1975-’76.

Summary

As I have already mentioned, the Revenue Account, after the various tax changes, is expected to show a surplus of R21 million.

The shortfall of R322 million on Loan Account can then be financed as follows:

The Stabilization Account, which at present stands at about R425 million, will therefore be reduced to a level of just under R400 million.

As is customary, a summary of the Government’s accounts on the conventional and on the cash basis is subjoined here in the printed version of the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, the priorities of this Budget are clear: they are, firstly, defence, and secondly, the provision of an adequate economic infrastructure.

It would have been possible for the Government to have neglected its duty in these respects, and to have budgeted for a much lower level of expenditure. But this would have been irresponsible, and the country would in time have paid the price of this neglect.

In giving priority to expenditure on defence and on economic infrastructure, the Government has been strict in its attitude towards other forms of expenditure. This is illustrated by the fact that, if expenditure on defence, on railways and harbours, and on telecommunications is excluded (and there are, of course, many other items of infrastructure in the budget), then total expenditure on Revenue and Loan Account shows an increase of only 13%, which, in relation to the growth rate of the economy and the rate of inflation, is very low indeed.

I should like to refer here to one other important aspect of the economic infrastructure, namely, urban transport facilities. This has been the subject of a special inquiry by a Committee, under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Transport, Mr. J. Driessen. This Committee has submitted its report, which is at present being examined in detail by the Government. My colleague the Minister of Transport will make a further announcement in due course.

In the light of my conclusion that the economic situation justifies a moderately expansionary budget, I believe that the burden of increased expenditure has been fairly spread.

The individual taxpayer will pay slightly more for his liquor and cigarettes, but he will receive a substantial amount back in the form of loan levy repayments.

The user of petroleum products will pay more, as an insurance premium to safeguard our future oil supplies and to improve our national road system.

The company will pay, as loan levy, 1% more on its income, but will get back a substantial amount as repayment of old levies, and will also receive important tax concessions in respect of investment allowances and undistributed profits tax.

The Budget also provides relief, in the form of higher social pensions and income tax concessions, to older people who are often least able to cope with the burden of inflation.

As I explained earlier, inflation under present circumstances must be combated, not by a restrictive fiscal and monetary policy, but by other means such as those outlined in the recent statement by the hon. the Prime Minister—in particular, by the exercise of restraint by manufacturers, traders, employees and consumers.

While certainly not restrictive, the Budget is also not unduly expansionary, as is shown by the fact that only a relatively small drawing on the Stabilization Account is envisaged.

In concluding, may I re-iterate my own and this Government’s abiding faith in the system of private enterprise. “You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence”, said Abraham Lincoln, one of the most realistic, as well as human, of all successful democratic statesmen.

It was Abraham Lincoln, too, who said “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich; you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift; you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.” And, finally, in the direct context of budgetting, “You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.”

I cannot express my own basic philosophy in these matters better than that Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from—

1. (a) Revenue Account [R.P. 2—’75];
2. (b) Loan Account [R.P. 3—’75]; and
3. (c) South West Africa Account [R.P. 4—’75]

during the year ending 31 March 1976;

1. (2) Estimate of Revenue for the financial year ending 31 March 1976 [R.P. 5—’75];
2. (3) Statistical Survey [W.P. B—’75];
3. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1974-’75 and 1975-’76; and
4. (5) Taxation proposals [A. 1—’75].

REVENUE 1974–’75

R1 000

REVENUE 1975–’76

(On existing basis of taxation)

R1 000

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House had hoped that the change of scenery which we have had this afternoon behind the Budget lectern would have been accompanied by a breath of fresh air, new thinking and new initiative. Sir, we were probably hoping for too much in that regard. Where this Budget has brought joy, it has done so in very small measure and where it has brought hurt, it has brought acute hurt.

I believe one has to look at the economy of South Africa with a much more critical eye than the hon. Minister did this afternoon in his review. I believe that this hon. Minister has assumed his post at a time when the South African economy is faced by situations of a more critical nature than it probably ever has been faced with since the depression of the early 1930’s. I think that to view the present situation with any sense of complacency is a grave mistake and I did, in fact, discern a sense of complacency in the remarks made by the hon. the Minister. I do not believe that one can be complacent when inflation is running at the rate of about 15%. It is running at a rate higher than we have had for more than 50 years, higher than anything we have had since the galloping inflation that followed the First World War. We cannot be complacent when inflation is eating away at the very fabric of the economy and when there is a danger that it is eating away also at the very fabric of society.

We cannot be complacent when we have a growth rate which is likely to be only about 3½% this year. This makes an absolute mockery of the growth rate estimated in the Economic Development Programme of 6,4%. It is scarcely enough to cover the growth in our population, which means that at the growth rate envisaged for the coming year, we are unlikely to see anything more than absolutely negligible improvement in the standard of living. I find it difficult to understand the hon. the Minister’s remark in his Budget speech that the growth rate will be relatively high. What will the growth rate be relative to? Will it be relatively high in relation to the negative growth rate other countries are experiencing? It is certainly not going to be relatively high with regard to the real requirements of our country. Can we be complacent when our main trading partners, the United Kingdom, the European Common Market, Japan and the USA all have economies which are in recession at the present time, having problems that are even greater than our own? This is going to have an effect on our exports, particularly our exports of primary products which must be regarded as being subject to a certain degree of vulnerability. Finally, can we be complacent when we are part and parcel of an international financial and currency situation which can only be regarded as highly unstable, a situation which causes business difficulties, governmental difficulties and which is a great destroyer of confidence?

I suggest that all these are critical problems facing this country. We are fortunate in having a certain counterbalance with us in that this is a country which is handsomely endowed with natural resources, such as gold, which can be used and developed to neutralize and combat and, I hope, in due course, overcome the problems to which I have referred. At the present time, however, we cannot escape the fact that we are facing these problems and that they need attention at Government level.

The 64 000 dollar question is whether the fiscal measures announced in this Budget will be effective in helping to solve these problems. This is the yardstick by which this Budget must be judged and by which it will be judged by this side of the House and, I think, by the country as a whole. In his speech, the hon. the Minister indicated that his priorities were, firstly, defence and, secondly, the provision of an adequate infrastructure. I would like to add three other priorities which are necessary in the present situation. We also need growth, real growth. I regard the need for real growth just as great as the need to fight inflation, something which the hon. the Minister did not seem to realize. We also need to reduce the rate of inflation as a further priority and we need to alleviate the hardships caused by inflation, particularly to those members of the population who are not in a position to cope with them themselves.

We on this side of the House will examine the Budget in the light of those needs, those priorities. My first impression of this Budget is that it does not go as very far as it needs to go towards solving those problems or providing for those priorities.

There are certain other first impressions one gains from this Budget. For instance we do welcome the fact that social pensions have been improved. I hope the hon. the Minister’s statement that the gap between the social pensions of White and Coloured groups is to be reduced, means in effect that the increase in absolute terms the other race groups, the Coloureds and the Africans, will get, will be greater than that granted to the Whites. We welcome some of the crumbs which have fallen from the hon. the Minister’s table. We welcome the small concessions made to the aged and we welcome the small concessions made to married women. I might say that this is hardly women’s lib treatment in Women’s Year. We welcome the increase in investment allowances and in the allowances under the undistributed profits tax. These will help in a small way to meet a very real problem in respect of the financing the replacement of plants at enhanced values. It will help companies and businesses to meet their liquidity problems which they are facing as a result of inflation.

There is one thing in this Budget we do not welcome—the increased excise duty on petrol. This imposition is highly inflationary. Petrol is something that is used directly or indirectly by every single member of the population, so that an increase of this magnitude in the price of petrol permeates right throughout the economy and will have a cascading inflationary effect. The motorist is already paying a tremendous amount to the Government. He pays more than R70 million in ordinary excise duty; he pays something more than that to the National Roads Fund. He pays enormous sums if he lives in the Transvaal or the Orange Free State to the Railways for petrol conveyed by railways or by pipeline. He pays sales duty and he pays licence fees. We are not in favour of raising funds for capital works out of revenue to the extent to which this Government does so. We have made our position clear on numerous occasions with regard to the Franzsen Commission’s recommendation in this regard. The second Sasol should be financed in the same way as the first Sasol, namely primarily out of loan funds. By financing it in this way, we are placing an unnecessary and severe additional inflationary imposition on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget clearly needs a great deal of study by us before we can really debate it in full, and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned last night, I was trying to emphasize that the Government was using basically two motivations for the introduction of this Bill. The first one which I mentioned was the argument that in fact this Bill could be justified because we have a similar provision in the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963. The second motivation is one of a practical nature; the hon. the Minister himself referred to this in his Second Reading speech, namely that if this particular Bill is not accepted certain administrative problems will arise with regard to the Coloured population as a whole; in other words, they will not be able to receive pensions, salaries, etc. Sir, the question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Assuming that there is this practical difficulty, why is a measure of such a far-reaching nature necessary to cope with a practical difficulty? Is there not a host of other contingent measures that could have been adopted to cope with the problem of administering money? Why is a Bill of such, Draconian proportions necessary? The provisions of this Bill cover a far wider field than is necessary simply to cope with this particular administrative problem. Sir, I refer again to the kind of language that hon. members on that side use when referring to the Coloured people —the language of paternalism. There are many ways of disciplining a child. One can just warn a child; one can perhaps send him to his room or make him do some homework, or give him a hiding with a cane. Having regard to the particular problem with which the hon. the Minister has to cope, why is it necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature to cope with what is simply an administrative problem?

I want to conclude by returning to what I regard as one of the most remarkable phenomena in our political life, the hon. member for Waterberg, who has the ability to conjure up a political dream world and not only to sell it to the hon. members of this House, but in fact to create the impression that he lives in that world himself and that he spends most of his time cleaning the windows of the castle in which he lives. The hon. member for Waterberg used a host of paradoxes yesterday in trying to justify this Bill. One of them was that in fact the White people of South Africa would govern themselves in this particular institution and that this Government would create institutions by means of which the other ethnic groups in South Africa could govern themselves independently. But the paradox is that in fact, in spite of the coming about of those institutions, the major decisions affecting the lives of everybody in South Africa are still taken in this institution. This is also true as far as the Coloured population is concerned. With the introduction of this Bill we have a classic example of political institutions being created which have no effective power. What will the consequence be? The consequence will be exactly what we are seeing at the moment—that the only purpose which these institutions can serve for the people who have access to them is simply to be used as platforms on which to confront the Government which takes all the most important decisions governing their lives That is another way of saying in the technical sense that you create platforms for demagoguery. There is no other way in which this particular programme can develop. I would say that the only way to cope with this problem, to avoid confrontation, would be in fact to decentralize power, to give more powers to these institutions. Assuming that one is working within the framework of the Government’s policy of political paternalism, one can say: “If this is our policy, then it would seem logical, in terms of our own assumption, that the only way in which we can cope with the problem of confrontation is in fact to decentralize power and to give more powers to these institutions”. What we have with the introduction of this Rill is, of course, exactly the opposite. Powers are taken away, whereas the illusion is still preserved that in fact one has a political institution that is viable. If it were viable, surely this institution would not be boycotted by the Coloured people. If it could effectively change their lives, if it could create greater employment opportunities, if it could create more educational opportunities and if it could be a more effective bargaining instrument then the last thing the Coloured people would do through their elected representatives would be to boycott this institution. It would then not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to introduce a Bill of such Draconian proportions in order to cope with an administrative problem which in very real terms affects only a very small section of the Coloured population and not the vast majority of them. Admittedly it is a serious problem, the problem of salaries and pensions, but it affects a very small section of the Coloured population and they cannot see the relevance of this particular institution, the Coloured Representative Council, in their lives. They are prepared to say: We will put representatives there who will confront the Government because this institution does not serve any purpose. That is why I think that at this particular stage it is a great pity from all points of view that instead of implementing its own policy by giving more power and indicating which powers the Minister will not take away, the Government in fact introduces a Bill which states: We will take all the powers that we want if the occasion arises which makes it necessary to do so. That is why, in terms of the Government’s own philosophy, they are admitting defeat by introducing this measure.

The hon. member for Rondebosch had much to say in his speech about the idiom of this side of the House, which is allegedly paternalistic. He spoke of political paternalism. The hon. member went further by not only characterizing our policy as guardianship and political paternalism, but also stating as his major objection that we want to perpetuate this guardianship, this paternalism. Guardianship, so I deduced from the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch, in certain circumstances and in the short term, could still perhaps do. The objection of that hon. member is that we want to make guardianship permanent and that we want to perpetuate our paternalism. What the hon. member actually means by that, is that we on this side of the House are dishonest in our policy, that we speak of the emancipation of the Coloureds in the political field, of their growth to political maturity and majority while what we actually want to do—so the hon. member said—is to expand and intensify our paternalism over these people. That is typical of the one-sided interpretation of the National Party’s policy in respect of the Coloureds which we have heard in this debate from that side of the House. It is typical of the one-sided interpretation and the accompanying suspicion-mongering which could fatally poison White/ Brown relationships in South Africa. The hon. member for Rondebosch can differ about the method or the way in which we want to bring about the political emancipation of the Coloureds, and he can differ from our policy—that is his right, after all —but he cannot cast doubt on the fact that we are honest in our intention of emancipating the Coloureds politically. The honesty of the hon. the Prime Minister, of the Government in this regard, is above suspicion. However, what is not above suspicion, is the intention of members on the other side of the House with their insinuations. [Interjections.] The hon. members on that side of the House try to promote a climate of distrust which could lead to serious conflict in our delicate situation of relations in South Africa.

The Government recognizes the right of the Coloured population to a say and a share in the control of all the many matters which they have in common with the Whites. “Say” and “share”, that does not sound like paternalism. These are rights which this side of the House do not want to deny the Coloureds. However, the problem is how to give the Coloureds a political share in the control of common matters without running the enormous risk of this growing Brown political power becoming the decisive factor between White poles and parties. A bargaining situation of this kind has the potential to disrupt political stability and order in South Africa fundamentally, with disastrous results for everyone and in particular, for the Brown people as well.

The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke of paternalism and the perpetuation of guardianship. Now I want to ask him in this particular context what the position is with their policy of qualified franchise. The hon. member is shaking his head, but is it not the most extreme form of paternalism to say to the vast majority of the Coloured population, “Sorry friends, but we, the ‘Pater’, the White party, say that you are too immature to vote at all. You do not qualify …”

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now.

If I return to the legislation now, then this brings me to the very one-sided and almost unbelievably mischievous utterances which we have heard from that side of the House. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke yesterday of political fraud. They want to create a distorted image among the Coloureds, that the Government envisages stripping the executive committee and the CRC of all its powers even before the Labour Party has been given the opportunity to govern. The hon. member for Sea Point said in the speech he made when the Bill was introduced—

The Opposition are playing a dangerous game. With such one-sided interpretations and misinterpretations, they are inciting and rousing many Brown people to something which will not be to the benefit of Brown or White in South Africa. They are sowing distrust and suspicion of the Government among the Brown people in a dubious and irresponsible way.

There is no need to sow it. They know it already.

They are creating this climate purely for the sake of politicking. This climate could provoke two dangerous reactions. Among Brown people, it could inspire an irresponsible resistance and agitation which could lead to their confronting the Whites with blind demands and even with violence. Among White people, it could lead to an inaccessibility and a heartlessness, even towards the justified aspirations which exist among the Brown people. This is an attitude which is certainly not beneficial to White/Brown relations. It is futile, it creates mistrust and destroys the possibility of open discussion. This is the climate which hon. members on the opposite side are trying to create. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday: “This is a return to naked baas-skap.” The hon. member for Bryanston said at the introduction of the Bill—

Agitators!

It is this type of utterance which causes feelings …

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal must withdraw the word “agitators”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

It is this type of statement which could stir up the feelings of White and Brown to a point of high tension. Brown people could feel themselves to be encouraged by this to a relentlessness which could lead to irresponsible actions. This type of provocative speech could create a climate among the Whites where the affection—let us admit that there is a great deal of affection towards the Coloureds among the Whites— could change into disaffection and into a hardening of hearts. If this should happen, and may we in South Africa be spared that, many Whites, too, will be observed in the row of people who consciously or unconsciously brought about such a bloody day. There will be those Whites who have through their heartlessness injured and trod upon the dignity of God’s Brown creations in South Africa, and who have lived as though they thought that South Africa belongs only to them, while the Brown people should not be granted any place in the sun in this lovely country. They will be there. But, in the front of that row there will be members of the Opposition party and, I suspect, members of the Progressive Party as well, people who are frustrated by their own political inability, and who therefore help with relish to stoke the fires of suspicion and distrust among Brown people, and who are in fact contributing in this way to the creation of a relentlessness and inaccessibility on the part of many Whites.

I do not believe that this is the spirit in which this legislation should be approached. As far as this legislation is concerned, it is the height of political irony that there are hon. members on the opposite side of the House who do not even have sufficient White support to be called politically relevant. I am referring to the Reform Party that presumes to prescribe Coloured policy to this House. Those hon. members represent such a small number of voteres that they can rightly be called politically irrelvant. They did not even get into this House under their own steam. They want to prescribe policy to this House without having a mandate from a single constituency. The hon. leader of the Reform Party, according to a report in Monday’s Transvaler, immediately went to consult important leaders of the Coloured community, which I do not hold against him. Immediately after that, however, that hon. member, who obviously has a mania for publicity, issued a statement. I think we can tell that hon. member and his party that the Coloureds have their own elected leaders and that White political intermediaries are altogether superfluous. The Coloureds do not need advice from people who cannot even advise themselves.

This Bill does not have the mysterious and sinister intentions which members on the opposite side of this House would like to look for in it. It is, as was said repeatedly yesterday, merely a practical measure which is aimed at guaranteeing administrative continuity and stability in all circumstances. As far as White/Brown political relations are concerned, we are heading for stormy waters. When I say that we are heading for stormy waters, hon. members must not think that it is pessimism or cynicism which makes me say this: it is purely and simply realism. After all, political storms are peculiar to all politics. In such circumstances many political vessels threaten to go under. I think that the United Party is a very good example of a political vessel which has run upon the rocks. Also as far as White/Brown politics are concerned, we are heading for difficult, stormy weather. The political vessel which we on this side of the House think is most suitable for weathering those storms, is the policy which the Government is presently developing in respect of the Coloureds, viz. the policy of parallel political structures with a growing number of points of contact at different levels in order to ensure a say and a share in the control of common matters and to decide on common matters at the highest level through a joint Cabinet council.

This measure is a practical measure to ensure that political tension and resistance do not interrupt the essential administrative continuity. This contains an assurance for the Brown people in particular that the process on which, so many thousands of them are dependent for their livelihood, will not be sabotaged. This Government is the body and will also remain the body, also in the process by which powers are transferred to other population groups, which is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of continuity for the sake of everyone in South Africa. After all, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, we are also in a transitional phase, and this measure is necessary to serve as a prop for the evolutionary emancipation of the Coloureds in the field of politics. Therefore this Bill does not have the least intention of taking over the functions of the Executive of the CRC in any permanent way. Since we find ourselves in a transitional phase, this measure as such must also be seen as a part of the whole in that process. The hon. member for Rondebosch, who is not here at the moment, sat together with me on the benches of the theological seminary at Stellenbosch, but he has obviously forgotten the first principle of good exegisis, viz. that the text must be read in the context of the whole. This measure must also be understood in the context of the whole of the process of our policy in respect of the Coloureds.

Order! The hon. member must also return to the text of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this very text, this very Bill, must be read in the context of the whole. If we do what the hon. members on the opposite side have tried to do, i.e. to take this Bill out of the context of the whole, then it has a negative undertone and it may seem to be nothing but a negative measure. Surely it is only fair to point out that apparently negative measures can have a positive and constructive intention.

Is that so?

Of course. Hon. members on the opposite side shake their heads, but the hon. members of the Progressive Party, for example, would argue that their qualified franchise, which is, after all, a negative measure since it will result in very many people in South Africa not being able to vote at all, does not have a negative intention. Incidentally, it is something which members on this side of the House will never do, viz. to deprive people of their franchise. [Interjections.] Many Coloureds who voted in the past election will be deprived of their franchise should that party ever come into power.

Order! Now the hon. member must really confine himself to the Bill.

This Bill might be judged to be negative, but it does have a positive intention just as the Progressive Party will argue in respect of qualified franchise that it has a positive intention in respect of the context of the whole, that such an apparently negative measure has a positive and constructive function in the context of the whole. In the same way this side of the House can argue that our policy in respect of the Coloureds as embodied in this Bill, inter alia, does, on the one hand, have apparently negative moments at times, but does, on the other hand, also have positive and constructive moments. This is as a result of the fact that our problem in South Africa is not singular, but multiple and many-sided, and answers to these complicated multiple problems in South Africa often create the impression that they are riddled with contradictions. However, this only happens when the negative side is emphasized at the expense of the positive, as hon. members on that side of the House have also done in respect of the Bill. The negative aspects are taken out of context and announced to the world with, great fanfare. The National Party policy also has negative elements in respect of the Coloureds, such as this clause, for example, but at the same time it also prepares the way for the positive and the constructive. The negative, such as this Bill, is often the prop and the scaffolding which must support and make possible the positive construction which is to be erected. It might be negative to demolish an old building, but the positive and the constructive is to be found in the fact that the old building will be replaced by a better and a new building. Negative and constructive are often complementary, and the negative will eventually become superfluous and disappear, just as the props and scaffolding disappear when the new building or construction has been completed. This legislation, although it might be judged to be negative out of its context, also has a function, viz. to prepare the positive and constructive. In this regard this Bill actually belongs to the first phase of our policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has often referred to the first phase which has served to prepare the way for the next phases. It is the phase in which the different political groupings had to be accommodated within separate political structures, the phase in which the coalescene which has come about over many years, had to be cut lose often by means of apparently negative measures. However, it was necessary to bring about the positive, i.e. the construction of the peaceful co-existence of different peoples in South Africa. It is precisely due to negative measures, for example, a measure of this nature, that it is possible for us to move into the third phase of the implementation of our policy today. The third phase contains for the Coloureds not only a say and a share …

Order! On an occasion such as this we cannot join the hon. member in the third phase.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation, judged to be a negative measure in general, does also have a positive function and therefore also offers the Coloureds a greater vista, a greater political vista, a greater political power basis and a bargaining power than it would ever have had in equal competition with the Whites within the White Parliament. But to realize these possibilities and to develop them, order and responsibility have to be ensured. In order to ensure these, this Bill has been introduced and I support it sincerely.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused this side of the House of being responsible for the degree of mistrust and suspicion which exists among the Coloured people. However, it is this particular legislation and other similar legislation which are giving rise to that suspicion. The hon. member said that he regarded this legislation as a transitional measure. Normally one regards a transitional phase as a step from a lower to a higher level. In other words, there is improvement or progress. However, if we compare this legislation with what already exists, we cannot recognize any step forward. What we can in fact see is that this legislation is a retrogressive step. The hon. member also said that my hon. leader had said: “This is a return to naked ‘baas-skap’.”

†Let me tell him that this is also a return to imperialism in Southern Africa. I should like to deal with that matter later on. For the sake of my argument …

Where is your Union Jack, Dawie?

I am prepared at the outset to concede that the Government is engaged in devising some form of constitutional development in South Africa in order to extend democratic rights and privileges to the non-White population in Southern Africa. I would, therefore, like to believe that the ultimate aim and object of this whole experiment, including what is embodied in this Bill forming as it does an integral part of the experiment, is to strengthen and secure democracy in South Africa. This, I submit, is the simple test which we must apply in our evaluation of this amending Bill. It is a very short Bill containing only three clauses. Clause 2, however, if one takes the trouble to count, consists of 13 lines. That may be very unlucky for some people. We must ask ourselves whether this 13-line clause will, in effect, bring us nearer the objective, which must surely be to secure and strengthen democracy in South Africa. Let me say at once that this clause will take us no nearer to that objective. In fact, it is making a farce of democracy, attacking and discrediting that very principle. In the constitutional development of the non-Whites, this Nationalist Government has followed the example of the great imperial or colonial powers of the past. Judging from the mistakes the Government has made, and is in fact still making with this Bill, I am forced to flatter them by saying that they are really the last imperialists left in Africa. The imperial governments had their colonies as their subordinates. In the South African context in which this Bill is a means of constitutional development, the constitutional subordinates happen to be the non-White population groups. What the Government has succeeded in doing is to thrust upon these subordinates imperialistic constitutional institutions …

Absolute rubbish!

Wait a minute. The CRC is one example. I am not going to refer to the others. There are also the Bantu homeland legislative assemblies, etc. However, the Coloured people and their council, in imperialistic terms or in the imperialistic set-up, find themselves somewhere where the Cape Colony was in the period 1806 to 1872. This is particularly so when we compare the make-up of this council, its constitution, its function, the powers it has and the possible clash that can occur between the executive power and the legislative power. I want immediately to refer to the suggestion of the hon. the Minister that we need not fear this because he is going to move a particular amendment at a later stage which will ensure that the legislative powers are left in the hands of the CRC. However, there is an inevitable clash that must take place. Therefore, we have this close resemblance between the relationships which prevailed in, let us say, the time of the Cape Colony between the Parliament of the Cape Colony, the Governor and the source of power which in those days was the mother country, Great Britain and the particular relationship which applies to the present set-up here. We find now, of course, that the people in whom power is vested are only known by different names. They are in fact performing the same constitutional function. If we accept this amending Bill before us, we will be taking a retrogressive step as far as the constitutional development of the Coloured people is concerned. That is the reason why I am opposed to it. The hon. the Minister is known to us as the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, but once this amending Bill has been passed, the Coloured people will justifiably be able to refer to him as Governor Van der Merwe. In actual fact that will be exactly the constitutional function he will be performing. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he should not be afraid in this regard. We had good governors and we had bad governors. We had a Rijk Tulbagh and we also had a Van Plettenberg. During the British régime we had Sir George Grey but we also had Sir Philip Edmund Woodhouse.

Order! The hon. member must become relevant.

I feel I am particularly relevant, Mr. Speaker, from this point of view. I am trying to prove that as a result of the powers which this hon. Minister wishes to assume, he will find himself in exactly the same trouble in which Sir Philip Edmund Woodhouse found himself when there was a system of government in the Cape Colony which is comparable to the position which will obtain if this amending Bill is passed.

Order! The hon. member must become relevant in the view of the Chair and not in his view.

I was merely making a submission, Sir. In his Second Reading speech on this Bill, the hon. the Minister made it quite clear as did every other hon. member on that side, that what he and they feared was a deadlock on financial matters.

That has been said ten times over.

This does not come as a surprise to me. All the past imperial and colonial powers experienced this particular problem because there was a clash between the body with legislative powers and the body which had to perform the executive functions. That is when you have this particular clash in regard to financial matters. At that particular time the group of people who wanted to improve their democratic position and demanded further democracy, who demanded further progress in respect of their constitutional development—this Bill deals with constitutional development—discovered that there was a lack of co-operation in regard to fiscal and taxation matters. In every case this has been the lever that has been used to demand greater constitutional development. We have had plenty of examples. The best one was the American revolution in which the American people, who were in a stage of development, adopted the slogan, “No taxation without representation”. How did the mother country react to this threat on their part to refuse to pay taxation? The result of this was confrontation which, as we all know, led to revolution and war. Sir, if you look at the history of the development of the Cape, you find that the Cape Colony, like the Coloureds of today, were demanding greater and more effective democratic rights. What did they do?

Order! I cannot allow a resumé of constitutional history.

I will abide by your ruling, Sir. When the people in the Cape Colony could not get what they were demanding, which would have been the next step in their development, they demanded a representative Government. This is what the Coloured people have now been doing; they have given the impression that they will not co-operate with the Government, particularly in respect of fiscal matters, and therefore they are demanding, as the next step in their development, representation in this House. Sir, the hon. the Minister’s choice is quite clear. What has happened before in history is repeating itself here. Whoever is in power has a simple choice to make. You can either consider the views of the people concerned or you can adopt an autocratic attitude towards them. I am afraid. Sir, that the approach revealed in this Bill can only be described as an autocratic approach to this particular problem. Just as we had autocratic governors in the past, so this Bill will in fact create an autocratic Minister fulfilling the functions of this council. Sir, If you want to extend democratic and political rights and strengthen democracy, then the last thing you must do is to take a retrogressive step of this nature, and you must never make a farce of democracy. In a democracy the power of the ballot-box should at all times be paramount. If the ballot-box means nothing, then of course democracy is a farce. In 1969 democracy was discredited when a group of people, using the tools of democracy, in other words, using the ballot-box, achieved victory in the election, but before they could assume power …

Order! I must reiterate my ruling. Under no circumstances will I allow a general policy discussion or a summary of the history of Coloured representation in this House or in other institutions.

I will abide by your ruling, Sir. Sir, what do we find when we look at the provisions of clause 2? During this last week, a group of people were given the tools of democracy; in other words, they were given the right to vote. They used the ballot-box because they believed that by using the ballot-box they would achieve power. But what is happening now? The whole system of democracy is being discredited because while they thought that they were going to achieve power, the hon. the Minister comes along with this Bill and takes that power away. I believe that this is one of the most dangerous steps that could possibly have been taken, especially in view of the tremendous importance that we all attach to the efforts to achieve détente. This is a complete negation of détente, especially as far as the constitutional development of the Coloureds is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, an observation I would like to make at the outset is in regard to the seriousness with which the Government has approached this Bill in this House. You know, Sir, that during the course of the discussion of this Bill, contributions from the Nationalist Government side was left to a number of backbenchers.

And what are you?

And up to today it has been left to the verkrampte backbenchers to deal with this Bill. Furthermore, during the course of the discussion of this Bill, hardly a single Cabinet Minister was present in the House. The point I should like to make is that observers from the Coloured Representative Council were listening to the discussions in this House whilst this Bill was before the House.

Order! Hon. members may not refer to visitors in the public galleries.

Then may I put it this way, that I think it is most unfortunate, when a Bill as grave and serious as this Bill is in its implications for South Africa, in particular for the Coloured people of South Africa, is being discussed in the House, South Africa should observe that the Nationalist Government is in fact not taking this very seriously, and I deduce that from the fact that whilst the backbenchers were left to play political football with this very important matter for South Africa, Cabinet Ministers and frontbenchers were not present.

Order! The hon. member must become relevant now.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am too busy. Sir, I believe that this particular Bill at this particular time in the history of South Africa and of the Coloured people in fact presented the Government with a fantastic opportunity to take positive action to improve race relations in South Africa. But the Government did not have the insight or the imagination to utilize that opportunity to do a good job of work for South Africa. What happened instead? Before the results of the CRC election were known, the Government, in an atmosphere of panic, rushed into this House with a Bill in order to change in a radical way the rights and the functions of that council and to provide it with other rights and other functions.

That is tedious repetition.

Just look at some of the arguments that came from the opposite side of the House in support of their attitude. In the first instance we have had the ludicrous suggestion from the opposite side of the House that it was by coincidence that this Bill was introduced on the date of the election. I should like to say that it was an indication of insensitivity on the part of the Government, insensitivity to the feelings of the Coloured people and insensitivity to their basic rights, to introduce that legislation on that day. Then we have had the situation that it was said that this Bill is merely to have the powers to pay salaries and pensions. Sir, if you look back in Hansard and if you read the debate which took place in 1972 …

This has all been said before.

No, it has not been said before. I should like to read it to you. Sir, if you read the debate that took place in 1972, you will see that Mr. Van Staden said the very same thing, and when the hon. the Minister of Defence spoke the other day and said that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs could not address the House on this Bill, he used exactly the same words. Did the Government not, in the previous legislation, make provision for these specific matters? Was it necessary to bring in further legislation?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled, in terms of your previous ruling, to use that argument again?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The problem is that it is as a result of the Government’s policies that a crisis has arisen in regard to the Coloured people of South Africa, yet every one of the hon. members on the other side wants to blame the Opposition for their problems.

But what is your policy?

Every hon. member on the other side wants to suggest that it is not their action which has resulted in these problems but that the Opposition is to blame. All I can say is that the Opposition is prepared to support the Government and assist it in any positive measures that they are prepared to take in an endeavour to improve the situation. It is, however, our duty, on behalf of South Africa, and particularly because the Coloured people are not represented here in order to look after their own affairs, to speak on behalf of those people and call for positive measures in South Africa. Indeed, it is more than our duty; it is our right. [Interjections.] I believe that their whole attitude and the stance they have taken in this debate are transparent and will bluff neither this House nor the Coloured people. The electorate of South Africa and the outside world will also not be bluffed.

On whose behalf are you speaking? [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that the basic problem and dilemma with the Government is that they always look at South Africa’s problems through ideological blinkers; they are not prepared or capable …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

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

Sir, I am dealing with the Bill. I want to deal with the attitude of the Coloured people to this Bill. I want to say to hon. members on the other side of the House that when one formulates a Bill of this nature, one must attempt to look at the Bill and its provisions through the eyes of the people for whom that Bill is to be passed and not look at it through one’s own ideologically blinkered eyes. Has the Government ever tried to look at this situation from the point of view of the Coloured people? Have they taken any step whatsoever, before or after the introduction of the Bill, to establish what the attitude of the present Coloured executive and of the elected members of the CRC is to this Bill? Of course they have not. They come to this House with the Bill purely in terms of the requirements of their own ideology, totally unwilling to look at it from the point of view of the Coloured people. The Coloured people reject the Bill and they reject it because they see it as part and parcel of a history of raw deals which they have had from the Whites in South Africa, particularly from the Nationalist Government. The Coloured people see the Bill as a demonstration of baasskap; they do not see it as a positive measure passed to assist them in any way.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In debating this matter on the assumption that the Bill is “a demonstration of baasskap”, surely the hon. member is discussing the Coloured policy in general …

Order! The Chair will decide on that.

I am not only supported by hon. members on this side of the House. If one reads the Nationalist Party Press over the past couple of days, one will see that there are people behind that Press who also take up the same attitude. Let us read what appeared in Die Transvaler.

*For the information of the hon. member for Pretoria Central I want to point out that Die Transvaler published a very interesting article the other day. In this article reference is made to the Government and especially to the Department of Coloured Affairs as well as the Federale Volksparty of the Coloureds. The Department of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Minister should listen to this remark (translation)—

Die Transvaler, which is the organ of the Nationalist Party, is making the allegation here that the Government and the Federale Volksparty have disregarded the interests and the approach of the Labour Party. To me this proves that the kind of statement I have just made does not only come from this side of the House.

†In the elections which, have just taken place, the first truly representative Coloured Council was elected in South Africa. For the first time we have a majority in the council which was elected to that House by the Coloureds. It is the first truly representative Coloured Council. The moment that council was elected—I am now talking about the attitude of the Coloured people and their cynicism towards the actions of this Government—as a matter of fact, the day of the election— the Government introduced a Bill in the White Parliament of South Africa …

Order! That argument has been made at least five or six times.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a very good argument and I repeated it in case somebody might not have heard it. [Interjections.] The Coloured people see this Bill as a completely negative, destructive and unacceptable measure. How different would it have been if the Government could include in this Bill meaningful measures to increase the powers of the CRC! How different would it have been had the Government included in this Bill measures by which the Coloureds could have meaningful participation in the real Government of South Africa! In other words, the Government could have made provision for the representation of the Coloured people in this Parliament where the real political power of South Africa lies. How much better would it not have been if the Government had taken some measures in this Bill which would have indicated that they really mean to give the Coloureds sovereignty in South Africa!

Order! That is exactly the same argument as the one which was used by the hon. member for Durban Central.

The hon. member for Durban Central? [Interjections.] I did not hear that argument being used by the hon. member for Durban Central, but if he used it …

No, I did not. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasize the fact that the Government in passing this legislation is not attempting to look at nor is capable of looking at the effect and the influence which this legislation has on the Coloured people of South Africa. I say this because firstly the Government does not consult the Coloureds and secondly because they do not have representation in this House.

Order! The hon. member has used that argument himself quite a few times. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you have against me, but I shall try again.

No, I have nothing against the hon. member. I only wish to help him.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker I am always very grateful for any assistance I receive. I think that there is a conspiracy against me.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has alleged that there is a conspiracy against him. Is the hon. member entitled to accuse his colleagues in this House of being involved in a conspiracy? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member also cast a reflection on the Chair by making this allegation.

That is not how I understood that argument. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, the hon. member said that it would seem to him as if there was a conspiracy against him. Those were his words. Is it in order to say so?

Order! Did the hon. member say so?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I meant it in a humorous way. [Interjections.]

That is how I understood it. The hon. member may proceed.

I would like to ask a few very serious questions with regard to the effect that this legislation is going to have on the attitudes of other groups in South Africa. The effect of this legislation is not confined only to the Coloured people. The effect of this legislation goes much further. It also affects the Indian and Bantu people in South Africa. The question which may well be asked by all other groups in South Africa who face the same predicament under the Nationalist Government’s policy, is whether this Government can be expected to take action before dialogue has taken place between a group and the Government? Whether the Government is going to take precipitate action in the future in the constitutional development of other peoples in South Africa and whether they are going to take such actions, without discussing the intended action with them before the action is taken. If that should be the case, it would be a shocking situation and I believe that it is a question which all the other race groups in South Africa are going to ask themselves. Will this Government take action which affects their constitutional future and which affects their rights and privileges without discussing it with them before that action is taken?

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

I am speaking not only to the Bill, but I am speaking to the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I am aware of the amendment. [Interjections.]

The amendment reads that the Bill is a blow to good race relations in South Africa and is a threat to South Africa’s image in the outside world. I would say that it is a fairly wide amendment and that it may allow me to look at the Bill and its effects on the other race groups in South Africa.

No, the hon. member cannot discuss the amendment. The hon. member can only discuss the Bill as we have it before us here and that refers to certain circumstances under which the hon. the Minister may exercise certain powers.

The second last point that I want to make is in regard to the effect—and I ask this very seriously—that this Bill is going to have on South Africa’s image in the outside world. [Interjections.] I think that it is relevant …

Order! I heard that argument twice yesterday …

But you have not heard the points that I am going to make. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member cannot advance any new arguments, I shall be obliged to ask him to resume his seat.

T will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the appeal will come from everybody in this House who has goodwill towards the Coloured people in South Africa and who hopes to see a solution to the problem …

To accept the Bill.

No, we are totally opposed to the Bill and we have said so on many occasions. It is not necessary to repeat that. Irrespective of the attitude of the Nationalist Government, irrespective of the fact that the Nationalist Government has not yet announced the chairman of the CRC, has not yet informed Mr. Leon that he will be the chairman, irrespective of the fact that Mr. Leon is now the elected leader of the Coloured people in South Africa and still does not have a passport from this Government and he and his people have to suffer that humiliation from day to day, irrespective of all the disadvantages, humiliations and problems which this Government, its Bill and its laws create for the Coloured people, we nevertheless appeal to them to use the CRC in order to advance their reasonable and justified aspirations. I believe that if that happens, the Coloureds will be able in a positive way to advance their rights and their aspirations and that it will be for the general good of South Africa as well. I believe that even the Nationalist Party, with their archaic attitudes to race relations, will not be capable of resisting reasoned pressure and reasoned debate coming from the Coloureds in a body in which they have an elected majority and in which they have a valid right to put those points. So, Mr. Speaker, we say to the Nationalists: Consult with the Coloureds now; consult with them immediately, appoint Mr. Leon as chairman of the CRC and make that announcement immediately, return his passport to him; show him the dignity and the respect that the elected leader of a people should have extended the powers of the CRC and provide for representation of their people in this Parliament. If they do that, they will have gone a long way towards solving the problems in respect of the Coloured people in South Africa. If, however, the Government does not have the imagination or the insight or the sense of responsibility to do that, then they and they alone, as the result of their own actions, must face the dire consequences which will result because of their policies and their actions.

Mr. Speaker, how the hon. member had the courage, after the speech he has just made, to let the word “imagination” pass his lips, is beyond me. The hon. member reproached us because all the Ministers were not here to listen to him and because he had to listen to backbenchers in the course of this debate. I want to tell him that the backbenchers who spoke have been in this House a great deal longer than he has and have a far more stable political history than his. I also want to tell him that the hon. the Minister responsible for this legislation, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister, are in fact here, while his leader, the hon. member for Yeoville, who took part in this debate, is conspicuous by his absence. I may point out, too, that the hon. leader of the party allied to his—the Progressive Party—who took part in the debate, is conspicuous by his absence. The Leader of the Opposition, who took part in the debate, is also conspicuous by his absence. Even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the self-appointed possible candidate for leadership of that party, is conspicuous by his absence. Hon. members should therefore be quiet when it comes to reproaches concerning the absence of other hon. members in this House during this debate. In the course of my speech I shall come back to the few possible arguments which may have filtered through in the course of the hon. member’s speech. The hon. member for Durban Central delivered a long speech on imperialism. He said that by means of this legislation we were now practising imperialism. With a view to the Government’s efforts to lead these people towards self-realization and towards a meaningful right of self-determination, it is inexplicable to us on this side of the House that the Government can be accused of imperialism. And, Sir, that comes from a member from Natal, who should surely be an authority on imperialism.

Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to limit myself in toto to the provisions of this Bill. The valid arguments, apart from the inadmissible attempt made to discuss the Coloured policy of this side of the House, the arguments which are ad idem as regards the Bill before the House, amount, basically, to this; that all the opposition parties accuse us of wanting, by means of this Bill, to render even more inferior a constitutional institution, viz. the CRC, which in their opinion, is already an inferior constitutional institution. I think that that, in a nutshell, is a fair summing up of the valid arguments applicable in regard to this Bill. I want to try and reply to this allegation. I concede at once that the CRC is a constitutional body with limited powers. These limited powers have been laid down in the Act, and have also been mentioned by the hon. member for Rondebosch and, I think, by the hon. member for Durban North as well. However, there is a very great difference between an inferior body and a constitutional body with limited powers. I want to challenge the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member for Durban North, and the hon. member for Durban Central, to go and tell the City Council members in their constituencies, that city councils are inferior constitutional bodies, even though they have limited powers, or that the city councillors are inferior because they are prepared to serve in such bodies. The de facto and de jure situation of the CRC is that it is a constitutional body with limited powers. The Minister has certain control functions, in that legislation has to be approved by him. That is laid down in the Act. He also had certain powers under that section in the Act which is being replaced by means of this Bill. He has now come to this Parliament and stated that these powers, in the section which we now want to replace by means of this Bill, are not adequate to deal effectively with the situation which may arise and which we wanted to prevent by means of this very section. He therefore envisages an improvement to subsection (A), which has already been debated in this House. To say now that this clause withdraws powers from the CRC, is to lose contact entirely with the factual situation. We have in the CRC a constitutional body for a specific population group which is progressing towards a goal, as we, in the course of our history, progressed towards a goal. Although there is no direct correlation, I do just want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Durban Central concerning imperialism. When the White nation of South Africa was in the position of having to climb the ladder by means of constitutional bodies with limited powers, it succeeded in doing so. This Government is offering the Coloured community in the CRC the opportunity to develop. The CRC is a political body in the process of evolution. It is a political body that is progressing towards a goal.

What goal?

In the Act itself, provision has been made for the fact that from time to time an extension of the powers of this Council may take place. The Act must be read together with the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of last year, when he offered the CRC the hand of friendship. This Bill effects no change to the powers of the CRC.

Why, then does it change their status?

It changes nothing, because this clause incorporates a suspensive condition. This clause confers no powers on the Minister, unless certain things occur. It is only when a specific event takes place that the Minister may exercise his powers under this Bill. As long as the chairman of the executive or the Council exercises his powers, this Bill is a dead letter and is of no force and effect. The elements of refusal and omission must first be present before the Minister may step in and make this Bill applicable. Therefore, the allegation by the hon. member for Yeoville to the effect that the Minister may even act if he is dissatisfied with the way in which the chairman of the executive or the council is exercising his or its powers, is by no means correct. Does the hon. member not understand the provision? There is one key word: “Fail” (Afrikaans: “In gebreke bly”). The chairman of the executive has first to fail, in other words he has to withdraw and state that he will no longer exercise his function, the Council has first to withdraw and state that it will no longer function as a council before the Minister may step in and apply the legislation. Until that happens, their powers are unaffected, and they continue as in the past. Until then the hand of friendship proffered to them by the Prime Minister will still be there.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that we were causing confrontation by means of this Bill, and that the National Party was a party of confrontation. I see no reason for his having said anything of the kind. The powers of the CRC are unaltered. This Bill is only there to provide for a situation that may develop. In that event the Minister must ensure that there will be effective administration of Coloured affairs. This argument has already been advanced and consequently I shall not develop it further or dwell on it. Confrontation has been sought in this debate by hon. members opposite, inter alia by the members of the Reformist Party who offered themselves as advisers of the Coloured leaders. On the one hand, the hon. members of the Reformist Party and the Progressive Party state that this election has given the Coloured leaders a mandate, but on the other hand, they do not trust those Coloured leaders and they consider it their duty to interfere with, what the Coloured leaders do with that mandate. The mandate of 19 March 1975 was not a mandate to the Progressive Party nor was it a mandate to the Reformist Party. It was a mandate given by the Coloured voters to their own leaders.

This is an innocuous Bill that was well-meant, one that only provides for the prevention of chaos in the event of a specific situation arising, and which seeks to ensure that in a time of crisis, which has by no means arisen yet, there will be order and proper administration of the country. There is no confrontation inherent in such a Bill. However, confrontation is, in fact, inherent in the political smoke screen we have had from that side of the House.

I want to conclude by saying that it is the task of the State—and we are in control at the present moment—to maintain law and order in this country. This primary task also implies orderly administration at all levels and at all times, if we had not come to light with this Bill, we should have failed to carry out this task.

Mr. Speaker, to enter into a debate of this kind at this stage with all the restrictions placed upon one and with the baying of voices on one’s left, is very much like Daniel going into the lion’s den. Because there are so many ex-dominies on that side I should perhaps say it is like a lion going into a den of Daniels. I want to try to revert to the seriousness of this debate rather than the kind of entertainment and fun and games we have had to witness this afternoon.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in the no-confidence debate during the previous session about the future of the Coloured people of South Africa, said that the statement he was going to make was probably the most important statement he was going to make. When the hon. the Minister spoke last year, he said amongst other things that he accepted that there was a terrifying responsibility on the shoulders of the Nationalist Party Government. Mr. Speaker, in the early part of this year, before this session opened, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations met with some of the Coloured leadership in our land, and when one reads the history of that encounter and the Press reports and the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister, it is quite clear that he, too, considers the destiny of the Coloured people as being of absolute paramount importance in South Africa. In the no-confidence debate which followed that meeting the hon. the Prime Minister said, amongst other things, in referring to the Coloured people—

Words of wisdom.

Yes, words of wisdom indeed, it would be a great thing if only the actions matched the words. It is against that kind of background that I want to enter into this debate today. We all know the importance of the role of the Coloured people in this country. Their role, their destiny, is such that the caucus of the Nationalist Party has again and again discussed this, and there are obviously different points of view as to the ultimate destiny of the Coloured people. That is why this Bill itself, which deals with the powers given to the Coloured people up till now, is so absolutely important to this House, to the Coloured people and to this country. This Bill affects 2½ million people; that is why it is so important. It affects more than that; it affects the total population of South Africa, because we are in this boat together. If this boat sinks, we sink with it. If this boat sails into calmer waters, with a better future, it is to the benefit of all of us, and that is why this Bill is of such absolute importance. Therefore, Sir, whatever is contemplated in relation to the Coloured people of South Africa, whatever Bills are introduced, whatever words are spoken, must surely be done with absolute sensitivity because of the times in which we live and the effect that it is going to have on so many people. Sir, notice that leave would be sought to introduce this Bill was given at the height of the recent election for the CRC. This has already been referred to and I will not dwell upon it, except to say two things. I do not think anyone else has said this before; I am quite sure, Sir, that you will correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Sonny Leon, prior to the election, said that he wanted from his people this kind of mandate—

Sir, the results of this last election are very clear. In 1969 the Labour Party won 26 seats; in 1974 they won 31 seats. Let us also look at the votes cast: In 1969 the Labour Party received 135 000 odd votes, and in the election last week they received 151 000 votes. In the last election all other parties received 158 000 votes, but in the election last week they received less than 90 000 votes. In other words, the Labour Party received 62% of the votes cast. Now, Sir, at the time when this kind of election was taking place we received notice of this Bill. I want to say this is hardly taking a sensible approach. It is hardly adopting an approach which shows cognizance of just how serious the situation is in South Africa. We had for example together with this Bill the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member who has just sat down has said that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Government stretched out the hand of friendship to the Coloured people. Sir, when warnings and threats are uttered before even the final votes are counted, when a Bill of this nature is introduced before the final votes have been counted, then I say, choosing my words very carefully, that one can hardly blame the Coloured people if in their perception, in their eyes, they see a hand turning into a fist. That is why it is so serious and why we have to argue so strenuously against this Bill. Sir, when the hon. the Prime Minister was at Smithfield right at the heart of the election, when the destiny, the future, of the CRC was being decided, he warned them at that time. He talked about the peace that was in South Africa and said he would not allow anyone to interfere with that peace. That is very understandable. It is however a great pity that he did not recall the words of General Hertzog, whose visit to Smithfield 50 years ago was being celebrated, when he said a long time ago, in fact in 1925 …

Order! The hon. member is going back a very long time now.

Sir, I should have given the quotation first and then the date. It is a very good quotation. I also have a very good quotation from Dr. D. F. Malan.

In the debate so far, the kind of response we have had to the arguments advanced here has been a constant return by that side of the House to the reason for the timing of the Bill—the obvious interest among the Coloured people in their socio-economic problems rather than their political problems.

Order! I have heard that argument before.

Yes, Sir, we have heard it ad nauseam from that side of the House.

I agree.

Then we had a new argument advanced this afternoon by the hon. member for Johannesburg West, and that is quite interesting. It seems to me, if one may use an analogy, that we had from that hon. member a description of the Government’s approach. It says: We are going to play together; we are going to have a match. But then they find they are behind in points and they blow the whistle and say: Right, now we will have a few new rules; we will tie your feet together just to make quite sure that we win. That is the kind of example we have had from the hon. member for Johannesburg West this afternoon. He actually endorses that. He says this Bill is fair and it is right because it is negative, but that it is also very constructive. This is the kind of dialectic theology one learns at Stellenbosch, Sir. He spoke of a holding together, a Karl Barth approach, but unfortunately one must also remember the words of Thomas Jefferson. If we are going to hear from Barth and others in the theological world then we must also hear from Jefferson who said that if a thing is morally wrong, it can never be politically right. That is the point, and this Bill is morally wrong. The whole action of the Government is morally wrong and therefore it can never be politically right, no matter how they try to dodge that.

The effects of the Bill, as has been said before, are generally speaking very widespread and I shall not deal with that again. However, let us look at the specific results of the Bill before us. In the original Act, No. 49 of 1964, we find listed in section 20 the various powers of the council. These powers will be assumed by the hon. the Minister if, at any stage, the council fails to carry them out. I think therefore that it is relevant for us to have at least another look at some of these powers because when one looks at them one realizes that the hon. the Minister becomes the council himself; in fact, he becomes the executive. When the hon. the Minister assumes these powers, he will start to enter into a conversation with himself. Once a man is accused of talking to himself, then it is very dangerous. I want to point out some of these dangers because we are concerned for the hon. the Minister. The definition of the word “Government” used in section 20 is that it may be construed as meaning the Minister. Section 20 provides inter alia—

“Government” means “Minister” as I have already pointed out—

This means that the hon. the Minister will have to make an appointment with himself in order to tell himself about his problems, because he, in fact, will become the council and the executive if this Bill has to be implemented in the event of the failure or breakdown of the CRC. There are many other provisions in section 20 one of which reads—

The hon. the Minister will then have to apply to the hon. the Minister for permission to see the hon. the Minister in order that the council’s work can continue. We can go on in this way. One of the things to which I think we should direct our attention appears in subsection (8) which refers to the salaries and allowances paid. I would say that if the hon. the Minister is going to take over all the powers in terms of the Bill and this particular subsection, then he should get an increase in salary because he is going to have to do so much more work! In fact, he will have to take over completely the work of the executive and the work of the council itself.

When one looks at the Bill, one has to see it in terms of the acute dilemma which faces this country—not merely the Government, but the country and that side as well as this side of the House together with the whole population. The hon. member who spoke immediately before I did referred to this dilemma and to the mandate which the Coloured people had given the Labour Party. He also referred to the mandate which the White electorate had given the Nationalist Party. That is true. Of course we recognize that. This is a hard fact of politics and if we could change it, we would. Hopefully we will. This is the absolute dilemma which faces South Africa at this time and that is why it is so important. Right at the very crossroads you have one section of our country with one particular mandate. That mandate is very clear: Get rid of apartheid and let us have representation in Parliament. On the other hand you have the mandate of the White electorate which says: We shall continue with apartheid, separate development or whatever it might be …

The one is the guardian and the other is the wolf.

Yes, we heard a great deal about this. We also heard that the White people years ago had to climb the ladder. This was the expression that was used: They had to climb the ladder. However, the top of the ladder was this Parliament. What the hon. members are saying is that the Coloureds should be given a shorter ladder; or: “Let them by all means climb the ladder but let us tie their feet together so that they cannot get up too far.” Hon. members may also say: “There are two ladders. The one is a long one and the other is a shorter one.” That is why this Bill is so bad.

Order! The hon. member must climb down the ladder and come to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I submit to your ruling and I shall come down to the lower levels. In conclusion I want to say that we have to solve this dilemma. We have a CRC and we have a Labour Party now in the majority and we are wondering what is going to happen. Because the Government tries to anticipate it, it introduces a Bill like this. There are two possible approaches to a dilemma. The one is confrontation. We have been told that we are the ones who adopt that approach, but that is nonsense. This Bill is an act of confrontation and that is the problem. The other solution is to be found in the process of negotiation. We have to negotiate and we have to say what is negotiable and what is not negotiable. That is what we are asking from this Government. The Coloured people of South Africa have been referred to as God’s step-children and we are enforcing that by this Bill. That is why we oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, it will indeed demand great ability and, to use your term, great artistry to steer between the Scylla of your ruling and the Charybdis of the seriousness of this Bill and to make a contribution in the midst of the light-heartedness, so it seems to me, which sometimes borders on frivolity in respect of this measure, and the ideological labyrinth which was outlined yesterday by the hon. member for Waterberg. In an attempt to make a contribution here, I want to say immediately that I shall try to shape my arguments in another mould, viz. by appealling to the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, not continuing with the Bill, I want to say in advance that this will be the core of my argument that I hope that in this way I shall not repeat arguments, which have been used ad nauseam in this House.

When we look at a Bill of this sort, it seems to me that there are four criteria which can be applied to determine whether it should be placed on the Statute Book by this House. In the first place, we must find out whether it is essential and whether circumstances have arisen which make it essential for this sort of measure to be taken at this stage. I approach the matter from a serious point of view and I want to say that not one of us in this House can honestly say today that a situation has arisen which has made the introduction of this Bill essential. All that has been said, and I have respect for the other hon. members’ standpoint, is that a crisis situation can arise and that the hon. the Minister must therefore have the powers to deal with that situation, should it arise. It has been said repeatedly by other hon. members, and I want to say that sufficient justification has not been offered to prove the necessity for bringing a measure of this nature to the House. Many theoretical situations can arise in many areas. If each of us were to say that provision must be made for theoretical situations which might arise, this House would continually be occupying itself with things which can really be regarded as irrelevant and unimportant. Therefore I want to say that to my mind no real necessity for this Bill has been proved in this House.

In the second place, we must ask ourselves to what extent this measure will contribute to the proper or better performance of the functions of the CRC by the council itself. Surely it is clear that the answer to this is negative, because all that the Bill makes provision for, is for the Minister to be able to take over the functions of the executive or the council. How this will enable us to assist the executive in the better performance of its functions, is beyond my comprehension. Quite honestly, I cannot see how this can be.

If that were to happen, the CRC would be finished in any case.

Yes, exactly, I shall come to that later. If this measure were really to be implemented, the whole council and its functions would be finished. I shall come back to that later.

In the third place, the question can be asked as to whether this measure helps to bring about better relations between White and non-White in South Africa. In other words, with this measure, are we creating circumstances in which there will be a greater degree of trust between the Coloured people and the Whites and in particular between the Coloured group or people, or whatever we might call them, and this House and the Government? I want to say that without any doubt this Bill has and will have precisely the opposite effect. One can say that it does have one positive function, viz. that the hope exists that we can force those people to a degree of sobriety in this way. In other words, with this we can hold a kind of sjambok or a sword of Damocles over their heads and say to them, “If you do not do this and that, we want to inform you that we have already made other machinery available to deal with the situation.” I just want to say that that sort of attitude is not one which will bring about good relations between the Coloured community and the Government. For this reason, I want to say that it is really unnecessary in my opinion to continue with this measure at this stage.

A further requirement is that one should ask oneself whether there was proper consultation in connection with this matter. I do not want to dwell on this at any length, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Piketberg intimated that the present executive may well have been consulted. However, he did not state it as a fact. I just want to say that it seems to me that there was not proper consultation with the present executive or the new members of the CRC and definitely not with the members of the Theron Commission who are investigating this whole matter. For this reason as well, it seems to me that there is no justification for continuing with this measure.

In the fourth place, it is essential that we ask ourselves what the reaction of the Brown people in particular will be to this measure. That reaction must be seen against the background of the history of the CRC. Mr. Speaker, I want to respect your ruling and therefore I shall not go into details. I just want to mention five points in this connection, viz. the fact that the CRC is seen as the alternative for representation in this body; the history of the CRC in terms of the powers which it has had and the decisions which it has taken, which were often not implemented; the composition of the council and especially the question of the nominees on the council; the limited powers and functions of the council; and the fact that the Coloured élite —I think the hon. the Minister and hon. members will concede this to me—have never accepted that council and still do not accept it, at least not to my knowledge, as well as the fact that those people did not participate in the latest election precisely because they do not accept the council and want nothing to do with, it. That is indeed my honest impression. In addition, there is the timing of the introduction of this measure, and the question of the interpretation of the election results. One thing is very clear, Mr. Speaker; however we interpret this election, whether we like it or not, it represents a massive rejection, by those Coloureds who voted, of the so-called apartheid politics.

Order! Now the hon. member must guard against repetition.

I shall, Mr. Speaker. Those election results also represent a rejection of the CRC as a means of achieving full political realization for the ideals and aspirations of the Coloured population. I want to add that in my honest opinion there is a tremendous degree of disillusionment, of despair, of doubt in the bona fides of the Whites and of bitterness among the Coloured population. That we cannot doubt and I want to say that I do believe that this sort of measure can only aggravate that bitterness and that despair.

Objections have been raised to our saying that should this measure be accepted, it could be seen as the failure of the Government’s policy. It is in fact correct to say that that failure will only become apparent in practice when the measure is put into operation, because when it is put into operation, nothing will remain of this machinery which has been created by the Government in terms of its policy. But then in theory at least we must concede that in that sense this measure implies admission of the failure of the Government’s policy, because that policy was based on two legs. The one is the creation of a Coloured body with specific functions. That body has often been called a Coloured Parliament in this House. The second leg of that policy, in the light of the policy announcements which were made last year by the hon. the Prime Minister, is the creation of a joint Cabinet committee to consult together about those interests which affect both Coloured people and Whites. If this measure were to become operative now, it would mean the end of that road. If it were to be implemented, it would mean the end of that road, because it would then mean that the CRC could function no more. It would not be able to function any longer, because its functions would be taken over by the Minister. It would also mean that that joint Cabinet committee could no longer exist or function. In that sense the implementation of this measure would mean the end of the road. We cannot deny this; there are no two ways about it.

Objections were made by certain members when the term “confrontation” was used here. Mr. Speaker, the actual confrontation will arise when this measure is implemented. I have taken note of the hon. the Minister’s statement that he does not want to interfere with the functions of the CRC in respect of legislation. But surely the hon. the Minister knows that if he finds himself in the situation that he cannot co-operate with the executive, and he has to take over the functions of the executive, the possibility of his being able to co-operate with the CRC will not exist. In other words, it must necessarily lead to confrontation with the whole council. In this sense it is surely very clear that this measure does in fact contain the possibility of confrontation. Sir, I want to avoid confrontation; we all want to avoid it. I do not want to confront the hon. the Minister either. Therefore I want to ask once again at this stage—and I shall come back to this —whether the hon. the Minister and the Government cannot consider not continuing with this legislation, in spite of the discussions in this House, the standpoints which have been adopted and the contracts which have already been created. I am convinced that apart from the possibility of confrontation, this measure can only strengthen the hands of the enemies of the Coloured Representative Council. If it is our intention to convert this Council into a body which really has a function to fulfil, it is irresponsible of us to give this weapon to those people who are the very ones who condemn the council, the very ones who do not want the council. They are the only people whose hands we are strengthening. Surely that should be clear to everyone.

Having made my honest and serious request to the Minister, I want to ask now what the Government stands to lose if it withdraws the measure at this stage. It can only lose the possible impression of unyieldingness. I concede that it can lose the impression that once it has adopted a standpoint, it will stick to that standpoint, no matter what happens, but I want to say quite honestly that to my mind there are other and stronger reasons why this consideration ought not to apply. The Government can say it refuses to comply with this request because it is essential that the Minister must have these powers and because, if the legislation is not passed, a situation can arise which will create a vacuum in respect of the machinery for action. I do not think that argument can be used here. This House will be in session until the middle of June. The chairman and the members of the executive have not yet been appointed and that council has not yet assembled. We have had no indication yet, except for what a few of the members of the Labour Party said at public meetings during the election campaign. If the words which we use in election campaigns were to be taken literally, however, and were to be applied in this House, I do not know where we would be. I am not making any accusations. I just want to say that there is still plenty of latitude and plenty of time before a crisis situation may arise. During that period we can see how the situation develops. If it then appears that a crisis situation may arise, something which some members fear …

Then it will be too late.

No, then it will not be too late. There will be enough time to introduce a measure of this nature. The Government must be given time to hold consultations with this council as it has been newly constituted. I think that this action of the Government makes it impossible to create an atmosphere in which anyone will be able to act in a spirit of trust and goodwill. I do want to say—the hon. the Minister and all of us know it—that we shall very often be confronted with the situation on the road ahead that we shall have to talk to people who do not necessarily think as we do or as the Government does. That is unavoidable. We must not throw in the towel in advance. We must not say in advance that we are scared of talking to those people because those people have adopted certain preconceived standpoints. We shall have to talk to those people and keep on talking. We cannot talk to people if we hold the sword of Damocles above their heads. You and I as adults would object to people wanting to talk to us while they are holding a sjambok or a revolver behind their backs.

In conclusion I want to say that we must give this new council a chance to act responsibly. In the light of this I want to make a serious and an honest appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Government once again. I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Defence, who previously dealt with this portfolio himself. I want to appeal to them not to continue with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Edenvale and the four criteria he laid down for himself in the discussion of this specific amending Bill. I do not want to reply to him in that regard. In any event, I think that attention has already been given to most of his arguments. I think, too, that when the hon. the Minister replies, he will again reply to certain of the aspects raised by the hon. member. However, I just want to make two short references to the speech by the hon. member. In the first instance, I want to refer to the hon. member’s remark to the effect that in his opinion the atmosphere in this House was not serious enough. I just want to tell the hon. member that the longer he is a member of this House, the more he will realize that a measure of humour finds its way into serious debates, too. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. member should worry about that. I do not think that either side of the House is failing to give the necessary serious attention to this matter. I shall come back to that later on.

The hon. member’s second point was that this amending Bill sought confrontation. From the long history of the population issue in South Africa, the hon. member will know that this is what constitutes the difference between this side of the House and the various opposition parties, namely that we are seeking to avoid confrontation in South Africa in a different way. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, our view is that the road of non-confrontation is this very one of parallel development. That is why we on this side do not seek confrontation.

In this debate thus far we have heard all three of the leaders of the various opposition parties speaking and debating. I want to dwell for a moment on the leaders of the two smaller opposition parties. I want to set them apart from the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition because in my opinion, the Leader of the official Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, is far, far more responsible in his debating and his handling of affairs as an opposition leader than is the Leader of the Progressive Party or the Leader of the Democratic Party. Personally I have a great deal of respect for the responsible debating of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when very sensitive and delicate matters in South Africa are at issue. I want to tell you, Sir, that personally, I am very grateful that we are given the opportunity of listening to the Progressive Party and to the newly formed Reformist Party as well, particularly in this debate, and I do not want the hon. the Leader of the Reformist Party to feel slighted if I ignore him for the moment today. In this debate he was not as important as the Leader of the Progressive Party. I want to come back to two matters stated by the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. Yesterday he dwelt on this Bill and said: “It is dictatorial,” and then—

Sir, it is very important for us in South Africa, for me and, I think, for the party of which I am a member, too, that the discussion of relations issues in South Africa be handled with the greatest care and the greatest possible degree of responsibility. This is necessary not only as regards a debate of this kind in Southern Africa, but also throughout the world, and if there were to be a greater understanding of the problem that results from the meeting of a diversity of peoples and race groups, then it is that people should talk about these things with more circumspection and with more knowledge. I want to say that through the years I have learned to know the spirit and the attitude, the animus, in which the National Party debates this Bill as one of great understanding, not only for the Coloureds or the Whites or the other population groups, but also for the history from which it develops. This particular Bill is only a part of a long history of development that will not come to a standstill today, but which will quite possibly still be argued about throughout future history. I just want to state very clearly that whereas we are speaking here, and the rest of the world hears us, and many of these people are sitting and listening to us, the greatest responsibility and respect and appreciation and insight is displayed by the National Party when these matters are discussed, not only in public, but also in its innermost circles. I want to stress this very categorically and therewith I want to come back to a second point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. Very early in the debate he replied to the hon. member for Piketberg. The hon. member for Piketberg was very careful not to draw inferences from the recent election of members of the CRC. He was very careful and only touched on certain things by saying that there is a possibility that they may well arise. In contrast, the Leader of the Progressive Party adopted a different attitude, and it is this that I find so disappointing in the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, viz. that he does not always have his facts right and that, as leader of the select party of South Africa, in the highest Chamber, he often makes statements which he is unable to justify. In referring to the hon. member for Piketberg, the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party said (Hansard, 25 March 1975)—

Then the Leader of the Progressive Party goes on to say—

Sir, I question the scientific correctness of this statement by the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. He reveals no knowledge whatsoever of the election campaign of the various parties, nor has he revealed any sources indicating to us that the stay-away vote, the people who did not vote, acted in that way because they anticipated that the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the National Party would come up with this amendment to the Act. I want to say it here this evening, and the rest of the country must know it, that the Progressive Party is not a party that is capable of dealing with the population problems of South Africa in the light of scientifically correct facts. They speak from ignorance, and not only the White politicians, but also the Coloured politicians are totally unable to argue with them on that basis. When we look at this Bill, what does it tell us? If I may say something new, then it is that if the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the chairman of the executive fails, for whatever reason, to exercise or perform any power, function or duty conferred or imposed by this Act, the Minister may exercise or perform such power, function or duty or authorize any other person to exercise or perform such power, function or duty. These words—as the hon. member for Johannesburg West said—concern not only the CRC or its leader, or the executive, but in fact concern the entire Coloured population. What the hon. the Minister wants to do, the powers he wants to take upon himself in the event of the necessity arising, are by no means intended to put a stop to the course of development of the political history of the Coloureds. His aim is precisely to put it at the service of the entire Coloured community. What functions can the CRC cease to carry out? It can cease to carry out its education functions. That is very important, since as far as I know, about 1 300 people are employed in connection with education. That is more than …

Order! That argument has already been advanced a number of times. I want to suggest to the hon. member that if he is unable to come up with new facts, he should rather resume his seat.

Thank you, Sir, I shall follow your friendly advice. I just want to say that if this Bill is not passed, if these powers are not conferred on the Minister, he will place himself in a position in which the Coloured population of South Africa may come to him and state that he can no longer look after their interests.

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating these unlucky 13 lines for about seven hours now, and I promise not to repeat the arguments of the hon. members on this side of the House. I support their arguments, but I feel that there are in addition other important aspects which should be considered by this House. Before coming to those aspects, I should like to reply to a few of the suggestions made by the other side of the House. I will start off with the hon. member for Rissik, who has just sat down. He suggested that the low poll in this election was not an indication of the fact that the Coloured people rejected the CRC. He suggested that there might be other reasons for it. I think that if he knew a little bit about what had happened recently in the history of the Coloured political development, he would know that there are 1 million people who probably qualify to be registered as voters for the CRC, while only 400 000 of these actually registered. And it was not through neglect that the other 600 000 were not registered; it was not because they were not interested in politics. There was, however, a determined effort, an organized effort, by a well-organized group to stop people from registering. This is a fact, and I think we have got to consider it. If one takes the 400 000 odd people who did register—I do not have the actual figures here—one finds that only about 250 000 of those people voted, and the reasons for this are exactly the same. I think before the hon, member for Rissik makes allegations in this House, he must make sure that he has done a little bit of research himself.

Secondly, Sir, I would like to come to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg West. He made a few interesting suggestions. He impressed upon us how important it was that in these times when race relations are so sensitive in South Africa and when the whole situation between us in South Africa and the countries to the north, of us is in the balance, nothing should be done to bring about a situation of confrontation. He suggested that we on this side of the House had been acting dishonestly and he said that no finger could be pointed at either the Nationalist Party or the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of what they had done with regard to the political future of the Coloured people. I regret to say, Sir, that I cannot agree with him on this point. I think that unfortunately, as a result of the introduction of this Bill, a big question mark does hang over the role of the Nationalist Party and, unfortunately, of the hon. the Prime Minister as to their bona fides and their credibility in the eyes of the Coloured people. I would like to motivate this statement by referring to three important announcements which the hon. the Prime Minister made recently just before the Coloured election. I think he repeated this on a number of occasions, but what he in fact said was that the great dilemma, which had been facing separate development virtually since it was formulated by the Nationalist Party, had been solved. Sir, I think it is important that you allow me the freedom to discuss this dilemvery briefly because I think it is relevant.

Order! I am afraid I cannot.

The Prime Minister said that the Nationalist Party had come up with a unique solution—and I stress the word “solution”—to the problem of having more than one sovereign body in one geophysical area.

Order! I have ruled that I cannot allow hon. members to discuss that. That is a matter of general policy.

I think the fact that so many hon. members on this side of the House have got up to speak on this Bill shows that we consider it to be a Bill which is very destructive to good race relations in South Africa. I think it is important, when one is arguing why a Bill should or should not be read a Second Time, that one must be able to motivate one’s arguments. I give you my assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the point that I want to make is one which has not been made before; it is a new point which has to do with the credibility of the Nationalist Party and the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think if a member of this House feels that the credibility of the governing party and of the hon. the Prime Minister is in question, he ought to be able to motivate his case, because if he is unable to motivate his case he is unable to get a reply from the Government, and if hon. members on this side of the House feel that there could be some question as to the credibility of that side, then people outside of the House may hold the same view, and I do not think that that would be in the interests of the country. I appeal to you, Sir …

Order! I have allowed the leader of the hon. member’s party to give that general motivation.

Sir, the next point I want to deal with is the effect of this Bill on race relations in South Africa. The hon. member for Edenvale made the point that the introduction and the passing of this Bill would be a geat tool in the hands of the enemies of the CRC. I should like to go further and say that the introduction of the Bill is a tool in the hands of all those people, both within and outside South Africa, and not only Coloureds but Blacks and Indians as well, who wish to destroy all confidence between the White people and the other race groups in this country. I should like to motivate that statement At this particular moment in time Black politics in South Africa is going through a crisis period as well and the reason is that the moderate—if I can use that word—non-White leaders who have endeavoured for many years now to come to terms with the White Government of South Africa have been unable to show results to their people for the moderate stance they have taken. The militants have been feeding upon this inability of the moderate leaders to show results. Unfortunately, as a result of recent events in Southern Africa…

Order! The hon. member’s argument is irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker. I am trying to convince the House that the Bill should not be read a Second Time. Surely, the interests of the country are important in this respect?

The hon. member must observe my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, if I am not in a position to debate the Bill, it is pointless speaking.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will not believe me, but some weeks ago I wrote the following note, which I showed to an experienced newspaperman, with reference to a certain incident in the notebook I have before me. “A good heading will be: ‘Enthoven’t Hooft onthoof’ ”. And you have just done it, Sir. I am sorry for the hon. member who actually did not have much more to say at the end of the debate, but wanted to say it nevertheless. That has been the dilemma of the hon. Opposition in this whole debate. A debate concerning a virtually innocent piece of administrative legislation to maintain order at a lesser institution which we want to help on the road ahead, has been seized by the different factions in the opposition in order to start their in-fighting and competition in one and the same section of the electorate in that each of the factions wanted to make a case for their being the best exponents of intercession on behalf of the non-White community That is what was at stake, to the detriment of our country.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Edenvale that one must avoid harmful situations in debates of this nature. One must try to keep relations sound. However, what has happened? When I look at a few of the exaggerated adjectives which were used to condemn this innocent piece of legislation, it tells a story. I begin with the hon. Leader of the Opposition who spoke of this legislation as “naked baas-skap”.

Surely that is correct.

There we have it again. I refer to the hon. member for Sea Point who spoke of the legislation as political fraud. Later in his speech, the hon. member spoke of a “dictatorial measure, a cynical measure.” He went even further and said that it was a piece of discriminatory legislation.

You listened well.

I always listen well. If the hon. member were to do the same, it would be to his benefit and he might gain more insight into what is going on.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke this afternoon of “autocratic powers” contained in the legislation. The hon. the Leader of the small new party at the back over there also spoke of “baasskap”. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that with this legislation we were placing the Coloured once more in the position of subordinate and servant. So I can continue. What is the net result of utterances of this kind? To pose before certain Coloured politicians and in this process to compete with each other as to who is best able to speak on behalf of the Coloureds. If I can give Coloured leaders advice at this stage, it is to steer clear of these people who want to use them as a rear-guard in their own infighting.

The hon. member for Yeoville moved an amendment yesterday in which he intimated that the legislation would be harmful externally in view of détente politics as well as internally in view of relations. I want to refute the hon. member’s argument and tell him that this legislation can only be held up and interpreted as harmful to South Africa externally by people who are malicious, and in this House there are people who do interpret it that way. I believe that the legislation is the very proof for people abroad and also for people in Africa who are interested in orderly progress in the times in which we live, that the Government will see to it, as far as it is within its powers, that progress will take place in an orderly fashion and that the powers which want to destroy order will be halted in the proper way in the process. In so far as the hon. member for Yeoville made the statement that the legislation would create internal tension, I want to point out to him that the Government has an instruction from its voters. I want to be so presumptuous as to make the further statement that the Government has received a tacit instruction form the Coloured voters in the country to see that there is order in the country.

On a point of order; Mr. Speaker, may I ask …

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to answer questions?

I am not prepared to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question; I want to raise a point of order.

The hon. member must not waste my time now.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston may raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, every one of the arguments which the hon. the Deputy Minister has advanced in his speech so far, has been used repeatedly on the other side of this House.

Order! The Chair will decide when to allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to repeat arguments.

Then I want to make the point that as far as the internal situation is concerned …

You have made that point.

If the hon. member will keep his mouth shut … [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to make the statement that as far as the internal situation is concerned, it is the instruction of the voters who put this Government here that relations must be kept right, that order must be maintained and that no one whosoever—whether he be a member of this House or a person who serves in another body—may do anything which will undermine order. Therefore the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville that this legislation would harm relations internally, does not hold water as far as I am concerned. The hon. member for Sea Point, not only during this debate, but also when he stormed in like a vulture at the introduction of the legislation …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “vulture”.

It was not meant in an unfriendly way, Sir, but I shall withdraw it. However, I was watching the hon. member. His eyes actually glistened at the opportunity which he was seemingly being offered. The hon. member stormed into the debate on the introduction as if it was just the opportunity he had been waiting for. Before knowing what the legislation contained, he suggested that the legislation meant a further reduction of the rights of the CRC. I want to put a question to the hon. member.

Are you referring back to the debate on the introduction of this Bill?

I said the hon. member had shown this attitude at that time and continued doing so in this debate. I want to ask the hon. member in what respect this legislation means a reduction of the rights of the Coloureds or of the CRC.

It is a continuation of the reduction of their rights which has taken place through the years. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that he is blind to reality.

It is an effective destruction of the rights of the Coloureds.

The hon. member for Sea Point is blind to reality, because the intention of this legislation is to enable whoever accepts control in the executive of that council, to execute the greater powers for which they have asked— they asked such powers as early as January of this year and they have been granted those powers in principle. Their people, who gave them a mandate and who elected them, also want them to use those powers. If, contrary to the wishes of their own people, the members of the CRC do not want to use those powers, and we find a situation of the people who have elected them suffering as a result, surely the authority which is exercising guardianship at the moment must take the necessary measures.

Why this legislation only now? It is so late in the day.

That is another matter and I shall still refer to it. If what I have just mentioned, happens, the people will have to be cared for so that they do not suffer. Since the hon. member has asked me why this happens at such a late stage …

Why on the day of the election?

On the day of the election, notice was given of the introduction of this legislation. This legislation, in other words, could have no impact on the election. It is proof of the intentions of the hon. the Minister not to introduce legislation which could be dragged into the election by some party at the expense of another party. That is why notice was given on the day of the election while the details were only made available later.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members alleged that this legislation was not introduced for technical or administrative purposes only, but that it was politically motivated. But I want to say that this is far from the truth. The powers which the hon. the Minister obtains by means of this legislation, are not powers which he is going to implement immediately by proclamation; in fact, it might happen that he will never implement them.

I hope so.

The hon. member says that he hopes so. I hope so myself. If the hon. member who says that he hopes so, will further his hope by using the influence which he has among the Coloured leaders, we shall make progress. The powers which the hon. the Minister obtains by means of this legislation are what I want to call reserve powers, in other words, powers which will not be used before circumstances arise which oblige him to exercise these powers in the interests of the Coloured people.

The hon. members argued this way and that about the amendment of 1972 which dealt with the situation which would arise if the CRC were to refuse to make funds available. Now it has been pointed out that this legislation allows the hon. the Minister to prevent chaos from setting in in a far wider field. I should like to give this House an idea of what can happen if people who are placed in a position of control in that council do not carry out their obligations and duties. In terms of the Coloured Persons Education Act of 1963, the Minister delegated certain powers in the past—and it can happen this way again—to the member of the executive in charge of educational affairs—for example, the introduction and abolition of courses at schools and everything connected therewith, in terms of section 21, financial assistance to Coloureds and students in terms of section 24, and the determination of school and boarding fees and the application of the means test for that purpose in terms of section 25. If these delegated powers cannot be exercised, the services are crippled or come to a halt. Hon. members on the opposite side made a great fuss and used many derogatory adjectives to describe this legislation.

Correctly.

That hon. member may believe, in his stupidity or ignorance, that those derogatory adjectives, were used correctly but also in the light of what the hon. member for Edenvale said this afternoon about relations, I can see what the hon. member is doing to relations in this country. If the Government were to neglect to take such powers to prevent a situation as has been described, who would be to blame for the consequences? The members of the executive who did not wish to carry out their duties would not be the ones who would be blamed but this Government. The first people who would blame it would be the hon. members on the opposite side. In terms of the same Act to which I have referred, other powers may also be delegated to the executive— for example, the establishment of part-time classes at schools or technical colleges, the granting of grants-in-aid and loans to State-aided educational institutions and related matters. If those delegated powers cannot be exercised, there will be impossible delays in this field. In terms of the regulations under this Act the hon. the Minister delegated powers to the member concerned of the executive. These related to matters such as fees at colleges and schools, grants to pupils and bursaries as well, the classification of schools, the appointments to regional councils, the appointments to advisory councils for institutions, deciding on new State-aided vocational schools, special schools, continuation classes, etc. Now I ask again: If people do not want to carry out their delegated duties for whatever reason, should the Coloured population of South Africa suffer through this in such a broad field or should the Government of the day which has to maintain order make timely provision for such an eventuality? That reminds me of what the hon. member for Edenvale said in this connection. He asked what the Government could lose by withdrawing this Bill so that the CRC could assemble first and talks could be held with them.

That is a good question.

I concede that it is a good question. But, with respect to the hon. member for Edenvale, the problem is that he has come to this House too recently to know how the procedure works. The CRC will assemble for its main session only in July or August this year, as is customary.

Before 10 May.

The hon. member heard incorrectly. This House adjourns roundabout June and if a situation such as I have outlined were to arise after the adjournment of this House and there was no legislation …

Show a little confidence in them.

The hon. member is out of step.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

I am still dealing with the hon. member. If such a situation were to arise after this House has been prorogued, does the hon. member not realize that in the absence of statutory provisions such as this, the entire Parliament would have to be summoned to meet again in order to pass the necessary legislation?

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister at this stage whether the chairman of the executive and the other members will not be nominated long before the CRC is summoned to meet so that consultations with the executive can be held before that council assembles? Will there not, therefore, be an opportunity, long before Parliament adjourns, to see how matters stand?

The chairman and the executive will probably be appointed at a very short session of the CRC before Parliament adjourns. But when the CRC’s ordinary session begins, this Parliament will no longer be in session. That is when problems may arise. [Interjections.] Keep quiet now. I want to assist the hon. member a little more. This legislation does not deal with a certain person or party; nor does it deal with a certain period. These are reserve powers which will be there at all times. At this moment it will probably be suitable to refer to the remark of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that the corresponding provision in the Transkei Constitution Act was not comparable. It is indeed comparable because it is still in that Transkei Constitution Act and will be there until the Transkei becomes independent. I have not heard that the Cabinet or any person in the Transkei Government has objected to that provision in their Constitution. Since the hon. member for Edenvale asked a question, and I am replying to his question, I want to direct a word of admonition to him at the same time. He made moving pleas about relations. He spoke very eloquently. However, he made one mistake. The hon. member compared this legislation to a sjambok hanging over the Coloureds. The hon. member will know how that idea will reflect on South Africa abroad. There are English-language newspapers which spell this word “s-j-a-m-b-o-k” just to give it a jarring sound. I do not know with what purpose the hon. member used the word, but it is, in any case, the word which he used in connection with this legislation. Now I want to ask him nicely to leave that game which can arouse hostility against us. If he has good intentions towards South Africa, he should kindly avoid using such words. I want to give hon. members on the opposite side a look into the sort of situation which might arise if we did not have this legislation and if certain people did not want to carry out their duties. Then instructions would be given by the hon. the Minister to the executive in respect of community welfare and pensions which would involve the Childrens Act of 1960, the Aged Persons Act of 1967, the Veterans Pensions Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disability Grants Act and the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Act. Legislation of the CRC would also enter into the picture, viz. the Coloured Persons Rehabilitation Centres Act and the Coloured Persons Social Pensions Act, which were passed by that council last year. I could also mention further aspects which would enter into the picture. For example, there are also powers concerning local authorities which have been delegated to the executive of the CRC and which have a bearing on the ordinances of the various provinces.

Is it necessary?

I think it is very necessary, unless that hon. member does not really want to learn anything. Nevertheless, I think he is learning something tonight which he did not know. With reference to these ordinances, I can quote a whole lot of tasks which arise from them.

I think you are losing confidence in yourself.

If that hon. friend wants to listen, he will also learn something; he must just be prepared to learn and not to be too stupid. I can continue and list for the hon. members all the duties delegated to the executive in terms of the Rural Coloured areas Act, for example, i.e. decisions which have to be taken from day to day, appointments which have to be made, etc. However, all of this will be left undone if the people who have been called by their voters to perform certain duties, did not wish to do so for some reason. While I am speaking about that, the question arises as to how the so-called mandate attendant upon the results of the election of 19 March, is to be interpreted. I want to make the statement tonight that the interpretation of those results is not as simple as has been set out by some members here. In the past week, I held discussions with many eminent leaders of the Coloured community. They do not want the CRC to be crippled. They want progress to be made on the road which led to a summit in the office of the Prime Minister on 23 January and about which a statement was issued It appears to me as if hon. members on the opposite side are ignorant as far as that is concerned.

But those are the people who were rejected by the voters.

I am speaking of leaders who came to me to talk. Despite of remarks which hon. members, and more specifically the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, made to the effect that this legislation allegedly meant the end of the road of the Government’s policy and of the CRC …

Yes, that is true.

The hon. member confirms this again, but is he aware that his own leader said yesterday— I do not know how these arguments tally— “I believe the council must be given taxing powers.” That is one of the points about which an agreement was reached with the liaison committee of the CRC at the meeting on 23 January, to which all parties were invited, although one party did not turn up. Are hon. members aware that the hon. member for Yeoville, who also condemned the legislation, said, “It is necessary to review the powers of the CRC” and “The CRC must get more meaningful powers?” That is precisely the road which we are taking and it is the road which responsible Coloured leaders want to be taken in future. The hon. member for Rondebosch, in spite of all his arguments, also made the statement, “That the time has arrived to increase the powers of the council.”

In terms of your policy.

I am glad that hon. members think that way in moments of greater clarity. This brings me once again to the question why they kicked up such a row in this debate, originally and continually, and described this legislation in condemnatory terms. It is legislation which is intended as reserve authority if certain people were to fail to execute their functions. This legislation takes no rights away.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer a question. In conclusion, I want to say that this legislation takes no rights away, but ensures that the greater powers envisaged for the CRC and its executive, can be put into operation before long.

Mr. Speaker, for once in my life I envy the hon. the Deputy Minister his verbosity. I do it for the very simple reason that I believe that only one equipped with this kind of “welsprekendheid” can react as he did to what I regard as a tissue of fantasy, a conglomeration of dubious facts and a bucket full of wishful thinking such as this House has never seen before. Under any circumstances this was an astonishing speech, but against the background of what is happening in this country at this particular moment it surpasses any kind of understanding. As an exercise in self-delusion it was totally unsurpassable.

I want to mention one or two examples. The hon. the Deputy Minister is obviously heading for very high places. With this kind of quality you cannot be stopped. He will get there sooner or later. Before the dinner adjournment the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about the “wegbly-stem” and he made all kinds of allegations about the hon. member for Sea Point who supposedly did not check his facts before he made his statements. If the hon. the Deputy Minister had only taken the trouble to speak to Coloured leaders as I am sure the hon. member for Sea Point did, he would have found out what the reason was for this “wegbly-stem”. There was one terribly simple reason for this; that was their total disillusionment with the system imposed upon them. That was the reason for it. It does not matter what kind of things the Deputy Minister dreamed up. [Interjections.] The “welsprekende” member for Rissik also made these statements, but let us get back to the hon. “welsprekende” Deputy Minister. He spoke about the voters’ mandate. What was the mandate? Let me give the hon. the Deputy Minister two pre-election statements about what the mandate was the Coloured people were voting for. The first comes from Mr. Sonny Leon. This was published in the Sunday Times of 16 March 1975. He called upon the Coloured people of South Africa—

Does that look like apartheid?

Let us look at another even more kosher source than that. Let me quote from Rapport of 16 March 1975. Mr. Sonny Leon, speaking to some high authority or other, said—

That is the mandate. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has any doubts … [Interjections.] Let me read to the hon. the Deputy Minister from tonight’s Argus what the Labour Party thinks not about the election, but about this Bill. This was a statement which was issued this evening by the leaders of the Labour Party—

Order! From now on I shall have to name members who make too many interjections.

Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote this statement which was issued by the Labour Party tonight. I think even the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to understand it.

*I quote—

Order! That is a comment on the Bill which is under discussion here. Therefore the hon. member may not quote it.

Sir, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on what the Coloured people think of this Bill, and we leave the matter at that.

†I will go on to argue, Sir, that the hon. the Deputy Minister deserves to be remembered for one reason above everything else, and that is that he argues that this Bill is not a diminution of the powers of the CRC. Can you believe it, Sir? I believe that the pièce de résistance of “Hennie in Wonderland” is that he could not understand the fuss over “hierdie onskuldige stukkie wetgewing”. Mr. Speaker, the Coloured people are in turmoil. They are holding emergency meetings about this situation. The Whites are upset, I can assure you. They are deeply upset and deeply distressed about this. But we are assured by the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is “’n onskuldige stukkie wetgewing”. Sir, can self-delusion go any further than this; can cynicism go any further than this; can political unreality go any further than this? “Hierdie onskuldige stukkie wetgewing”! I want to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I am being absolutely genuine about this—that I have had more spontaneous reaction to the introduction of this piece of legislation from my constituents in Johannesburg—and they happen to be White—than to any other measure that this House dealt with either last session or this session. That is a fact, Sir, I have tried to analyse these representations that thave been made to me, and I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister and anybody else who cares to listen that these things were not instigated. These representations were made quite spontaneously to me, and whatever Die Burger says, and whatever paraphrases of Die Burger’s leading article this morning we may get from the hon. member for Johannesburg West or the hon. the Deputy Minister, or anybody else who wishes to quote it, I believe that the White voters of this country—those who think about these things—fear that if this Bill becomes law, it will mean the end of the road. It will mean the end of the road of consultation and co-operation between White and Coloured people.

Order! That argument has been advanced several times.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to substantiate these telegrams that I received, but I will not pursue it. This is what White people are saying and this is why we in these benches oppose this legislation. People are reacting to this quite spontaneously and intuitively. These people who have written to us are worried. They think there is something suspicious; they think there is some monkey business going on. Whatever the intrinsic value of this piece of legislation may or may not be, whatever its defects or its positive aspects, they are afraid that if this Bill is passed it will prove disastrous to human relations in the country, and this is something which nobody in his right senses could contemplate with any kind of equanimity. I believe that it would be wrong of this House not to take note of this spontaneous public feeling. I repeat that the representations made to me were not the result of any organized opposition; I believe that there was no instigation, and as far as I can judge, these representations have come from seriously concerned individuals who think that there is something undesirable about this legislation, that there is something not quite right about it. This is a kind of gut reaction about fair dealing, and I believe that if we had any sense we would take note of this. I find it very hard—and this will no doubt raise horse-laughs on the other side of the House—to try to look at this legislation from the Government’s point of view; to look at it through the Government’s eyes. I believe that looking at it from that point of view the introduction of this legislation was in fact tactically as well as politically unwise, and I will try to show why. I want to deal very briefly with the reaction of Die Burger this morning, which now accuses the leaders of the Opposition groups of vying for Coloured sympathy. They talk about a “skandalige” attitude. This is unworthy of Die Burger. It could do better than that. The Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg West spoke in similar terms about our harming relations between White and Coloured people. Sir, this is just nonsense. How can this be, when all the Opposition is doing, apart from expressing sincere and completely honest convictions on these things, is in fact to reflect the thinking of the best of Coloured leadership in this country? How can this be “skandalig”? Surely it is sheer cant and hypocrisy to pretend that the purpose of the opposition parties is to create ill-feeling between Coloureds and Whites? For what purpose? Die Burger says this morning that the Opposition parties want to exploit this situation. Sir, I see you eyeing me and I will stop quoting contemporary views. Anybody in touch with the Coloureds knows perfectly well how much bad feeling there already is between Whites and Coloureds, and nobody in his right mind wants to do anything but to improve that situation and to stop this deterioration. It is because I believe that this Bill is going to worsen infinitely the relationship between Coloured and White people that I believe that any responsible person ought to oppose it with every fibre of his being. Sir, the Coloured people do not have to be told that they have no meaningful “seggen-skap” in decision-making processes. They are not as simple as all this, however paternalistic the hon. the Deputy Minister or anybody else on that side may be about it.

Are you quoting me?

I am talking to you and to a lot of people on the other side of the House. The Coloured people know what political cynicism is when on the day when they are voting for a vehicle of some kind or other, this Government takes power to almost emasculate certain aspects of that vehicle. Sir, they know what political cynicism is. They do not have to be told what it is. They know what baasskap is. They do not have to be told by the opposition or anybody else. But the hon. member for Johannesburg West is sad because we distrust the Nationalist Party’s colour policy. I ask you, Sir, can cynicism, can self-delusion, go any further than this, in the face of this kind of political naivety, because this is all it is? And this is one’s objection to the Bill: because it has created—intentionally or otherwise, I am not arguing that—further ill will and it will continue to do so unless the Government changes, not its policy because we have given up hope of that happening in the foreseeable future, but its approach, its mood and its attitude. Sir, it is quite obvious now—and I will not repeat the arguments—that the Government’s fear of the kind of paralysis which may have set in after the elections was grossly exaggerated. At worst the Government could have made contingency administrative plans to keep essential parts of this system going. Let us leave that as it is. Whatever its attitude to the CRC, the Government remains committed to trying to find the maximum amount of common ground with the leaders of the Coloured people. It does not matter under what framework it is doing this, but it is committed to doing so and it is because the measure before the House is going to make that task, in the framework of apartheid, to find more common ground with the Coloured people, infinitely more difficult, that I believe it is a politically disastrous measure. To begin with, it reduces the area in which the Government can manoeuvre. That is quite obvious. Instead of keeping its options open and beginning to talk in the broadest kind of framework, the Government is in future going to be circumscribed by the new situation created by this atmosphere. [Interjections] Sir, the Labour Party said, before the election, that while practically rejecting apartheid and making it clear that the present scope and functions of the CRC are no substitute for a genuine political say in the major decision-making processes of this country, they were anxious to continue to talk with the Government on the future of the Coloured people provided there was an atmosphere of give and take. But what its attitude is going to be after this Bill I hesitate to think. We know what the Labour Party’s official attitude to this Bill is. I believe that this is going to be disastrous and I hope that there are going to be second thoughts on the part of the Government. This Bill has in fact served notice of no-confidence in the Government. In effect, it warns the Coloured leaders and the Labour Party to behave. This is punitive paternalism at its very worst. Take it or leave it—father knows best.

*Willem de Klerk, who is not an unknown name in journalistic circles in South Africa, wrote about this matter in the Transvaler of yesterday, i.e. about the necessity for further dialogue between the Government and the leaders of the Labour Party. He said, inter alia [translation]—

He says the Labour Party—he hits out at both parties—should prove that they did not win the battle only to lose the war. Then he referred to three decisions; I hope you will allow me, Sir, to quote them, since this cannot be regarded as a comment on this debate.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a certain amount of latitude. He must from now on advance new arguments.

Well, I will leave “die drie beslissings” that he talks about. I hope that the hon. members on the other side of the House will read them, because there is a very important lesson for them in it. I leave it at that.

*My argument is quite simple, i.e. that this legislation is going to make the task of both sides—and with this I mean the Coloured leaders as well as the Government—very difficult in future, even if it is only the creation of an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility. Surely, not even the hon, the Deputy Minister can deny this. Under these circumstances it is going to be even more difficult for suppleness and frankness, which I referred to a moment ago, to be manifested on both sides. Instead of burying the old tensions—anyone who has any common sense would want to do this— this Bill is going to create new tensions. This is a risk we may not incur under any circumstances, and for that reason I ask for the withdrawal of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his opposition to the Bill which we have before the House tonight. I think that it was the right thing for him to oppose it in the strongest possible terms available to the Opposition under these circumstances i.e. to move that the Bill be read “this day six months.” We had hoped that during the course of this debate, we would have been able to convince the hon. the Minister and the Government that the legislation which is before the House this evening is not in the best interest of the present situation in regard to race relations in South Africa. I still hope at this late hour that the hon. the Minister will concede that the opposition has advanced such powerful arguments against this legislation, that he agrees that it is in the best interest to withdraw the legislation. Referring to what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Relations said, i.e. “Dit is ’n stuk onskuldige wetgewing”, I want to say to him that he underestimates the significance of this legislation, because he is seeing it through the eyes of the Whites only. How different his attitude would be if in this hon. House tonight there was one Coloured man to put forward the way in which the Coloured people see this legislation.

In this situation in which we find ourselves, we, as representatives of Whites only, debate about the future of the Coloured people. Until we get a situation where we can discuss these problems together, we shall never get a really sensible and constructive debate going. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said: “Dit is ’n onskuldige stuk wetgewing.” When he says that, I say that he is not judging the situation accurately. If a Coloured man were able to raise the point of view of the Coloureds, he would point out that his aspirations for the future of the CRC have been dampened by the fact that this Government has introduced this legislation at this stage. A Coloured sees it in a different way. He sees it as a man who has experienced on the receiving end the limitations which this Government’s policy places on the Coloured people of South Africa. The Coloured man is the one who has been subjected to the disabilities which the Group Areas legislation imposes on every Coloured person in South Africa and furthermore he sees that the policy of the Government is responsible for those limitations. That is why he is taking an attitude which is against the Government’s policy and that is why he voted for the Labour Party in the election, not necessarily because he supports it, but as measure of protest against that institution which the Government has created and which gives him his political rights such as they are. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved in his amendment that this Bill should be read this day six months, I believe he was taking a statesmanlike stand. When he further suggested that this debate be adjourned to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reconsider the matter and to hold discussions with the newly elected leaders, he was acting wisely. I believe that not only was he acting wisely in the best interests of the Whites in South Africa, but that he was also taking a stand which is in the best interests of the Coloureds in South Africa. What is more, I believe he was expressing the views of many members on that side of the House. It may well be that he was expressing the view that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs holds, namely that the introduction of this measure was not in the best interests of the present situation. The hon. the Minister may even take courage, and I hope that he does. Many of the hon. members who have spoken on the Government side, such as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. member for Piketberg, said in the latter part of their speeches that they believed that the elected leaders, namely the leaders of the Labour Party, were now taking the view that they were going to co-operate with the Government on this issue. It gave me the impression that they felt that if the Government was prepared to withdraw this legislation, a new atmosphere would be created, an atmosphere in which the hon, the Minister would negotiate an arrangement with which they would be satisfied and which would secure the future of the CRC. The hon. the Minister has plenty of time. We on this side of the House simply cannot understand the almost unseemly haste with which this measure has been brought before this House. This Parliament will stay in session for another two months and what is more, the present executive of the CRC are there to deal with any matters and any problems which may arise. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister has confidence in the gentlemen who are presently serving not only as leaders of the CRC, but who are serving on the executive. Does the hon. the Minister not think that before he came with this legislation it was up to him to consult with the newly elected leaders? When he introduced the legislation which amended the Coloured Representative Council Act in 1972, he told us in this House that he had in fact consulted with the Coloureds. When he introduced this measure, no reference was made to consultation in his Second Reading speech. I am at liberty to assume that the hon. the Minister has not consulted. I should like to know on whose advice he acted. Was it his own decision? On whose advice did he decide to bring this legislation before this House? It was the strongest plea in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that consultation should take place. We are amazed that, as far as we can establish, there has been no consultation whatsoever. As far as we are concerned it is cardinal that in any issues which this White Parliament has to decide on, consultation must take place at all levels with the Coloured people before such decisions are taken so that we do not place ourselves in the position of making unilateral decisions on their behalf. It seems to me that this consultation has not taken place.

You are wrong. [Interjections.] I am sure you are wrong.

I would like to know with whom the hon. the Minister has consulted. There is another interesting point I want to mention. The hon. the Minister has appointed a commission to look into the problems affecting the Coloured people. That commission has now been operating some 18 months and it has been in contact with all levels of Coloured opinion throughout the Republic. I wonder if the hon. the Minister does not think it would have been wise, before introducing this legislation, to ask the chairman of that commission, for instance, whether she thought this legislation was in the best interests of the Coloured people and also in the best interests of the relationships between the White people and the Coloured people in South Africa. We believe that it is not in the best interests of those relationships. It is because we believe that it is not in the best interests of the future of the CRC that we have taken such a strong stand in this debate. We believe that at a time like this we should be involved in acts of faith and of common sense, acts which will lead to a greater mutual respect and understanding among all people in South Africa. I am afraid that this amending legislation we are called on to debate strikes a discordant note and above all a note of a lack of faith. What is more, I believe it displays a lamentable lack of confidence on the part of this Government in an institution of its own creation. The CRC is something the Government has created. The Government had faith in it but I believe that by introducing this legislation it is displaying a lamentable lack of confidence.

What are the implications of this piece of legislation, this small Bill containing three clauses? First of all, it implies that the Government has no confidence in the political institutions it has created because on the very day when the election took place to determine who the new members of the Council would be, the hon, the Minister gave notice of this Bill in this House. I cannot accept his argument that this was planned a long time before and that he decided that this was the best time to introduce this measure. There must be some other reason and I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to this debate he will tell us why in fact he chose that very day to give notice of this measure. What worries members on this side of the House more is that the Government is displaying a singular lack of confidence in the way the Coloured electorate in South Africa has exercised its democratic rights, because at the same moment in time when the electorate was taking decisions about its own political future in one direction, the Government came along with this Bill through which the hon. the Minister himself is conveying this message to the Coloured people: We are not interested in what you say; we are going to carry on in a way which we think is good for you. This is the message this Bill conveys to the Coloured electorate of South Africa.

It had no influence on that election.

How do you know?

It was published after the election.

I am not saying it affected the election, I am saying that the message which this piece of legislation conveys to the Coloured people of South Africa is: It does not matter which way you vote and what the outcome of the election will be, because we, the Government of South Africa, are going to conduct the affairs of the CRC in a manner which we think is in the best interests of the Coloured people. That is the unequivocal message that this Bill conveys. [Interjection.] I am sure I am right and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it. He says that this is an innocent piece of legislation, but in actual fact it has far-reaching ramifications. It makes the hon. the Deputy Minister, under certain circumstances, the person who is in charge of the whole show. That is what this clause does. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s speech when he introduced this measure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the constitutional aspects involved and so did the hon. member for Durban North. I now want to refer to just one aspect of the Minister’s speech when he stated the following—

I do not think that was a very constructive statement at all. How much better would it not have been, at this critical stage in the CRC’s development, when it was having its second important election, if the hon. the Minister had been able to say to the Coloured people, who are the people concerned with this situation, that as long as his side of the House was in power they would continue to build up and extend the powers of the CRC so that step by step it could become an institution worthy of serving the best interests of the Coloured people, eventually leading to their full participation, as citizens of this country, in the political life of South Africa. He would then have been coming forward with something of a constructive nature. He would have been offering the people something. He would have been offering them new hope. What did he do, however, on the very day of the election? He introduced a measure into this House which diminishes or makes subservient the very institution they are trying to build up. This can only create a lack of confidence among the Coloured people. If the hon. the Minister had acted like a statesman, and the hon. the Deputy Minister as well, who I am sure is seeking higher honours for the future, they would have had a wonderful opportunity to enhance their position. The hon. the Minister should have done what Dr. Verwoerd did. I refer to the message which Dr. Verwoerd gave out in 1961 indicating what the future development of the Coloured people in South Africa would be. He spelt it out for the next ten years.

What did you say then?

I shall quote what he said.

Order! The hon. member must not delve back into the history of this measure.

I will not delve into the history of the measure, Mr. Speaker. The point is that at that time an undertaking was given to the Coloured people and I believe we have reached a stage where they should be given another undertaking. This hon. Deputy Minister and his Minister should be telling the Coloured people how they see the CRC developing during the next ten years. The hon. the Prime Minister gave some indications, but I believe that the years that lie ahead are important and that the hon. the Minister should be spelling out how he sees the CRC developing over the next ten years. If we had been discussing that tonight, we would have been achieving something; we would have been creating goodwill towards the Coloured people which would perhaps make them more determined to make the CRC work. But we are doing just the opposite. We are passing legislation that is making the CRC subservient to the White Parliament. That is the reason why we on this side of the House have taken the strong stand we have. I do not want to reiterate all the arguments, because I believe they have been well made and well motivated. The hon. the Minister should take note of what has been said and see if he cannot change his mind in the interests not only of the Coloured people, but in the interests of his own policy and of his own institution, the CRC, which he is trying to develop. He must no doubt be concerned, after having taken note of the statistical results of the last election, to find that 61% of the Coloured electorate voted for the Labour Party As I have said earlier, a vote for the Labour Party did not necessarily mean a vote for the policy of the Labour Party.

61% of those who voted.

Yes, 61% of all the votes cast.

That is a different story altogether.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that these were not necessarily votes for the Labour Party, but votes against the CRC. The Coloured people see the CRC as an institution which is not able to fulfil their normal legitimate political aspirations. That is why the Labour Party found it easy to get people to vote for them.

How can you say that?

I want to say to the hon. member for Fauresmith …

You can not substantiate that.

If that hon. member had the contact I have had with the Coloured people he would know it for a fact. Even the Federal Party is against the CRC. The fact is that the situation deteriorated since the first election for the CRC. At that time 48% of the total number of votes cast were cast in favour of the Labour Party. In the ensuing five years we now find that the situation has deteriorated from Governments point of view to where 61% of the electorate is voting for the Labour Party.

That is about the fifth time we have heard that story.

I now want to tell the hon. member another story. Only half of the Coloureds who are eligible to vote are registered as voters. Only half of the Coloured people who are eligible to register as voters have taken the trouble to become registered. The reason is not that they do not have any interest in politics or in their future, but because they realized that once they came on the voters’ roll and even if they participated in an election and voted for the CRC in terms of the functions which that body has, it would have been unable to improve their lot.

That is another statement you cannot substantiate.

I can substantiate it, and I want to tell the hon. member something else.

Order! I have heard that argument several times.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your decision. I want to conclude by saying that at this late hour as this debate comes to an end, we as the official Opposition take a very serious view of this legislation. We have indicated why we feel this way. We still hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his decision and that during the course of his reply he will indicate to us that he is going to take the wise and statesmanlike step suggested to him by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, at the start I just want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. According to him, the fact that the Labour Party in the last election for the CRC received more votes than they did during the previous election, was a deterioration of the position. Is he opposed to the Labour Party?

No.

Why then is this a deterioration of the position? The hon. member did not specify whether this deterioration was in respect of the Government or in respect of his own party. [Interjections.] Any political party has the inalienable right to receive more votes at any election. I think it was very ill-conceived on the part of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to refer to that state of affairs as a deterioration of the position. [Interjections.] I would like the hon. member to think about that. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, I wish to continue with my reply to the debate. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and I think I should deal with him quickly and immediately. I must say that it required some effort on my part to listen to his speech because I have heard so many of those arguments so many times over the past two days. The hon. member is a member of a very important commission and I would have thought that he had learnt something over the past 18 months. [Interjections.] Nevertheless. I still hope and trust that he will acquire the ability to stick to the points at issue when debating matters affecting the Coloured people. He should know that many of the things which we discuss in open debate concerning the Coloured people are not conducive to fostering a spirit of good race relations. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen as carefully as I could to the speeches made by hon. members. Although many of their arguments duplicated one another, I have tried to remember all the arguments. I should like to respect each argument advanced by every member in this debate. However, I was disappointed at the spirit which radiated from the speeches made by hon. members opposite, and at the debate as it was conducted in general on the opposite side of this House. I am extremely disappointed at this for I asked a year ago, in my responsible capacity as the Minister who has to represent these people, that we should please stop using these people as a pawn to seek our own political advantage. However regrettable it may be that I have to say this again, we saw a display, after the fragmentation of the opposition parties to three, which, with, all due respect, was at times scandalous. It was scandalous in the sense … [Interjections.]

Order! I must ask hon. members to reciprocate the courtesy that I demanded and got for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke.

It was scandalous in this sense that these people knew that we were conducting this debate at a time when calm reason is not predominant, but when emotions are predominant, and that everything they say here will meet with a response not only inside and outside this House, but possibly in the outside world.

Mr. Speaker …

I am not prepared to reply to any question at this stage.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister permitted to refer to argument which have been allowed by you as “scandalous”?

I was referring to the spirit which radiated from the debate.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I was called to order on one occasion for referring to the “scandalous” behaviour of the Government side. I would not apologize and I was ordered out of the House. Surely, if the word “scandalous” refers to the actions of the other side, it must be withdrawn by the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon, the Minister was speaking in general; he did not refer specifically to any person, and the word “scandalous” has frequently been used here. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that the spirit which radiated from the debate on the opposite side was scandalous considering the conditions under which we are speaking. Sir, one of these remarks which I regard as being a scandalous remark was that made by the hon. member for Sea Point that the National Party had committed political fraud.

Now you are being specific.

The way you are carrying on now is scandalous.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “scandalous” because he is now attributing it to a specific member.

That specific hon. member said it. However, I withdraw it, but I still believe what I believe. Sir.

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

I withdraw it,

On a point of order, Sir, may the Chief Whip on the opposite side say that the Minister is behaving “scandalously”?

The hon. Chief Whip must withdraw it.

I said it before you ordered the Minister to withdraw the word “scandalous”.

It makes no difference.

I had earlier raised a point of order, and when the Minister used this word in referring to us, before you asked him to withdraw it. That is why I shouted that his behaviour was “skanda-lik”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

I do withdraw it, Sir.

Order! I am now making an appeal to hon. members to maintain the order.

This was the spirit which radiated from all members on that side, starting with the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I am deeply disappointed. I am not accustomed to availing myself of words of this type. I should like hon. members on that side, also those who did not participate in this debate and who think as I do, to reflect a little on this matter when they go home tonight. Sir, everything that was said on the opposite side was intended to suck poison from a measure …

Unbelievable nonsense!

… which this Government regards as being essential to avoid administrative chaos and with a view to the continuation of the administration of the CRC. It was nothing more and it was nothing less either.

What are your reasons?

Sir, the hon. member for Maitland knows that I will reply to his questions in a proper manner. He should sit quietly and wait until I come to them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was so naïve as to ask whether this measure was really necessary. This makes me suspect that hon. members opposite have either been strangers in Jerusalem during the past year or two, or that they know nothing of what is happening in the CRC, but are nevertheless trying to be clever about it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the childish remark, asked the childish question, what our expectation of chaos was based on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was so courteous as to say that he could not be here this evening, and I appreciate this. Does he not know the history of 1974 and the years before that? Does he not read the Press? Sir, frequent mention has been made here of a “collapse of policy”. “Collapse of policy” is the last thing hon. members opposite should talk about. I just want to tell them that there is something infinitely worse than a collapse of policy—which is a matter of opinion— and that is a “collapse of efficient administration”. It is the duty of this Government to be realistic and to ensure that no collapse occurs on an administrative level. The Government bears the final responsibility. The Government has to take cognizance of things that happen. Last August the CRC refused to approve a budget. There is still a deficiency in the Act, and it seems to me now as though the hon. member for Rondebosch wants me to have set this straight 11 years ago, two years, incidentally, before I came to this House. There is a deficiency in that Act. In 1972 we eliminated one of the deficiencies, when the Council refused the Budget. It could then have been dealt with by the Minister, but it was dealt with by the executive. But, Sir, we have to cope with new claims and new statements and new opinions every day. Just listen to this (Rapport, 16 March) (translation)—

And I am not even mentioning last year when internal disputes arose in the Federal Party, which was in office, and another group came into office, and it was not only the Labour Party either. In a developing political structure things of this kind happen, and the central Government has certain duties in this regard. After all, this kind of thing, this chopping and changing, simply carries on. Responsibility, however, brings less chopping and changing, and for that reason this Government will discuss the Coloureds less haphazardly and is discussing them less haphazardly then the kind of discussion we can hear on the opposite side. Hon. members opposite can say many things because they will not be called to account. Here, on the other hand, Mr. Sonny Leon has this to say (The Herald, 21 March 1975)—

According to Rapport, however, they stated that they would act in a responsible manner. This was two days later. The next day, in the Rand Daily Mail, it again sounded a little better. The day after that, in The Argus, they said they would prefer not to use the CRC. But yesterday, in The Cape Times, they said—

There are hundreds of Whites who are still working for these people. Do hon. members think this Government consists of children? Should we not take cognizance of these statements? Should we take these people at their word, or should we regard it as a joke? Are we dealing with rational behaviour or not?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I have already said that I cannot reply to any questions. The hon. member can listen, and if he really wants to ask a question later on, I shall reply to it.

I want to repeat this: At this stage the Government of the Republic of South Africa is responsible for the weal and woe of all the people of South Africa. However, this need not remain the case, regardless of the ignorant allegations we have had to listen to. In this regard I am referring to the hon. member for Sea Point and others who made ignorant allegations implying that the Government wanted to deprive people of their rights; that the Government had in fact said that it would grant more rights, and so on. Can such things simply fall out of the air suddenly? Surely that is nonsense. Nothing which the hon. the Prime Minister promised on 8 November last year will be withheld. Nothing that we have achieved with a completely lawfully constituted liaison committee—the Labour Party did not even want to serve on the committee—is being cancelled. On the contrary. Fourteen days ago the entire liaison committee convened and resolved that it would only be fair to wait until the new Council had first been elected, so that the new Council could commence negotiations with the Government with a view to the expansion of the Council’s powers, and with a view to a new fiscal dispensation and other relevant aspects in our new dispensation for White interests, Coloured interests and common interests. None of this has changed. The legislation is a temporary measure and it need only remain a temporary measure.

For how long?

Some things can remain temporary for a long time if it is necessary. It depends on the people with whom we negotiate. However, this Government remains the Government. In May the new Council commences its duties. We must understand one another very well now. In the meantime the Council is not being deprived of a single existing right. Cannot the hon. members understand that? Are they perhaps deliberately—or let me rather say “calculatingly”—trying to cloud the entire issue? No right is being removed. It is only when those people do not want to exercise their powers that there has to be a person who is able to do so. After all, who would feel like carrying on with the work if the persons concerned are doing it thoroughly? All the things which the hon. member for Yeoville held out in prospect for the Coloureds or suggested should be discussed with them, can and will still be done. Nothing need be removed from that. It would be a very stupid Government, a Government which could be charged with negligence—how delighted would the hon. members not be if they could charge us with negligence, for that is what they are waiting for, is it not?—if it were to allow an administration involving two million people to collapse in chaos. The 1972 amendment which entailed that financial control could be exercised, was inadequate, as we in fact discovered. There are jurists sitting here. They will know that legislation cannot be drafted and submitted within a week.

But the legislation comprises two clauses only.

Yes, but it involves a lot of things notwithstanding the fact that it comprises two clauses only. The hon. member knows that better than I do. The hon. member knows much more than he is prepared to say at the moment. [Interjections.] It takes quite some time even to draft two clauses if they are not to be assailed legally. He knows that better than I do.

*The hon. member for Durban North, seated next to him, said that this was a panic-stricken method. There is one little matter I now want to explain to hon. members. In July last year there was a commotion in the CRC. Hon. members all know that we had a session after July, but in November I was told that they considered that we should be able to control this matter even if these people did not compile a budget. I, who am not a jurist, was not satisfied with that. By January this year we had received a final opinion from senior jurists. They said that we would have to safeguard ourselves further, for if these people wanted to commit obstruction, they could paralyse the administration completely. I can now inform hon. members that it took two months to draft that legislation. I felt that the legislation should be ready prior to the election, and consequently the legislation was ready a few days before the election. However, if we had made the legislation public, prior to the election or at the time of the election, to people who had been engaged since October in fighting the election, it would have been an extremely irresponsible action. For that reason it was merely by chance that it was introduced at approximately the same time as the election. The hon. members can believe it or not. It makes no difference to me whether they believe it or not, but that is the position. That is what happens with legislation. I explained well enough in my Second Reading speech why the 1972 legislation was not sufficient, and why this amendment Bill was therefore necessary.

Personally I am sorry that the legislation had to be introduced at that juncture. Personally I also think that it did not create a good impression to introduce legislation in that regard at that time, but it was nevertheless essential. It will become law, for this Government has a greater sense of responsibility than to sit back and seek popularity by omitting to take essential action as a result of the fact that it would have to be taken at an inappropriate time. What does in fact count is whether it is essential in the best interests and for the welfare of more than 2 million people. The hon. members opposite are apparently less concerned about the lot of more than 2 million people than they are about the political aspects of such a step. All we are envisaging with this legislation is to prevent the CRC from committing administrative suicide. I received the Second Reading speech only two or three days before the Bill was read for the second time in the House. I then found that the Administrative aspect had been over-emphasized and that it could also be interpreted to mean that I was taking over legislative powers, while that is not what I had in mind at all. I said that I only wanted to ensure the administrative continuation of the functions of the Council.

Hon. members stated that our sole aim in introducing this legislation was to restrain the Labour Party. That may be part of the truth, but it is not the whole truth. Hon. members know that there is not much love lost between us, but even we are obliged to co-operate in this country, even though there is not always much love lost between us. It is necessary: it is in the best interests of this country. The fact remains that because this Government has established the democratic lower level of government for the Coloureds, it must also, to a large extent, take the principles of democracy into consideration whenever it takes action, although it should, if it were to become necessary to prevent certain actions on the part of that body, be able to do so. That was the point of departure in 1969, when I was not yet Minister. For that reason the majority of the candidates who were nominated were members of the Federal People’s Party. Now I want to say that regardless of whether people understand this thoroughly—most of the voters who voted for the hon. members on the opposite side did not know what they were voting for, otherwise they would not have been here— the Government accepts … [Interjections.] That is true.

Speak for yourself.

Very well, I shall speak for all of us. There are people who do not quite know what they are voting for. I do not believe for a moment …

Of course, there is still Gordonia as well.

Yes, but there people still have time to think. I just want to say that I do not think for one moment that the voters voted the Labour Party into office with the destruction of that body as its principal object. I believe that they voted against apartheid, because it has been pilloried. I think that was the main idea, and I believe that hon. members will concede this. Nevertheless the Labour Party scored an outright victory at the polls, and received a mandate from the Coloured people. We concede that, and it would be unfair of the Government to keep them on the verge of a majority now. Personally I think that to govern with 31 as against 29 would merely perpetuate a situation of uncertainty among these people. If they want it, we will help them in such a way with nominations that they will at least have a working majority.

Why do you not always talk this kind of language?

Never mind, there is still a lot you will still come to realize. As one’s common sense increases, one comes to realize that the National Party is right in its thinking. One must be able to govern effectively so that one can exercise one’s policy and can penetrate to the consequences of one’s policy, just as we are penetrating to the consequences of our policy. At the same time, I also think that there ought to be no objection to the leader of the Labour Party becoming the chairman of the Executive.

Splendid!

We are not in a position, unless we do so deliberately, to prevent this. For that reason I want to say that we will accept this factual situation reasonably and honestly, and are going to try to achieve only the best in future, and the Government is already making this its business. It depends upon whether the Labour Party wishes to co-operate, in other words whether this legislation is ever going to be used. Nevertheless hon. members who read the newspapers will have to agree with me that statements such as “Abolish the CRC”, and “Do this, and do that to the Government” are still the order of the day.

This legislation was initiated even before those people finally came to office. And this legislation is going to be placed on the Statute Book. The Government believes that any responsible leader or party should not always interpret the instructions of its voters literally.

Is that the way the National Party does it?

Well, if the hon. member for Maitland had merely said “I am Tony Hickman” and had not stood there, flailing his arms and making a few statements about everything he was going to do, I am certain that he would not have polled the votes which he did in fact poll. I am certain that he has not yet done everything he promised to do. He still has a great deal to do. Therefore, the voters do not always interpret it literally. For that reason I said at the outset that these leaders, too, will not necessarily interpret the instructions of their voters literally.

Have you misled Gordonia in this way?

Surely that is the truth. Surely you know this yourself, otherwise you would never have come in in Von Brandis.

Mr. Speaker …

For that reason I have the self-confidence …

Mr. Speaker, I may probably not ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, ask for a change. It seems to me the hon. member is very keen to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister allows so many questions to go unanswered, but with reference to my personal position and to my arm-flailing, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister can tell me whether he has so little confidence in democracy in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, whom I know very well, realizes that I need not furnish him with a reply.

What is your reply?

He will give it to you. He knows what the reply is.

Give it to us yourself.

I can give it to you if you want it. I have confidence in democracy, but I am also aware of the shortcomings of democracy. I therefore trust that those candidates who have been voted in by these people will be expected by them to act in a responsible manner. My door, and the door of the Prime Minister, will be open to them, and we shall see, in so far as it is within our means, whether we can beat a path for these two million people whom they have been called upon to represent at this stage. We are not forgetting the other members who were also elected and we are not forgetting the 20 nominated members either. It is part of any democratic political development that there should first be nominated councils, then a representative government and then a responsible government. That development is known to us all. In the initial stages all members are nominated, but subsequently all members are elected. The nominated members are specifically for those who do not vote, and in this case more than 51% did not vote. We must take those people into consideration as well. [Interjection.] The Labour Party nominated candidates in all the electoral divisions. They had the absolute maximum. Although our door is open to all these people, we cannot incur the risk of confusion arising—and here I am back with the legislation again. If it is perfectly clear to us that certain things can happen, it is our duty to take steps. We are dealing here with a game of chess which is in progress at the moment. When I begin to receive telegrams asking for a law to be scrapped, and the telegrams all come from the same place, I know that there is a group somewhere which is exerting pressure on this legislation. I know then that there are people who are concerned about this legislation, and who want this Government to be embarrassed. There are people who are the enemies of both the Government and the Opposition.

In conclusion I want to discuss the charge that racial friction may develop. I am certain that the Coloured voters—and now I am still referring to the 51% who did not vote—need not necessarily become estranged or embittered. I think this debate could have been a far easier one, for we want to safeguard the position of the pensioners, teachers, officials and welfare organizations. We do not want them to become the victims of political undercurrents. If we do not take these steps, it would be possible to accuse us of dereliction of duty and of negligence. Then we, as a Government, would not be worthy of the confidence of the voters. When the hon. member for Houghton reproached the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, she said: “The main task of an opposition is to oppose.” I do not agree that this is always the case, particularly not in South Africa. An Opposition can be of enormous assistance to a Government. The Opposition must oppose the Government if it thinks the Government is doing the wrong thing, but surely it cannot always be doing the wrong thing.

We have got news for you.

We really are not that bad. After all, we are doing so many things the Opposition said they asked us to do! Are those things wrong as well? This Government has done more to improve race relations, particularly on the material level, than any Government has ever done. I repeat that this measure is a stabilizing measure. It is being said that we did not talk to the leaders. Surely I cannot go and talk to the Labour Party and tell them that this measure is going to be introduced. They could say that the measure might prejudice them, for, after all, they do have a mandate from their people, and they have to prevent them from committing suicide. I cannot speak to the Federal Party in advance to obtain their permission for this measure, and now I am not referring to the preparation of the legislation. This took place long before the time. If they were to associate themselves with the legislation, how would it help them politically? Surely it is going to prejudice them completely, for surely they are not, after all, asking for this legislation. Surely they have never made mistakes of that nature. Then why do hon. members want me to go and talk to them? Surely it is the responsibility of this Government to take action in such cases, for it is a co-ordinating responsibility, a final responsibility to ensure that matters function smoothly in the administration of one’s country, in whatever sphere it may be. For that reason we felt that we could not place the responsibility, political or otherwise, on leaders who are engaged in an election, and that we should assume that responsibility ourselves. I have assumed the responsibility, and I am not ashamed of this. For this is one of those cases where consultation in itself is worse than no consultation and where sound commonsense is most important of all. Therefore we do not want to link these people to this legislation. I can tell hon. members that I spoke to eminent Coloured leaders, but I am not going to implicate them in this matter. They told me that they understood. Before I came to this House with this legislation, responsible Coloured leaders told me that they understood. This measure could only be temporary, or it could remain in force for a very long time, [Interjections.]

How do you know?

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must contain himself.

I am not eager to do the work of a council such as the CRC, work for which it has been elected and is being paid. After all, I am not depriving this Council of any of its rights. I also agreed that I had no legislative authority there. I must only ensure that that administration is continued. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained it very well by saying that what is at issue is education, rural areas, local authorities to a lesser extent, and welfare measures. What is at issue is people who cannot help themselves and for whom we are responsible in the final stage. Hon. members referred to the timing of the introduction of this measure; I have already explained that. They also spoke of cynicism. Sir, if I have to choose between cynicism and stupidity, I would rather choose cynicism.

†I would rather be regarded as a cynic than Stupid. That is what the Opposition wants us to be, but I am sorry we cannot oblige.

*We are not insensitive. But this racial hatred issue was a very ugly matter to raise here. In the circumstances under which the matter was raised here—the hon. member who did so will know what I mean, for he knows in what direction he glanced when he said it—I take it amiss of the hon. member, and although I had to withdraw a certain word which I used, I still say that that insinuation was unworthy of the hon. member. I take it amiss of the hon. member for—I shall not use the word polluting—having made South African politics less clean in that way.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I did withdraw it, Sir. I said “made it less clean than it ought to have been”.

†I reject with contempt the allegation of insensitivity on the part of the Government. We have to guarantee the livelihood of many people and as a Government it is our function to govern, and that we will do. It is not a question of policy as such, but one of governing to the best of your ability at a certain specific time when Parliament may not be in session and when the Government can be seriously embarrassed because it did not have the ability to see into the immediate future.

*The highly intelligent, highly trained Coloureds are not yet many in number, but as a result of this party’s policy their numbers are increasing. But the Coloureds who have a humble realization of what this Government is doing for them, will also understand that we had to adopt this measure to help them and not in order to afford some political party or other the opportunity of trying to destroy them.

Question put:

That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz dropped.

Question then put:

That the word “now” stand part of the Question.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Sir De Villiers Graaff dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Trade Metrology Act, 1973, to which I shall subsequently refer as the principal Act, was approved during the 1973 session of Parliament. Although the Act was approved in 1973, it has not yet been put into operation. The reason for this is, on the one hand, that comprehensive regulations have to be made in terms of the Act, and, on the other hand, that the metrication programme in the commercial sector is expected to have been completed to such an extent by the end of 1975, that it is hoped that it will then be possible for the regulations which make provision for the use of both the imperial as well as the metric systems during the transition period of the metrication process, to be based exclusively on the newly introduced International System of Units, in which our own metric system is incorporated. Furthermore it has come to light that, as is the case in the private sector, there is also a need in Government departments for certain measuring instruments which they use and which will be subject to certification in terms of the principal Act, being exempted from such certification. In this connection, I want to mention as an example the pipeline metres which are used by the South African Railways and Harbours for the measuring of oils. The Railway Administration has its own effective organization to service and maintain these metres, and also to carry out the necessary tests in respect of their accuracy. Any further testing and certification of this equipment of the Railways by officials of the Division of Weights and Measures, may therefore, to my mind, be regarded as superfluous. I might also add that, before any mechanic is charged with the maintenance of the metres concerned, such mechanic has to prove his skill to the Division of Weights and Measures by means of a test.

Although the proposed legislation is chiefly intended to amend the provisions of the principal Act, which make provision for the exemption from certification of measuring instruments, so that it will be possible to satisfy the above-mentioned need, the opportunity is also being taken to effect certain corrections and adjustments in the principal Act, on which I shall proceed to elaborate in greater detail.

As the definition of “measuring instrument” in section 1 of the principal Act is worded at the moment, the specific definition may be interpreted in such a way that counting instruments, which effect a counting by means of gravitation, are excluded from the application of the principal Act. Since regulations in respect of the composition and certification of the kind of measuring instrument concerned have existed for many years, and since it is also undesirable that these measuring instruments will be used in trade without their being certified, it was never the intention that these kind of measuring instruments be exempted from certification in terms of the statutory provisions concerned. Any doubt which might exist in this connection, is now being removed by clause 1 of the Bill.

In the packing industry, with a view to the promotion of productivity, the volume measure of containers is being relied on to an increasing extent to enable the industry to pack correct amounts of goods. Therefore, it has become necessary to effect a suitable amendment to sections 12 and 13 of the principal Act so that the containers concerned will also, as envisaged in the principal Act, be subject to inspection.

Section 13(4) of the principal Act provides at present that any person may inspect a measuring instrument on demand in order to ascertain whether it has been certified. It has been considered advisable— and I believe that hon. members will agree with me—that the power concerned be limited to a buyer. The proposed insertion at the end of section 13(4), arises from the proposal, which I shall deal with later, that the provisions of section 23(1) of the principal Act be so amended that measuring instruments which are used for prescribed purposes, have to be certified, unless they have been exempted from certification in terms of the principal Act.

The proposed amendments of sections 12 and 13 of the principal Act, to which I have just referred, will be effected by clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill makes provision for the addition of a subsection (2) to section 17 of the principal Act. This section provides that certain facts may be proved in a prosecution for an offence in terms of the principal Act by the production in court of an affidavit by an inspector. The proposed addition to section 17 will now entail that, in a prosecution for an offence in terms of the principal Act, the mere production by an inspector of an affidavit to that effect will be accepted as proof of the fact that a person had failed to give notice of the place where his measuring instruments were kept.

Inspectors of weights and measures are also required to carry out price control investigations. For this reason it has become increasingly essential that these inspectors should be able to visit as many dealers are possible. With a view to this, the publication in the Gazette of the names of places where dealers situated within 15 km of such places shall submit their measuring instruments to an inspector for certification, is being limited as far as possible.

This state of affairs entails that the Division of Weights and Measures must also be kept informed of all places where dealers use measuring instruments. The proposed amendment of section 19(2) of the principal Act by clause 5(b) of the Bill if aimed at making the provision of the necessary information to the said Division enforceable. The proposed insertion, by clause 5(a) of the Bill, of an additional section 19(1)(cA) to the principal Act will mean, however, that the provision in the existing legislation in terms of which dealers who conduct a business on premises which are situated more than 15 km from a place specified in a notice, do not have to produce their measuring instruments at such place for certification, is being retained.

According to the existing provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, 1958, an inspector may test fixed, heavy or delicate measuring instruments on the premises where they are in use. A provision was inserted in section 20 of the principal Act in terms of which an inspector may require at any time that transportable measuring instruments be shown to him at a place within five km of the place where they are used.

When the Trade Metrology Bill was being dealt with 1973, it was felt that the provision in question should be suitably amended in order to exempt the user from the possibility of an inspector insisting that fixed, heavy or delicate measuring instruments would also have to be produced for certification at a different place from the place where they were used. The amendment which was effected at the time to the relevant provisions of the Bill, brought about that, if the principal Act were now to be put into operation, an inspector would not have any power at all to test fixed, heavy or delicate measuring instruments on request at the place where they are used. The amendment which is now being proposed in clause 6 of the Bill, will rectify the position and will also bring the matter into line once again with the existing arrangements.

The proposed amendment of section 23 of the principal Act by clause 7 of the Bill, will rectify certain contradictions and obscurities which exist in the principal Act in respect of the certification of certain measuring instruments. The compulsory as-sizing by the Division of Weights and Measures of containers such as milk bottles, oil bottles and milk cans, was ceased a number of years ago because the manufacturers of these containers maintain very high standards of precision, and because the extent of the activities involved in compulsory assizement, took up a great deal of time. Instead of this, certain regulations have been made to which the manufacturers of the containers concerned have to comply. The procedure which will now be adopted, is that samples of the containers concerned will be tested at intervals, at the manufacturers’ premises in order to establish whether the specifications have in fact been met. The provision of section 23 of the principal Act, which prescribes that containers are to be certified in the same way as measuring instruments, will therefore be suitably amended to adopt it to the existing procedure.

As I have said already, Government departments will also be given the opportunity to apply for exemption from certification of measuring instruments if they have at their own disposal an organization which can ensure the reliable operation of their measuring instruments. The reference to section 26 in section 23 of the principal Act, which is being inserted in the above-mentioned section by clause 7 of the Bill, as well as the proposed amendment of section 26 of the principal Act by clause 8 of the Bill, will clarify this matter.

Further, the reference to grading and counting instruments as well as instruments which express quantity by means of a measuring unit, is being omitted from the wording of section 23 of the principal Act, because the definition of “measuring instrument” already includes all cases of this sort. The provision of the existing Weights and Measures Act which corresponds to section 30 of the principal Act, is limited to weighing instruments. The broad definition of “measuring instrument” in the provisions of the principal Act will bring about, however, that dealers, in order to comply with the requirements of section 13(4) of the principal Act, will have to keep other measuring instruments besides weighing instruments available, for example, length, surface area and volume measuring instruments. Experience has taught us, however, that buyers seldom, if ever, make use of the above-mentioned class of measuring instrument when they make their purchases. Further, section 30(2) of the principal Act requires that anyone who retails goods which have been pre-packed by him, shall keep certified measuring instruments for the use of any person dealing with him. Because such goods are often packed at a different place from that where they are sold, a dealer is obliged in the specific circumstances to keep a set of measuring instruments at both his place of packing and his place of selling in spite of the fact that it would be more convenient for the buyer to measure pre-packed goods at the place of packing if he wants to do so. In these circumstances, it is felt that the amendment of section 30(2) of the principal Act, which appears in clause 9 of the Bill, will still meet the needs of buyers, but at the same time also relieve the burden on dealers.

Clause 10 of the Bill contains amendments in terms of which, on the one hand, section 31 of the principal Act will be adjusted by the provision which appears in clause 7 of the Bill and in terms of which, on the other hand, provision is also being made for containers which might be considered suitable for the measuring off of a liquid in their sale in retail trade to be specified by regulation and at the same time prescribing certain requirements to which such containers shall comply.

Because section 23 of the principal Act, in terms of the amendment which appears in clause 7 of the Bill, will now provide that measuring instruments which are used for a prescribed purpose, such as the conclusion of a contract, may be exempted from certification or re-certification, clause 11 of the Bill contains a suitable amendment of section 38(3) of the principal Act.

Clause 12 of the Bill, apart from certain amendments which arise from other amendments to the principal Act, contains two important additions to the provisions of section 42 of the principal Act. In the first place the Minister will be empowered to make regulations in regard to delivery notes which are referred to in section 40 of the principal Act, as well as in regard to containers. In the second place, in order to make the implementation of the aims and objects of the principal Act more effective in practice, the Director of Trade Metrology will be empowered to grant exemption from regulations with, reference to pre-packed goods.

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps no accident of history that this Bill should follow the Bill which has preceded it this evening. The short title of the principal Act is the Trade Metrology Act of 1973, and I believe at the time that this principal Act was introduced, few members were aware of what trade metrology meant. I recall that my hon. predecessor, Mr. Sonny Emdin, was at pains to indicate to this House that it meant that we were weighing up the scales of justice as far as measurements in meting out goods to the public were concerned. The whole of this evening we have been dealing with a Bill where the scales of justice in human relationships were concerned. During this evening I recalled the case where no less a statesman than President Kruger was asked to adjudicate on the division of a farm. On that particular farm there were good and bad sectors with water on the one sector, kopjes on another, vlakte on another and fertile land on yet another sector. He decided that the elder of the two brothers would divide the land whilst the younger brother would choose. In dealing with this Bill, just as we did with the Bill previously before the House, it is only right that we should realize that justice to the consuming public is the main concern of this House. We should use our wisdom in allowing those with the greatest power to divide and the populace to choose. The hon. the Minister has indicated this evening that although the Trade Metrology Act of 1973 has come into operation, it has not really been put into practice. This legislation which we have before us endeavours to set right certain discrepancies and certain anomalies. W supported the Government on the principal Act and I want to make it clear that we support the hon. the Minister on this Bill as well.

We made our point clear with the introduction of the principal Act and we want to repeat it that in the Trade Metrology Act we are really dealing with one of three Acts which are about to be enacted or which have been enacted already. Originally we had the Measuring Units and National Measuring Standards Act, then we had the Trade Metrology Act of 1973 which replaced the Weights and Measures Act, and we also have the Trade Practices Act which is before the House at the moment. Each of these Acts is, as it rightly should be, concerned with the welfare of the consuming public and with the welfare of the individual in South Africa. In the Trade Metrology Act we are concerned basically with weights and measurements which are used in the trade and in dealing with the consuming public. It is interesting that with metrication the whole terminology of the original Weights and Measures Act has had to be altered and was the cause for bringing into being the existing Trade Metrology Act. I want to go along with the hon. the Minister in the amendments which he has proposed to this Act in the Bill before us today, but I think that he owes it to the public that we should have clarification on certain of the amendments which he is proposing. I think that this House should realize that in the Trade Metrology Act we are dealing with an Act which validates and necessitates certain practices in the weighing of goods which are sold to the public. In the discussion on the principal Act my hon. predecessor made it quite clear that we believed that the purpose of the Act was specifically to deal with measurements in dealing with the trade and not measurements in general. Had the Act envisaged dealing with measurements in general, it would have applied to all sorts of intricate scientific scales which are far beyond the ken of the normal public.

Looking at this legislation, I believe I have the right to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to this House what he means in clause 1 which amends section 1 of Act 77 of 1973. In the definition of “measuring instrument” he includes the words “or a counting by means of gravitation”. There are all manners and means of counting, counting by weight, counting by numbers and counting by scales, but when he sees fit to introduce in the definition the specific words “a counting by means of gravitation” I believe we have the right to inquire from him what his actual intention is. Clause 2 substitutes section 12 of Act 77 of 1973. In the new section 12 reference is made to a container. In clause 3 there are again many references to “container”. I would like to ask him whether we must read into the word “container” as it appears in the Bill the ordinary definition of “container” which one can find in a dictionary or whether it has any special meaning. I believe the hon. the Minister is being fair in that, having studied the working of the principal Act, he realized it was unduly onerous when applied to the trade itself as opposed to the public. There are clauses in this Bill in which he makes it clear that he is endeavouring to assist the trade by making the Act more workable.

I want to restate our position. We supported the principal Act and we are going to support this Bill. There are certain clauses in respect of which we shall ask elucidation in the Committee Stage, but I believe that fundamentally the hon. the Minister is being frank with this House by introducing this amending legislation in order to ensure that the Act can be implemented without undue hardship either to the consuming public or to the trade which is responsible for carrying it out. Accordingly, we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we piloted the original Trade Metrology Act through Parliament in 1973, it became very clear that we were not simply dealing with new measurements, but with a whole new system. If it had simply been new measurements, it would have been fairly simple. However, we are dealing with a completely new system, and therefore it is obvious that we are now dealing with legislation which will gradually have to be corrected according to practical experience. That is why it is necessary for us to introduce amendments so soon after the original legislation was passed.

Metrology is certainly a whole new system which holds a completely new concept for us who grew up and grew old with the old British system. To us the measurements 38: 22: 38 were easy to remember, but now that they have become 94: 55: 94, they are a lot more difficult.

But they are still pretty.

It is obvious, therefore, that adjustments will have to be made in due course.

These amendments are all technical corrections and for that reason, in view of the fact that we should all like to go home early tomorrow afternoon, I do not intend to give a whole explanation now of all the technical amendments which this Bill contains. Consequently I just want to express my appreciation towards the hon. Opposition for supporting this Bill, thereby enabling us to deal with it very expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Paarl has not given us more information on the terminology, for I am a little in the dark concerning the meaning of many of these words in the trade. I think that traders themselves are a little in the dark. I really am very sorry that the hon. member for Paarl has not made use of the opportunity to give us a little more information. It seems to me very much as if the hon. member for Paarl is rather in the dark himself. Excepting that, there are a few general statements I wish to make with regard to this Bill. In the first place I want to ask why we really have to search around for terminology. I find it striking that, when we had ordinary weights and measures in the good old days, we also spoke of weights and measures, while today, because we are metricating, we do not speak of a weight any more, but of mass. I really do not know where this comes from. Why must we now speak of mass? Every English-speaking person in the country knows what “weight” is. Now he is asked to learn a new word, namely “mass”. I most strongly object to this. The Afrikaans-speaking South African, too, must now speak of “massa” instead of “gewig”.

†I really do not know why this is necessary.

We are both verkramptes, you and I.

Especially you.

The situation is very much worse when one comes to the decimal point. In the English language we have always spoken about a decimal point, and everybody throughout the world has known what a decimal point is. But now all of a sudden we have to talk about a comma. I can understand and I have no objection to the use of the word “comma” in Afrikaans before a fraction of a metric measure because in Afrikaans the term “punt” means a full stop or it could refer to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

Yes, he is a full stop.

He is not a comma.

In English, however, when we speak of “point” we certainly do not mean “full stop”. We mean a decimal point. This is not only quite confusing but I think it is high time we got back to the kind of language we were accustomed to speak before we started all this nonsense. I believe that metrology is all very well and I am not against it, but if we have metrology and metrication, for heaven’s sake let us keep to the words we understand. There are enough words in this Bill that we do not understand, so why must we confuse people even more by speaking about “mass” and “comma” when we mean “weight” and a decimal point? I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of this because I believe that when he comes along with his next amendment he should start off by changing all this nonsense back to the sort of language we understand.

Sir, this very interesting piece of legislation is probably not going to take us very long to deal with. I notice that there is a great deal of public interest in it. I am worried, however, about this question of counting. Counting has to do with a new type of measurement. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens when he says that he thinks we are entitled to know what sort of count is meant here because “counting” also has varying connotations. I believe that counting has been accepted in Great Britain as being a type of measurement. I do not know, however, whether we in South Africa should follow blindly what is being done in the United Kingdom. I am wondering whether we should not have another look at this word “counting”. I think that what we should try to do for the ordinary man who wants to do business is to make it easy for him to understand what his business is all about. When we have an instrument for measuring something, why do we not simply say that it is a measurement or something to measure with? Let us cut out this reference to counting. I think we have had enough of words of this kind.

There is one other matter I should like to raise and that is the question of this presumption. I think I understand the position but I should like the hon. the Minister to explain it to me so that we can have it on record.

Have him spell it out.

Yes, I should like him to spell it out. I believe that what the hon. the Minister is trying to do is to save a lot of time and trouble. He wants an inspector to be able to make an affidavit to say that Mr. A has not notified him where he keeps his measuring instruments, not his counting instruments or his container but his measuring instruments his scales and instruments of that nature. This inspector must have the right to say: “Mr. A has not notified me, because if he had notified me I would have had a record of it. I have no record of it; therefore the court can assume that he has not notified me”. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is the case. If Mr. A, who is a general dealer, is able to produce to the court a certificate of the posting of a registered postal package to the inspector together with a covering letter and a copy of the notice in which he says: “I keep my measuring instruments at No. 5 Main Street, Grabouw”, the mere production of this evidence on the part of the dealer will be sufficient to rebut presumption. It is by no means clear whether this is the case, but if it is not the case, I do not think we can support the Bill entirely. If this is going to be an irrebuttable presumption which can only then be rebutted by calling in the inspector and putting him under cross-examination, I can see that this legislation will need quite a lot of redrafting. I would like to be assured on this point. It is a great pity that I cannot speak more than once in a Second Reading debate and that I cannot speak after the hon. the Minister has replied to this debate, because if I am not satisfied with his explanation I can hardly move an amendment at that stage. But I am going to rely on the Minister, because I can see that I have his goodwill this evening and we appear to be on the same wavelength. I am going to rely on the hon. the Minister to satisfy me entirely on this very important point. If he can do so, I also will bless this legislation with one request only, namely—I am going to repeat what I said before—that we cut out all this counting, mass and comma business, and get back to the old-fashioned way in which we used to measure and to talk about decimal points.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can stay on the same wavelength as the hon. member for Wynberg, certainly not with the same eloquence and the same precision and the same succinct way of putting things. I would like, however, simply to raise four minor points with the hon. the Minister, one of which has already been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens when he referred to the two or three last lines of clause I, which read: …“in connection with the measurement of any physical quantity or a counting by means of gravitation may be effected”. I assume from the way the hon. the Minister is nodding his head that he is going to explain to us what that means. It may simply be a new and ingenious application of Newton’s law of gravity, but certainly, as far as we are concerned, at the moment we cannot follow it.

Clause 3 brings into the principal Act net provisions applying to containers as well as to what was previously described as measuring instruments. In regard to clause 3(g), however, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the effect of this amendment to the principal Act is to reduce the word “person” to “purchaser”. Is he prepared simply to leave it at that or is he prepared to consider that it should be either “a purchaser” or, at this point in time, reading it in the context of this clause “a person who intends to purchase”? There may well be circumstances where a person is a prospective purchaser as opposed to an actual purchaser whom he would like to deal with under this particular subsection.

When we come to clause 5 we find that certain concessions are granted in respect of measuring instruments which are situated more than a specified distance by the shortest route from a place which is specified. I refer to the new paragraph (cA) which is to be inserted after section 19(1)(c) of the Act—

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us an explanation on two aspects of this amendment. Firstly, I want to know what is meant by “the shortest route”. Secondly, I want to know why a distance of 15 km is chosen as the particular distance.

The last question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister refers to clause 8. Clause 8 substitutes section 26 of the principal Act and reads as follows:

The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is why this exemption is simply on the basis of usage by the State or any authorized person and why the criteria which apply to that kind of instrument when used by other people should be ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side of this House for their support of this legislation. If I were to do what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens did and call to mind the previous legislation. I should like to remark that it is as well that the contributions made by hon. members on the opposite side of this House in respect of that legislation are not measurable by precise measuring instruments. If that had been the case, they would most probably have experienced problems. Some of the aspects mentioned by the hon. members, may be dealt with fruitfully in the Committee Stage, since that may probably be the more appropriate stage to do so. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked me what was meant by the containers referred to in the new section 12, as substituted by clause 2. I want to tell him at once that the meaning to be attached to the word “container” is the meaning which is normally attached to this word. I want to point out further that clause 10 of the Bill, which amends section 31 of the principal Act, actually enables us to prescribe what containers are to be used. As regards the amendment in clause 1 to the definition of “measuring instrument”, the hon. member referred to the words “a counting by means of gravitation”. As far as I personally am concerned, this is a concept which is beyond my comprehension. I asked my learned friend from Wonderboom, who is an engineer, what he thought it meant, and he sent me the following note. I hope this will clarify the matter for hon. members: “Weight is the synonym of the measurement of an item which is registered purely as a result of the force which is exercised upon it by the gravity of the earth. Mass concerns a specific gravity. It is a composition of the item of which the mass has to be determined and is a gravitational balance.” If you understand this, Sir, then you are more intelligent than I am, because I do not understand it [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg also supported the legislation although he objected to certain terms. I want to tell him that the terms to which he referred are not new concepts which are being inserted by the legislation introduced by me. I want to say at once that a reaction also came from the public against certain of the terms. At the time when the legislation was introduced, in 1973, I explained, and I repeated it tonight, that this legislation was bringing us into line with the international system of units. We must also remember that basically this legislation—as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens correctly remarked— actually concerns trade and that in this particular respect we trade with other countries which have the same international system of units, the SI system. When we deal with legislation which concerns trade, it is necessary, for the purposes of international trade, for us to use the same terms even though they might not be so readily acceptable in popular parlance. Women in particular do not like one refering to their weight as “mass”. Even the two of us, the hon. member for Wynberg and I are not getting younger or smaller in mass!

I have already given the hon. member for Johannesburg North an explanation in connection with clause 1. I hope he now understands what it means, because from the nature of things I still do not understand it.

The hon. member for Wynberg drew my attention to the presumption created by clause 4. I want to say at once that he will see that the new section itself provides that that affidavit will be prima facie evidence only. Therefore it stands to reason that it is refutable and if the particular dealer were to bring evidence in the form which he suggested, i.e. the receipt from the post office that the notice had been sent, then, in my opinion, he would inevitably have discharged adequately the onus resting upon him. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to clause 8, which makes provision for the exemption from certification of measuring instruments of the State. I have already explained that the basic motivation in this regard has nothing to do with the fact that the measuring instruments are used by the State. It has to do with the fact that the administrations of the State, for example the Railways, have adequate facilities to ensure that the measuring instruments which are used are correct, accurate and true. Before their mechanicians qualify to do that certification, they first have to do a test at the Division of Weights and Measures so as to ensure that they are able to establish the accuracy of the measuring instruments. In other words, the motivation for the exemption from certification concerns the ability of departments of State to do the certification of the instruments themselves. I shall deal with any other facets or aspects in the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.