Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we accept the motion that has been moved by the hon. the Leader of the House. However, I want to make it clear to hon. members that there is an understanding with the hon. the Leader of the House that this limitation of hours will be on a trial basis and will not mean that towards the end of the session the House will have to sit mornings, afternoons and evenings in order to cope with legislation. In order to complete the legislative programme, this may also mean, if necessary, that the normal duration of the session will have to be extended but that we will not revert to what has become known as “legislation by exhaustion”.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) 20 hours for the second reading;
2. (b) 105 hours for the committee and report stages;
3. (c) 12 hours for the third reading. Agreed to.

Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to address the Committee, I must point out that the principle contained in this clause was fully discussed at and agreed to at the Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House, I shall accordingly permit only one member of each Opposition party to state their party’s objection to this clause and the Minister to reply. Further discussion will in accordance with Standing Order No. 57 be strictly confined to the details of the clause and amendments to such details.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

During the Second Reading debate it came to my attention that as subsection (1) of the proposed section 22A reads at present, namely—

it has been too widely stated. I felt that the legislative power, which may be regarded as the most important power of such a Council, could possibly also fall under these provisions. It is because it was not the intention to restrict the legislative power of this Council that I am moving this amendment. It is true that the legislative power of this Council is limited to certain matters, but it is also true that the State President may confer further legislative power on the Council by proclamation. For example, as recently as two years ago the State President conferred on this Council the power to make legislation in regard to agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, namely—

1. (1) On page 2, in lines 8 to 10, to omit “If the Minister is satisfied that the chairman of the executive, the executive or the Council fails” and to substitute:

Should the chairman of the executive, the executive or the Council fail

1. (2) on page 2, to add the following subsection at the end of the proposed section 22A:
2. (3) Should any power, function or duty be exercised in terms of subsection (1), the Minister shall table in the House of Assembly within fourteen days thereof, or should the House of Assembly not then be in session, on the commencement of the next session, a report setting forth the power, function or duty which was not exercised, and who so failed, and what action was taken pursuant to subsection (1).

I want at the outset to say that we are pleased to be able to support the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. the Minister, We do so after having expressed our very strong feelings in regard to the Bill as a whole. We feel, however, that in terms of the extensive powers the Minister has taken for himself in this Bill, this amendment is a definite improvement in that it at least excludes the exercising of legislative powers. In terms of the Bill as it now stands, the hon. the Minister retains complete powers in respect of the administration of the CRC. In terms of this amendment, however, he will at least be excluding from those powers the power to legislate.

It is clear that the Bill gives the hon. the Minister extensive discretion in deciding whether or not the chairman, the executive or the council has failed to carry out a function, a duty or a power in terms of the powers vested in that council I feel that it is very unfortunate that such extensive powers should vest in one person and that such a person should, firstly, have the power to exercise such an extensive discretion and, secondly, that he should be seen to exercise such an extensive discretion. Based on this, there will, of course, be extensive criticism of the reasons why the hon. the Minister found it necessary to exercise such a discretion. What we have here, then, is a programme of extensive powers granted to the Minister, made even more potent in the hands of that Minister by virtue of the fact that he has the discretion to decide when the council, its executive or its chairman has failed. We believe that that is most unfortunate. What is a “failure”? What will constitute a failure on the part of the chairman, the executive or the council? In what respect can a failure take place? How will the Minister judge for himself that a failure has in fact taken place? What action or actions on the part of the chairman, the executive or the council would constitute a failure? Sir, there will be any number of different interpretations and attitudes as to what constitutes a failure. Will a change in the fiscal policy of the council in respect of the payment of salaries or pensions, even a minor change, if that does not meet with the approval of the Minister, constitute a failure on the part of the chairman, the executive or the council? Will an appointment by the council that does not meet with the favour of the Minister be considered to be a failure? If the council should appoint a person or personages of whose attitudes or policies the Nationalist Government does not approve, will the Minister then decide in his sole discretion that that constitutes a failure? Will the promotion of an unpopular man in any part of the Service constitute a failure in the discretion of the Minister? Will a controversial motion—and many such motions may come before the council and may be adopted—which is militantly critical of the Government be considered to be a “failure” and will the Minister in his discretion decide that because of that controversial motion, he has the right to intervene? In fact. Sir, it can be said that if this council or its executive or its chairman in any of their statements at any time should go counter to the ideology or the requirements or the wishes of the Nationalist Government, this Bill in fact puts in the hands of the Minister of Coloured Relations the sole discretion to decide that that body has failed to carry out its powers or functions or duties. What will happen, Sir, in the case of a deadlock between the Minister and the chairman or the executive or the council? We can conceive that many deadlocks could arise under the present system. The Government has already put the backs of the Coloureds up through his legislation, because the present legislation is an indication of the Government’s intention and enables the Government to interfere with the actions of the council, and we can therefore expect that there will be many deadlocks between the council, the executive or its chairman and the Government. Will that be considered to be a “failure” in carrying out their duties? All we need here is that the Minister must be satisfied that in some way or another the council or the executive or its chairman has not carried out its or his duties, functions and powers. This is an extremely wide set of powers to place in the hands of one man, a man who yesterday in this House expressed doubts about the ability of the Labour Party who are going to govern the CRC. What impression will it make amongst the Coloureds and amongst the other people in South Africa that here the Government is taking unto itself powers which will enable it, in the sole discretion of the Minister, to decide to take over the powers, duties and functions of a fully elected body of Coloured people, a representative body with a mandate from the Coloured voters, because the Minister of Coloured Relations does not like what they have done?

Nonsense.

In our amendment we say that should the chairman of the executive, the executive or the council fail—not in the discretion of the Minister—then you will have the situation that a test can be applied in an open court in South Africa, where both the Coloured Representative Council and the Minister can be represented and the court can exercise an independent and free judgment and test as to whether a failure took place or not. Sir, only under those circumstances can we have any confidence in such a measure—if the matter can be subjected to a free and independent test in an open court of justice where both sides can be represented and where the judgment is then subjected to the scrutiny, the judgment and the test of public opinion. Sir, the next amendment is also very important indeed, and that is our request that the Minister, if such action is taken at any time, must report to this Parliament within 14 days if Parliament is in session and, if it is not in session, that as soon as the next session of Parliament takes place. We must accept that if the Government avails itself of these rights, it will create a situation which will cause concern and alarm and disappointment and disillusionment throughout South Africa and particularly amongst the Coloureds. This House, which has given the Minister these powers, has the right to ask the Minister to report on what action he has taken and to report, in respect of what duties, functions or powers a failure has taken place, in other words, whether he has acted in terms of a failure by the chairman, a failure by the executive or a failure by the council, and what action he has taken, and then we will have an opportunity to subject the actions of the Minister to an objective test. Our request in terms of the second amendment is that the Minister when he takes action of this nature, be asked to report to this House the nature of the action taken by him, in respect of what failure of a power, a function or a duty he acted and in respect of what person or what part of the council, the executive or the council, he took those actions. Here we are helping the Minister once again, because if that situation arises and if the Minister acted bona fide and in the interests of the Coloured people and if his actions were above board and free of any prejudice, then he will have this advantage that when this House publicly examines to the fullest possible extent the action that the Minister has taken, based on a full report with full data to be laid before this House, and this House then finds that the Minister’s actions were justified, he will be in a strong position. I believe that if this House is given the power to judge the actions of the Minister on the basis of a full report submitted by him, then not only this House but also the Coloured people will have confidence in this measure. [Time expired.]

I too should like to move an amendment to clause 2 as it stands here. My amendment reads as follows—

We all realize that when the word “State President” is used, it means the State President acting on the advice of the Executive Council, viz. the Cabinet as a whole, and we should like to see the responsibility to decide on the powers which the Minister will exercise here, being a decision by the Cabinet as a whole. Now, even were this amendment of mine to be accepted, I should nevertheless have to say that the powers contained in this clause are of such a scope and nature that we should not be able to accept them. I shall submit our reasons for this to you.

A number of reasons why this legislation, this clause, is necessary, have been advanced by this side of the House. The most important is, firstly, that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that there will not be a collapse of Coloured administration. The argument that the measure is necessary to prevent the progress of the Coloureds being checked, was advanced by the Deputy Minister. I want to contend that in spite of the fact that they attach great importance to them, these arguments do not really hold water. The hon. the Minister already possesses powers to ensure that the administration of Coloured Affairs will continue. According to the Budget for the new year and the amount that is being set aside—we heard this yesterday and it is on our desks—an amount of R153 million has already been set aside for the CRC and if they fail to utilize it, then the hon. the Minister is in a position to go ahead with that task himself. In the first place, therefore, the administration of Coloured Affairs can continue. There will be no interference with the welfare work, the pensions, the policy or as far as the rural areas of the Coloureds or the education of the Coloureds are concerned. Even the business of the CRC may be proceeded with because according to my information a quorum of only 20 is necessary to proceed with the business of this council. Then, too, I want to contend that even if circumstances were to arise in which the business of the CRC were to collapse entirely, the hon. the Minister would in any event be obliged, if not legally, then at least morally, to come to the Cabinet and to Parliament, too, and to report on the true state of affairs. We know that owing to its policy the Government is bound to the CRC and I do not believe that there is anyone on that side of the House who would want to see the CRC a complete failure. In the same way there are also some of us on this side of the House who would not like to see this Council becoming a complete failure. However, the CRC alone is no solution for the Coloureds and for the problem which the hon. the Minister faces, It is not a means whereby the Coloureds of South Africa can be afforded meaningful participation and a joint say. The powers given to the CRC will always be limited, at all times. The significance of this clause we are discussing now is purely political. The Government took fright at the political signs of frustration among the Coloureds. If, for example, the appeal that was made by a Tom Swartz and other members of the Executive had been listened to at an early stage, and if they had been heeded, the situation we are discussing now would never have arisen. I must say that the hon. the Minister acted immaturely as far as this measure is concerned. I believe that at this stage this measure is absolutely premature. It only aims to show the Coloureds that the hon. the Minister still holds the whip-hand. In the event of a deadlock he will have to negotiate, and I believe that by means of this specific clause he has weakened his case even before starting to negotiate with the Coloureds. It cannot enhance the status of the CRC in the eyes of the Coloureds. Everyone knows that the hon. the Minister desperately wants the Coloureds to accept the CRC as their own institution, but this step is not going to assist the Government in that regard. If the Coloureds are offered self-determination, this must at all times be accompanied by the following things, which I should like to enumerate. The first is that we, and the Government on that side in particular, should display confidence in the Coloureds, confidence that they are in fact capable of running their own affairs. In other words, the maximum responsibility and powers must be entrusted to them, as they have, in point of fact, repeatedly requested in the past. I believe that up to now, this point has not been taken sufficiently into account by that side of the House. Secondly, if a clear deadlock were to be reached between the hon. the Minister and the CRC, then participation and negotiation become essential and the iron fist of the hon. the Minister must be withheld. This clause is not an example of his being prepared to withhold his iron fist. Thirdly, the impression must not be created that the CRC is the final answer. Steps must be taken on evolutionary basis and we must not place a damper on that. This clause is an example of a damper, and it does not offer the Coloureds the necessary guidance in these circumstances.

Politically speaking, the Coloureds of South Africa have always displayed a political awareness. They are becoming ever more mature and this state of affairs will have to be encouraged. Fifthly, I believe that the Coloureds are asking for political recognition of their citizenship. These demands on their part will not diminish. In fact, in the years ahead, they will grow. The clause is no solution to the dilemma in which the Government finds itself, nor is it a solution to the Coloureds’ dilemma. We must not think that we shall cause the demands of the Coloureds to diminish by means of legislation of this kind. They will only grow, and consequently it becomes the task of the Government to guide these demands on the part of the Coloureds in such a way that clashes will be avoided.

However, what is happening as regards this legislation? In this clause the Government is admitting that it is heading for conflict and that it is incapable of providing the correct guidance in these circumstances. It is my humble opinion that the most serious implication of the clause is that the Government is heading for a clash and that its approach thus far has failed. That is why we on this side of the House are unable in any circumstances to support clause 2 as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches welcome the amendment by the hon. the Minister and in our opinion it is an improvement on clause 2, but even should the amendment be accepted, we find clause 2 unacceptable and we are unable to support it. If one were to speak in support of the amendment by the hon. the Minister, I find myself in something of a dilemma. It depends on the perspective in which one looks at this amendment by the hon. the Minister. Here I must rely on the hon. members on that side of the House who adopted conflicting standpoints in regard to clause 2 as such yesterday and dwelt on it at some length. I have here, for example, the warning of the hon. member for Johannesburg West who, in the course of his speech yesterday said: “This measure, viz. clause 2, must also be understood in the context of the entire process of our policy in regard to the Coloureds.” Later he also said:“This text, or this Bill, must be read specifically in the context of the whole.” At the moment I find this whole rather ambiguous. In this regard I want to refer to one or two points made by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this was an innocuous piece of legislation. I concede that it may be an innocuous piece of legislation. Clause 2 could be entirely innocuous, but it depends on the perspective in which one sees it. For example, the hon. member for Vereeniging—I want to quote him here so that it may be on record—states—

Before one can assess this clause, and the amendment inroduced by the hon. the Minister, at their true worth, it seems to me important that I should now have clarity from the hon. member for Vereeniging on the question whether it is true that he places the CRC on the same constitutional level as a city council.

By no means.

Does he, then, place them on the same constitutional level as a provincial council, for example?

It is a unique body with limited powers.

Then it is importan that we should have clarity concerning the nature of this limitation. Is this a transitional measure?

But I said so.

It is therefore a transitional measure en route towards full responsibility and full autonomy.

Order! Hon. members must not conduct a dialogue.

To me this is an important point, because when one withdraws powers, as the Central Government may withdraw powers from a provincial authority, it means that the same electorate is involved. If one says “No”, it means that what we have here in a situation in which a controlling Government, as the hon. the Minister said, has jurisdiction over a body with limited power, without the members having access to that body, having any say in the controlling body. Looking at this from one point of view, it is in a certain sense, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, an innocuous piece of legislation, because what goes wrong at the lower level of authority may be rectified on the higher level of authority by people with the same access. But if it is seen from the other point of view, it means quite simply that that lower level of authority, the one with the limited powers, has no joint say in what is eventually decided here in regard to that lower level. That is why I must ask the hon. the Minister at this stage whether he, too, sees it in this light, viz. that this body is a transitional measure that will eventually lead to full autonomy for the Coloured population. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps give me an indication that he does in fact regard it in that light? The question has been put repeatedly, but I am still to some extent uncertain in this regard. If it is true, then this is not such an innocuous piece of legislation, because then it means that this legislation has tremendous implications on the road to progress.

I concede that at this stage there is a fair amount of uncertainty in regard to this problem and consequently I think that one should look at the nature of the amendment which the hon. the Minister himself proposed. The hon. the Minister’s amendment reads that he does not want to let this clause go through if it should mean that the legislative power of the CRC would be affected in any way. In his speech last night the hon. the Minister motivated the amendment as follows—

The hon. the Minister also said that some of us in the House who are lawyers—here I do not include myself because I am not a lawyer—know how long it takes to draft a piece of legislation, even if the legislation only has two clauses. A great deal of attention is given to it and one has to see it in various perspectives. Therefore, when a piece of legislation is submitted to Parliament, the legal draftsmen in particular are very sensitive in respect of their colleagues, that they should not be exposed to criticism. That is how the hon. the Minister motivates this. He then said: “I can now tell hon. members that it took two months to draft that legislation.” I accept that. The hon. the Minister states that we can believe it or not, as we like. I am prepared to believe it. However, I just want to put a question. Apparently the hon. the Minister went to the legal draftsmen and put his problem to them. He apparently asked them to draft a clause that would solve this problem for him because he did not want administrative suicide to be committed. If, then, it took two months to draft this clause, why is the amendment being introduced hastily now? Surely it is clear that the CRC has legislative powers, however limited these may be. There are very clearly circumscribed executive limitations on the CRC and surely the hon. the Minister is well acquainted with the problems experienced by the CRC. In view of his one can form an idea of the nature of the legislation necessary should administrative difficulties arise. If this is, then, an innocuous piece of legislation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, why is this amendment being inserted hastily? After all, the nature of the legislation which the hon. the Minister was to introduce here was known two months before the time. Is it not perhaps possible that the hon. the Minister became somewhat concerned, not only owing to the reactions of this side of the House, but also owing to the general reaction against the wide scope of the proposed legislation, particularly clause 2? Was it not felt that such an amendment should be inserted so that it could be clear that not all the powers would be taken away, even though the legislative powers which are now being returned, if this amendment is accepted, are rather limited. Surely, then, that is an indication that the severity of the legislation is being somewhat lessened. As far as I am concerned, this point is clear. If one is aware of the nature of the legislation that has been anticipated from as far back as last June, and if one has issued instructions to the legal draftsmen to insert a provision in the Act of 1964 to deal with any anomaly, then in my opinion it is obvious that in the course of the discussion of the legislation one does not hastily insert an amendment that has not been suggested by anyone apart from the hon. the Minister himself. To me it is a pity that the hon. the Minister should have said the following last night, and I quote—

He is now referring to us and the Labour Party. He goes on—

He was referring to you. [Interjections.]

If hon. members do not believe me, I can quote the whole piece. He said the following—

[Interjections.] I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister … [Time expired.]

Mr.

Chairman, I should like to propose an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, but before I come to that, I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to his amendment. In his amendment he excludes the power to legislate. There can be no objection to such an insertion. However, as the Minister, he has, in any event, the power to make laws in regard to the Coloureds and any act passed by this Parliament overrules any act which may be passed by the Coloured Council. What significance, therefore, does the hon. the Minister attach to the concession he is making here, if it is in fact a concession? I ask this because in this regard he is empowered to pass any act overruling the acts of the Coloured Council. Consequently he already has that power. Secondly, and this is really my question: Must any legislation introduced in the CRC have his permission? Is it correct that legislation may not be introduced there without his permission? Does that power still exist?

Must I reply to the hon. member’s question now?

I first want to finish putting my question. What I want to know is whether that power still exists and if so, whether it is worth the trouble for the Minister to introduce the amendment. If that is not the case, I should like to know whether this means that as a result of the amendment, the CRC has the full power to introduce legislation without the permission of the Minister.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that when they ask a question, they must not make a speech. If the hon. member wants to resume his seat, I shall have to put the question.

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to resume my seat. I want to finish first, and I still want to move my amendment as well. The hon. the Minister may reply to it then. The amendment which we want to move to the amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston, means that we want to insert the words “in what respect” after “… and who so failed”. All that this amounts to is that we also want the hon. the Minister to furnish. Parliament with reasons should he take steps.

Then I just want to add, and I need not stress it again, that we are opposed to this entire clause. Amendments are before the House and therefore we must, of course, consider the amendments and determine their value within the framework of the clause. We consider that it would be an improvement on the hon. the Minister’s amendment if he were to accept that Parliament should be furnished with reasons. The hon. the Minister will concede that according to the clause it is left to his discretion to determine whether and when a dereliction of duty takes place. This places an enormous responsibility on the hon. the Minister, because he alone is going to decide whether a dereliction of duty is taking place or not. You will realize that if he were to apply this lightly, or without very cogent reasons, he could create an extremely serious degree of tension between the Government and the CRC. We are therefore of the opinion that the hon. the Minister owes it to Parliament and to the public to motivate his reasons clearly and inform Parliament of them when taking such a step. I think he will agree when I say that it would be in his own interest, too, to do so. I do not believe it is necessary to motivate this further because the amendment speaks for itself. I therefore move—

1. (2) As an amendment to amendment (2) proposed by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg: To omit “and who so failed” and to substitute “who so failed, and in what respect”.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister should consider very seriously the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston before he rejects it. What would the position be if the hon. the Minister decided in his sole discretion to take action in terms of the powers of this Bill? The position would be that the bereaved people would feel that they had been deprived of their position as members of the CRC and that they would have no form of redress at all. The only redress they would have is to prove in a court of law mala fides on behalf of the Minister, Surely, there must be some form of arbitration in this matter to decide that there is a genuine feeling amongst the members of the CRC that they have fulfilled their functions properly or not. It is the hon. the Minister in his sole discretion who has decided that they have not fulfilled their functions properly. Surely, these people must have some form of redress. In the way this clause is worded at the present moment, they are prohibited from going to the courts because the only reason they can go to the courts is on the grounds of mala fides. This is virtually an impossible thing to prove and, furthermore, they will have to do it in their private capacity. They do not have the funds to do this kind of thing. If the hon. the Minister wants to avoid a confrontation, if he wants to be fair and just in the exercising of his discretion and if he has faith in himself that when he does take a decision, that decision will in fact be well-founded and can stand up in a court of law, then surely he should in justice to everyone concerned accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston. If he refuses to accept that amendment and he wants the measure to remain as it is, he is in fact saying to the Coloured people: “I have reasons why I do not want my personal motives and the motives of the Government for taking certain action to be disclosed. I do not even want you to have the right to go and prove your side of the story in a court of law. I want to deprive you of that and I want to keep all the power of discretion to myself.” I think this is a slap in the face, if I can call it that, for the Coloured people. Indeed if I can refer back to the imperialism yesterday during the Second Reading debate, it is a sign of imperialism to say: “What we say is law and you have no right of recourse against us.” Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, if at this late stage he wants to redeem something of the Government’s image amongst the Coloured people of South Africa, he should at least consider the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Bryanston. If he fails to do so, not only will he deprive the Coloured people of South Africa of the CRC for what it is worth, but he will also deprive them of the actual right to go to the courts to get redress for a wrong done them on behalf of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch has indicated that we in these benches find the clause unacceptable, even with the amendments that have been moved. Nevertheless the amendment moved by the hon. Minister does improve the clause to some extent. I believe that what is important, is for us to determine the reason for the hon. Minister having moved this amendment. So far the reason he has given has been that, after receipt of the draft of his Second Reading speech when the Bill was already prepared, he came to realize that this measure could include the taking away of legislative functions. I think the hon. the Minister should be more convincing and should take us into his confidence more than he has done to date on this clause. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it was never his intention to take away legislative powers. If that was never his intention, was the hon. the Minister aware that legislative powers were included in the powers of the CRC?

Yes, limited ones.

Did the hon. the Minister tell his law advisers that they should not include legislative powers?

I gave them the facts.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he gave the facts. After having introduced this Bill and moving this amendment, he is now blaming the law advisers. He is saying he did not give them a brief; he did not say to them: “I only want executive powers, I only want powers of appropriation”. He is now saying that he was silent on whether they should include legislative powers or not. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, if it never was his intention to have legislative powers in respect of the CRC, he had a duty to tell his law advisers what his intention was. He cannot, after having introduced a Bill, come to the House and say that he gave these gentlemen the facts and that it was up to them to draft the Bill. I believe that the reason why the hon. the Minister has moved this amendment is that the Government has suddenly taken fright. Instead of the Government showing confidence and showing that it knows how to handle the situation and how to draft the necessary legislation, suddenly under the impact of what it has done and the hurt it has done to the Coloured people, it has at this very late stage decided to redraft the legislation. Instead of the hon. the Minister saying he has changed his mind, he says he is aware that there were legislative powers involved and that it was never his intention to take such powers away from the Coloured people, but that he did not tell the law advisers this when he was drafting this piece of legislation. Can this really be? I want to be fair to the hon. the Minister. Is this what happened? Did the hon. the Minister just fail to tell them that? Now, however, he says that the legislative power is a very important one and that he is, therefore, going to make a concession to exclude this from one of the areas of responsibility which he can take over. Although the Legislative powers do exist, they are extremely limited, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has pointed out. They operate under the general aegis of sections 21(2) and 23(2). Although the hon. the Minister indicated by his attitude that he was making a very significant exclusion from the powers which he may take over under certain circumstances, I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to admit that any piece of legislation passed by the CRC has to go to the State President in the form of a Bill in any case, and that the State President can say that he will not give his assent to it and he can then refer it back to the CRC. So in any case the powers which he is leaving with the council are limited to the extent that they will always have to have the approval of the State President acting on the advice of the Cabinet.

Secondly, they may not introduce a Bill without the approval of the Minister. This means that the powers of legislation which the hon. the Minister is leaving with the council are very limited indeed. What do we have left in the form of powers? Hon. members on this side of the House will deal with them in greater detail. We are left with executive powers, powers of appropriation and powers of an advisory kind, acting as a link between the Coloured people and the Government. It is against this background that I want to refer for a few minutes—and I hope I can get some assurances from the hon. the Minister—to the following provision in the proposed section 22A:

I want to examine the meaning or possible meaning of “any other person” against the background of the functions to be performed by the various people who are mentioned in this Bill. First of all, it is not “any other persons; it is “any other person”, in the singular. I think it is important to realize that that single person can replace either the council or its executive. One can have the situation of a single individual replacing the total council in its advisory capacity or its executive capacity, or one could have a single individual nominated by the Minister to take over the collective powers of the five persons on the executive. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he reads this clause in this way. Can he replace either the chairman or the executive or the council by one person?

Secondly, in so far as the members of the council, the executive or the chairman are concerned, the parent Act provides in section 1 that no person other than a Coloured person shall be nominated or elected as a member of the council. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, to what extent that a person is going to exercise the powers normally exercised by either the council or the executive, and whereas the law says that that person shall be a Coloured person, whether he is prepared to give the undertaking that he will only nominate a Coloured person to do that work? Will he give us the assurance that he will comply with the spirit of section 1 of the Act? In other words, where he does replace either individuals or a group of functionaries with a single person, will he give us the assurance that that person will be a Coloured person?

Thirdly, in sections 5 and 10 of the parent Act there are various disqualifications for voting and it states that nobody can hold office in the council or the executive unless he has all the qualifications to vote. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that the person he nominates in terms of this clause, will be a person who could ordinarily be elected to office in that council or to hold office as an executive member.

Section 11 of the Act requires that members of the council take an oath. It is a fairly general oath relating to their duties. Section 18 of the Act, however, provides for a much more specific and detailed oath in that it relates specifically to the duties of the members of the executive. This oath is specific in regard to the whole question of secrecy and confidence and in regard to the question of not divulging information. It says—

Sir, where the hon. the Minister designates an individual to take over the functions of the executive, is this going to apply to that individual or not? Is this going to be a Coloured man who would ordinarily be a registered voter and who is going to perform his duties under exactly the same oath as that taken by those people from whom he has taken over these duties? Then, Sir, section 17 says that the members of the executive committee shall all be members of the council. If the executive committee fails to do its duty, although the council may do its duty, will the Minister see that it is replaced by other members of the council? Or are we going to have the situation that if the executive committee fails to do its duty the Minister will appoint people who are not members of the council? When it comes to appointing a replacement for the chairman, is the Minister going to go outside of the ranks of members of that council, either the governing party or the Opposition party, or is he going to apply what the law says, and that is that the chairman must be a member of that council? Then I want to put this to him: Reference is made in the Act to an acting chairman of the executive committee. If the acting chairman of the executive committee fails to do his duty, can the Minister act under this Act? As I read it, it is quite specific; it says: “If the chairman of the executive, the executive or the council fails”. At the moment there is no chairman of the executive; there is an acting chairman of the executive in terms of the Act. What happens if the acting chairman fails to do his duty? There is no reference to dealing with the acting chairman in terms of this Act.

There is another area of conflict in this clause. The sole arbiter as to whether the chairman, the executive or the council has failed to do his or its duty or to perform certain functions is the Minister. The clause says “if the Minister is satisfied”. But let me put this question to the hon. the Minister: What happens if he is satisfied that the executive has failed to do its duty, but the executive is satisfied that it has done its duty? What happens if the council is satisfied that it is giving the Minister advice but the Minister considers that it has failed to give him advice. What happens if there is this conflict of interpretation as who is failing to perform certain functions and duties or to exercise the powers entrusted to the council. Not all of these are mandatory; they are not all instructions. There are certain advisory functions which are left open to the council. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, our opposition to the provisions of the Bill was expressed clearly yesterday. We stated our conviction that a serious mistake was being made here in terms of the Government’s own policy. In this regard, although we reject the entire principle of this measure, I just want to associate myself with the amendments proposed by the hon. members for Newton Park and Bezuidenhout. In this regard I want to comment in particular on the discussions of the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. It is very clear that if such a decision has to be taken, someone will have to take that decision, and consequently it seems to me that it would not be useful to accept that amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston as printed. To come back to the argument by the hon. member for Randburg, I just want to say that we cannot wait until a court case has been decided before the execution of the functions of the Council are continued with, when in practice, on the basis of its own activities and conduct, the Council has become defunct. In other words, to me it seems abvious that there must be someone with the responsibility of proceeding with the functions of the Council. I want to repeat that while I reject the Bill in its entirety, it still seems to me a logical consequence of the actions of the Government in this regard, and therefore it seems to me that the hon. the Minister should give earnest consideration to and should accept the amendment by the hon. member for Newton Park, viz. that the decision whether any function should be taken over should be made by the State President-in-Council, which means on the advice of the full Cabinet. I say this for the simple reason that the importance of this legislation and of the actions which would give rise to the implementation of this measure are of such a serious nature that in my opinion it is essential that it should be seen that a decision to do this is a decision of the full Cabinet. I say that this must be seen to be the case, because it seems to me that there are three particular elements we should take into account in this regard. The one is that it affects the Coloureds and also the exercising of the functions of the Council, the majority of members of which were elected by the Coloureds in a democratic election, a Council which, according to legislation passed by this Parliament, possesses certain functions and powers. What is more, everything that was said here yesterday by the other side of the House emphasized the fact that this Council itself was regarded by the Government and members opposite as an extremely important body and that it was not the intention to place unnecessary restrictions on the exercising of the functions of the Council or on the existence of the Council. If that is in fact so, then it seems to me logical that we should let it be seen by those voters, the Coloureds who elected those people that the matter is, in fact, taken so seriously that it is the State President-in-Council, thus including the full Cabinet, that accepts the responsibility of taking a decision of this nature. In the second place it is very clear that in terms of the Government’s policy itself, as we indicated yesterday, the Council constitutes a particularly important and substantial principle in the Government’s Coloured policy, viz. it is the entire Government policy that is at stake here. It is not merely by coincidence that this is a function carried out by a Minister. There is a great deal of legislation under which a Minister has a specific function entrused to him by legislation. If a local management or other body does not carry out its functions, it is then said that the Minister may do so. This, however, is a matter of policy, a fundamental matter of policy, in which the Government’s entire Coloured policy is at stake. To me, therefore, it seems obvious that a decision in this regard should be taken by the Government as a whole and not solely by the Minister. In the third place I want to add that the entire White population is also affected by the decision in this regard because it affects the entire question of the relationship between White and Coloured, and for this reason, too, this is a matter that should be dealt with by the whole Government. I therefore want to ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

I would like to add a few words to what the hon. member for Edenvale has said about the amendment whereby we ask the hon. the Minister to accept that the State President will be the motivating agent in deciding when a failure to act has occurred on the part of the executive of the CRC. Sir, this thing is viewed so seriously by the hon. the Prime Minister that relationships between this House and the CRC are conducted on a special basis by means of a special committee which has been appointed and which reports directly to the Prime Minister himself. This is based primarily on the concept that there are peoples involved. The Coloured people and the White people of South Africa are involved in the situation here which demands under certain circumstances a decision being taken to take over and to enforce activities which legitimately lie in the field of the CRC. My problem is that it is not necessary that there should be an overt action on the part of the hon. the Minister and the department. It may happen that a period of inaction goes by when actions are not taken although they are urgently called for and that this may seriously embarrass people—like the salaries of teachers and that kind of thing—and consequently force the hon. Minister into taking the sort of action which is contemplated in this legislation. We would be far happier if the Cabinet as a whole took such a decision. We have the principle of collective responsibility and any decision which is taken by the hon. the Minister is obviously one which it is encumbent upon the whole Cabinet to accept. The entire Cabinet must look at the situation, assess it and take a decision, which is going to be a very serious step indeed, one which the hon. the Minister himself hopes that he will never have to take. I think that we must understand and express the seriousness of the action which is contemplated in terms of this clause. We on this side of the House will be far happier to know that the full Cabinet has taken this matter into consideration and has taken the decision which is going to lead to this particular clause being implemented.

May I draw to your attention, while I am engaged in speaking on this clause, to a problem which has arisen which may require an amendment to the Standing Rules and Orders of this House. We have before us two amendments on this clause: Our amendment in which we ask that the State President should act and the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston in which he asks that “the Minister” and certain other words should be deleted. We on this side of the House, as the official Opposition, would obviously vote for our amendment and as the hon. member for Edenvale has stated, we do not support the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston. We find ourselves in the position that we do not support the hon. the Minister or the Government on this clause. There is at this stage no mechanism whereby a party may abstain from voting on a clause where it finds itself neither in support of the Government nor in support of an amendment which has been moved. The remedy would be for all of us to get up and walk out of the House, but this is a procedure which is adopted only in very serious cases indeed. I merely mention this. It is not an important or vital matter which should be debated or anything like that. I merely draw it to the attention of the Committee, because we will seek an opportunity to find a remedy to that particular situation. I want to again urge the hon. Minister to favourably consider the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Newton Park namely that the State President-in-Council—in other words, on advice of the whole Cabinet—should be the body of people who will take a collective decision when the provisions of this clause are implemented.

Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the attention of the House to certain specific words in the clause which is before us. I refer to the words “any power, function or duty” which can be taken over by the hon. the Minister under certain circumstances if this Bill becomes law. I want to suggest not only that this is an undesirable clause, but also that it is one which is impossible to fulfill. It is impossible of fulfilment when one considers the exact powers, functions and duties of the council as they now exist. If it is impossible for the hon. the Minister to fulfill what he is asking for, then it suggests to me that it becomes redundant. Therefore I want to refer specifically to section 20 of the Coloured Persons Representative Act, Act No. 49 of 1964. In section 20 the general functions of the council are listed. We also have specific reference to the liaison with the Government. The section states—

The very reason for the existence of the council is that in the mind of the Government there ought to be a representative and duly elected group of Coloured leaders who can advise the Government in relation to section 20(1)(a). For example, if it is the council’s duty, and it has the power, the responsibility and the function to advise on economic matters, it is because the hon. the Minister and the Government feel that they need advice from the Coloured people themselves. When this goes by default what we have before us is not merely the hon. the Minister taking the place thereof, but the impossible situation of the advice not forthcoming from the council itself. The council must also advise the Government in respect of the social interests of the Coloured population. It is the Coloured people themselves who have been given the opportunity to express their needs to the Government in this field as well and once this falls down, it is impossible, I suggest, for the hon. the Minister to take the place of that council in this regard. One could also speak about the educational interests of these people, but let us rather go on to the political interests of the Coloured population. It is impossible for the hon. the Minister to advise himself and, through himself, the Government as to the political interests of the Coloured people when the Coloured people themselves are not given the opportunity to give that sort of advice. I suggest that it is inherently impossible for the hon. the Minister to carry out the duties, functions and the powers of this council. If that is so, it would be ludicrous, to say the least and to put it mildly, for this House to pass this particular clause.

One could then go on to section 20(1)(b) where it is provided that part of the council’s function is to make recommendations to the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured population. If the Coloured leadership themselves are not giving these recommendations, is it really seen to be possible for the hon. the Minister—I speak now in terms of his post as Minister and not of him personally —to make that kind of recommendation? I suggest that it goes by default, because he cannot fulfil this function. It is inherently quite impossible for him to do so. It is further provided in this section that the council is required generally to serve as a link and as a means of contact and consultation between the Government and the said population. In each case where you read the word “Government” you of course read the word “Minister”, so that once again we have the hon. the Minister serving as a link and as a means of contact and consultation between himself and himself. It just does not make sense and therefore this is a bad Bill and a clause which we cannot support.

Section 20(3) provides that by the mediation of the Minister members of the executive shall have direct access to any Minister in connection with any matter affecting the Coloured population of the Republic. Once again this clause is an actual negation of the present law. No one can take the place of the Coloured leaders who shall have direct access to the Ministers concerned, because it is now the hon. the Minister who seeks access to his colleagues, which he has in any event. Therefore, it seems quite useless to have this kind of legislation before us. According to section 20(5)(a) the council may, with the approval of the Minister, granted after consultation with the Minister of Finance, acquire and dispose of property, appoint servants, etc. Of course, reasonable people will realize that if in an emergency situation there are certain administrative functions which should take place, it should be possible for them to be carried out. However, we have to go far beyond that because the functions, duties and powers of the CRC go well beyond certain administrative functions. Indeed, I would suggest to this hon. House that by far the most important aspect of its function, duty and power is to interpret the overall needs of the Coloured people in terms of their economic, social, educational and political interests, and it is such powers, duties and functions which the hon. the Minister simply cannot fulfil. If that is so, then I suggest that this clause before us is a contradiction in terms by its very nature.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with two key words in this clause. The first is “satisfied” and the second is “fails”. The clause in question reads as follows:

Here I am seriously seeking some information from the Minister. How is he in fact going to satisfy himself? Is he going to do so in consultation with anybody and if so, whom is he going to consult? What kind of criteria is he going to apply? I am asking this because I do not think one can assume that there is necessarily going to be anything particularly clear-cut about the failure of the chairman of the executive, the executive or the council. This can happen, obviously; there can possibly be a clear-cut failure. However, I think one is going to have to take into consideration the contingency that the failure can take place in stages. What is going to be involved here. I feel, is the question of the Minister’s timing. It seems to me that it is an awesome responsibility he is assuming. Is he going to do so on someone’s advice, and if so, whose advice is he going to take? This decision he will have to take is going to be an irrevocable one and it seems to me to be an awful responsibility for one individual to take. This could, of course, affect the whole future of relationships between the CRC and the Government and so, of course, relationships between the Government and the people, i.e. relationships between the White and Coloured people. It would therefore be preferable, I feel, for this responsibility to be shared, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Newton Park. Similar considerations apply, I feel, to the word “fails”. The clause reads:

What happens in the case of the chairman’s absence? There is no provision here for a deputy chairman, though presumably there would be contingency arrangements. What degree of failure, however, is going to be the criterion? I think this is a very serious point because this legislation is obviously aimed at a very extraordinary situation that may arise. Let us assume that there is not going to be any clear-cut break in the activities of the CRC. Let us assume that the CRC is going to decide to work to some kind of rule, in other words, that there is going to be some kind of go-slow strike situation. The CRC may decide to go so far and no further. At what stage would the chairman of the executive, the executive or the council itself be deemed to have failed? One obviously hopes that this kind of situation will not crop up, but a state of bloodymindedness could of course arise if the contingencies envisaged in this legislation do come about. If the CRC decides to go a little slow, a situation of great subtlety can develop. They might decide to adopt some policy of attrition. It seems to me this is going to be a failure one is going to have great difficulty in judging. Consequently one wants to know precisely whom the Minister is going to consult, if anyone at all. I feel again that the Minister should widen the base of his decision in this case because this seems to me to be an awesome responsibility he has taken upon himself in two areas of such uncertainty as we have in these two cases.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now listened to so many arguments that the danger exists that arguments may be advanced which I shall really be unable to take seriously. I have in mind in particular the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands. Does the hon. member not realize that we are faced with administrative problems that could arise, and that the question of consultation and all the other aspects are matters which will not necessarily come into the picture? If it becomes essential, it is the duty of the Government, and that of the Minister in particular, to decide how he is going to do it. This is not something which is essential or which affects the people’s lives to such an extent that their interests could be prejudiced during the period in which Parliament was not sitting. Parliament may decide on such matters if it is essential to do so. Since what we have here is a series of administrative actions of which we are all aware, I really cannot take the splitting of hairs in this regard seriously.

As far as the amendments that were introduced are concerned, there is, firstly, the amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston, who wants to omit the words “If the Minister is satisfied that …” and substitute the word “should”. Inserting the word “should” in the clause would remove the Minister’s discretion entirely and that is not the aim of this legislation. It is not the aim of this legislation to subject every item in respect of which problems arise to the drawn out procedure of a court inquiry where administrative action is necessary to facilitate matters. That is why I simply cannot accept recommendations of this kind. In many cases the Minister decides, and this is laid down by way of legislation. For example, where there is dereliction or a failure to carry out measures, the Minister may decide what has to be done. For example, there is a similar provision in the Transkeian constitution. Hon. members need not compare the bodies concerned now, because this still amounts to executive action. There is a similar provision in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act and if any local management in the country should fail to carry out certain duties, steps of this kind may be taken in that regard, too. We are dealing here with a body which is still at a comparatively low level at this stage, as I said last night. The Minister must have this discretion, which is also exercised in many other instances by other Ministers. If the Minister regards a decision concerning a particular matter as a very serious or important one, he takes it to the Cabinet. Consequently I am unable to accept this amendment.

Nor can I accept the amendment which involves the State President in all decision-making of this kind. This is politically undesirable. In 90% of the cases which would crop up in terms of this clause, we should be dealing with administration and the State President is not concerned with administrative decisions. We could insert it there if we wanted to, but in any event it would give rise to a further delay because the Minister does, in any event, go to the Cabinet when a matter is serious. Do the hon. members now want me, as the Minister, to go to the Cabinet with every case in which, for example, the promotion of a teacher is involved? Surely I cannot do that; it is out of the question. In that regard hon. members must leave the discretion to me. If it should become necessary to apply the measure, in the amendments there is …

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No. This is a matter which must be acted in accordance with the specific circumstances involved. The CRC can only accept and exercise its functions when it wants to do so, and it is only when a specific instance arises—it will always be a specific instance—that action will be taken in accordance with, the circumstances. A blanket authorization, in terms of which action may be taken, is not being given here. A right to do something where the other party fails to do it, is being given here. Do hon. members not understand that?

What the second amendment really amounts to is …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us why he requires this discretion as it appears that any decisions made will be based purely on fact?

You need reasons to decide on anything, whether one or two facts are involved. That implies the use of one’s discretion.

*What the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston really amounts to is that it is expected of me to report to Parliament in detail on administrative matters. That is quite unheard-of. Furthermore, in this specific instance it is impracticable as well. We are dealing not only with ordinary administrative matters, but also with a number of delegated powers. For example, we are dealing with approximately 23 000 teachers. Surely it is understood that if important decisions have to be taken in such instances, I shall in fact issue a statement if it appears to be necessary to do so. Surely it is understood that hon. members may ask me questions here. Do they expect of the present executive that they should report to the CRC in the fullest detail concerning the administrative functions they have carried out? Nevertheless they expect me to report to this House every time. It is impossible to tabulate activities that are legion. I am now referring to matters such as the promotion and appointment of teachers, the appointment of administrative staff, the awarding of pensions etc. Hon. members now expect that because I took over those powers I have to submit details in all these instances.

Then, too, the idea was expressed that I should have to state what action I had taken and through whom—I replied to that a moment ago—and who omitted to do those things. I just want to say that where the Cabinet decides, it is the whole Cabinet that decides; if the CRC decides, the whole CRC decides; and if the executive decides, it is the executive as such that decides. I cannot say who omitted to take a certain step; there is no such, thing. We cannot indicate the specific persons individually. Surely the hon. member is aware of that aspect of State administration. Surely it is unnecessary for me to point that out. I do not know why the hon. member should introduce such an amendment before the House if he thinks that he is au fait with this aspect of the matter. I think that Coloured administration would become a political football for White politics in this Parliament if I were to have to table these matters every time. Sir, I have tried to reply to those arguments to the best of my ability.

Specific arguments were raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch, for example concerning the matter of legal draftsmen. I think that the hon. member listened with half an ear. Legislation as such is already limited by the House. It is also true that I cannot pass new legislation for the CRC. Up to now they have passed two laws; they have passed many motions, but up to now they have not really passed many laws. I cannot make laws for them in regard to social welfare, education, rural areas, or those aspects of local management entrusted to them. If they do not want to make laws, there is nothing I can do about it. This part of the original Act has not been altered and the aim of our amendment is to ensure that that aspect of the Act is not altered. We cannot change the Act in such a way that if they want to repeal or extend Acts, I have to do it. This is dealt with in a different section of the Act. Nor have we experienced problems necessitating our changing this at this stage. This can form part of our future discussions. They have limited legislative authority and it has never been my express aim to interfere with that limited legislative authority. What did happen—and the hon. member for Sea Point can listen to this now—was that as far as financial administration was concerned, I was under the impression throughout that this, too, was a legislative aspect of the CRC. However, it is not. It is now evident that the financial legislation we pass here every year does not have to be passed by them as well. That is why I said initially that the legislative power need not be deleted from the Bill in its entirety, because I took it that they too would have to pass an Act in this regard every year. I admit that I was unaware of that aspect. I said that I did not want to take over everything from these people, but that I only wanted to prevent them from committing administrative suicide. Before the start of the Second Reading debate, I was informed that this provision in the Bill could be lifted out in its entirety because finances as such do not fall within the legislative power of the CRC. I should just like to explain this aspect to the House, since that is the position.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked who I was going to nominate to carry out the functions which these people fail to carry out. I could nominate anyone. I could also nominate a White person. This is an administrative matter. I could also nominate the head of a department. This is not subject to section 20. I could nominate him to carry out the administrative aspects of the Act on behalf of the Minister. Such, a person need not necessarily be a voter for the CRC.

†As far as the confidence clause is concerned, if one nominates any person to perform a function on one’s behalf I do not actually see where the provisions of this clause come in. The Minister should at all times be able to require from a committee of this nature to inform him of their decisions, or whatever the case may be. A confidence clause is therefore from a practical point of view not involved as far as this matter is concerned.

*I could even nominate a member of the CRC to act on behalf of the Minister. That is true. However that is impractical. After all, one has to nominate someone who knows the work and who can do the work. What the hon. member is really doing, therefore, is raising theoretical possibilities. As far as the acting chairman is concerned, we all know that one has to read “acting chairman” for “chairman” when the chairman is not there. If the hon. member wants to raise judicial arguments in this regard, he can take the matter further in court. As far as I am concerned, there is no difficulty as far as the acting chairman is concerned.

†The hon. member for Randburg wants the court to decide where the personal problems of a teacher of the lowest order are concerned. He wants the court to decide on such a person’s grievances. Those are the absurd extremes to which one can go with arguments of that nature.

*I do not think I have to reply to that any further. That, and nothing else, is what it amounts to. That is what he wants to draw me into. I do not mind replying to that. I am quite willing to accommodate hon. members if their own thought processes do not allow them to, or render them incapable of, realizing what is going on here.

I do not think that there is much left. The hon. member for Parktown asked what criteria would be employed in determining “satisfaction”. Good heavens, Sir! Once again this is a case of splitting hairs. After all, we are living in a world in which, people act and in which people take decisions, and when people use certain criteria, then there may be very minor differences. All one has to decide here is whether a man has done a thing he had to do or not, and whether he is doing it so slowly that one has the right to dismiss him. Let me give this example: If one employs a man and he refuses to do what one tells him to, then one may dismiss him. But say for example he does in fact do the work, but does it at a snail’s pace; one tells him then that he will have to work faster, that he has to complete the work within a certain time, and he does not complete it within that time; undoubtedly one is then justified in dismissing him. He has, in fact, done the work, but he has taken his time doing it. To expect of me that I should define “satisfaction” in the fullest detail is, to say the least of it, a ridiculous demand. Hon. members also referred here to the Afrikaans term “in gebreke bly” (English: “fails”). The term used in all the other Acts was “versuim” which is actually the same as “in gebreke bly”. “In gebreke bly” is merely a new legal term which the Legal Advisers have been using recently. It is the best legal term to indicate that a person has not succeeded in carrying out a given task. It is not being said here that the task must be carried out to my satisfaction; all that is said here is that I may act if he fails (“in gebreke bly”) to carry it out. This is a term which is much, easier to understand, and all its means is that the person has not performed a task which it was his duty to perform. If he does not perform that task, then I may act with, discretion. Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point said: “This is a bit of useless legislation.” If this legislation, comprising only two clauses, is so useless, why are hon. members opposite taking two days to fight it? If it is so useless, then surely it will collapse and then it would not be necessary to fight it here for two days. Why, then, do those hon. members not leave us to stew in our own juice? Sir, this legislation is not useless. It will prevent administrative suicide being committed by this Council. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have deviated slightly here.

Sir, I do not feel that there is any justification for accepting any of these amendments. I feel that I ought to be able to exercise my discretion to make the necessary administrative arrangements where necessary. The responsibility to justify my dealings with the Coloureds will rest on me; to satisfy them that my actions are in their interests, and hon. members will continue to have the right to call me to account in this Parliament from year to year, whether in the debate on my Vote or in general debate, if they consider that the discretion I have to exercise in terms of this Act and the discretion which others have to exercise is being exercised in an incompetent way. Sir, I have already moved my own amendment, as printed, and have explained it briefly. It is not a question of preparing legislation for two months. The legal draftsmen do not have only one Act to prepare; they have a great deal of legislation to prepare. I did not hurry them on, and I did not do so for the important reason that there was no reason to have this legislation on the Statute Book before the election. If one had introduced this legislation in the middle of the Coloured election, it would have been unfair towards many of these candidates. Sir, I think I have said enough to explain why I am unable to accept any of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to move an amendment in terms of which the words “who shall be a Coloured person” may be inserted after the word “person”? May I move such an amendment?

Yes.

Then I should like to move as a further amendment that whereas the Minister is being given the power to delegate to someone else his power to intervene, that other person must be a Coloured. I think that goes without saying. Then I should just like to express my disappointment at the Minister not having replied to a question I put to him, namely whether he retains the power to grant permission before a Bill may be introduced in the Coloured council. I want to ask him whether this amendment of his does not imply that the Coloured Council now has the full power to introduce what they want to without interference on the part of the Minister. I therefore move the following additional amendment—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 14, after “person”, to insert, “who shall be a Coloured person”.

The hon. the Minister in his reply spoke of the Government’s sincerity and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will allow us now to test the Government’s sincerity in this very clause. There are two very simple tests I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. The first is: Postpone this debate and consult with the Coloured leaders and come back to us and let us discuss this matter later in the session. The second test I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: If you find the first test unacceptable, then what you should do is to give us an undertaking now that whatever happens when you come back to us in the Third Reading you will not come back until you have consulted with the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister said that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park in relation to the State President being incorporated in the Act. The hon. the Minister also felt that it would not be constitutionally proper. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister with all respect that it is obvious to me that he has not looked carefully at the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, No. 49 of 1964. If he looks at that Act carefully, he will see that there is a precedent for the State President being incorporated. In fact, if the hon. the Minister looks at section 17 of the Act, he will see that the State President has the power to appoint the chairman of the executive and he has the power to dismiss the chairman of the executive. In addition to that, if you look at section 19 of the same Act, the State President can also determine the salaries of members of the executive of the CRC, and of the members of the CRC itself. Sir, if he looks at those factors, then obviously the Minister must realize that he has no argument at all on which to reject the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Newton Park. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that we made it clear right at the outset that we opposed this clause. However, the hon. member for Newton Park has also made it abundantly clear that we prefer the responsibility in terms of this Act to be a collective responsibility of the State President-in-Council and not the single responsibility that will be placed on one single Minister. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park is, in our opinion, the lesser of the two evils as it creates more authority and it provides for more responsibility for decisions than that of a single Minister. We made it clear that we consider this to be the lesser of the two evils.

The second amendmest introduced by the hon. member for Bryanston, as amended by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is acceptable. This makes the Minister responsible and accountable to Parliament. The hon. the Minister should have no problem in accepting this amendment, as it will at least show some good faith. It will act as a possible brake on the powers of the hon. the Minister and a brake against his interfering with the powers of the CRC and of the executive committee. I must say that even this amendment is not exactly what one would want, because obviously, even if the hon. the Minister reports to Parliament, it means that we can only discuss his actions in retrospect, but even though it is not as desirable as one would like it to be, we believe that in this case it is the only solution to the insoluble problem we are faced with. It just goes to show that when you introduce thoroughly rotten legislation …

Order!

… thoroughly undesirable legislation, it is very difficult to amend it with reasonable amendments. I believe that this clause makes no allowance for the fact that Coloured nationalism has come into play, because the hon. the Minister now wants to impose White nationalism. The clause, if it is contracted in the way that it is …

Order! The hon. member must not repeat arguments which have already been used.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. The clause, the way in which it is constructed, gives the hon. the Minister a completely blank cheque and it gives him unlimited power. The hon. the Minister gave the impression that the clause was merely a temporary safeguard and that that was why he saw fit to introduce an amendment. The amendment is obviously meant to slightly cushion the blow, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his amendment, although acceptable, obviously does not cover all the contingencies and obviously does not alleviate this very harsh measure. If the clause is allowed to remain as it is, then as we have said before—and I shall not repeat it—the hon. the Minister takes over all the powers …

Order! The hon. member must not repeat the same argument.

Once the Minister has all these powers, if for example the executive committee decides that it wants to build a school in a particular area and the hon. the Minister decides that the school must be built in another area, then obviously the hon. the Minister will be able to wield the big stick and force them to build the school where he wants it to be built. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister if that is the extent to which he will exercise his powers in terms of this Act. The way in which this clause is worded, is an obvious admission of failure on the part of the hon. the Minister to administer the affairs of the Coloured people. I believe that because of this admission of failure, the hon. the Minister should seriously reconsider his position and make way for somebody else to handle this portfolio who does not need these powers.

Order! This has nothing to do with the clause which is now before the Committee.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Has the hon. member got any new points to make?

Yes, only one further point. This clause deals with entrenching in legislation a form of censorship— and I have not heard that term used before—by the hon. the Minister over the Coloured people in relation to the administration of their affairs. In conclusion I say that it is dictatorship and no less.

Mr. Chairman, in the replies he furnished to the representations made by this side of the House, the hon. the Minister displayed unnecessary suspicion concerning the motivation of this side of the House. He is unnecessarily suspicious about the motivation of this side of the House as regards the amendments we introduced. We want to assure the hon. the Minister that we introduced those amendments with the sincere intention of effecting some slight improvement to extremely poor legislation. I want to venture the statement that the hon. the Minister summarily refused to accept those amendments and that he did not really go into the merits of the matter. I just want to mention a few points in this regard. The first point, which is very important—I should also just like to reply to a misunderstanding with regard to the hon. member for Edenvale—is that we believe it is unjust both towards the Coloured community and towards the hon. the Minister himself, that he alone should have to exercise a discretion in regard to these wide powers given to him. It must be accepted that the Government surely cannot intend to apply this legislation even in respect of the most unimportant administrative aspects which may arise. The impression I received from speakers on the other side of the House was that this was emergency legislation which the Government is placing on the Statute Book in a situation of emergency in order to intervene during a situation of emergency, for example if there should be large-scale failure on the part of the chairman, the executive or the CRC itself and that the Government would only use these wide powers—I could go so far as to call them excessive, extraordinary powers—in the event of large-scale failure on the part of that Council or its officials to carry out their duty. We understand that the motivation behind the legislation is the possibility that the entire CRC could collapse owing to the attitude of certain elected politicians. If that is the case, each minor instance of rebellion is surely not going to be taken to court, although, of course, there is nothing wrong with a teacher at the lowest level, who feels that he has been wronged, having the fundamental right to resort to the courts of the country. In those instances where the Minister intervenes in terms of these wide powers, whether it is in respect of the Council itself, the chairman or the executive, it would inspire confidence among us on this side of the House, and among the Coloureds themselves, too, and would also afford the Minister justification to act, if this were subjected to an objective test in open court where both sides are afforded the opportunity to state their case. The ruling of that court could then be the ruling on which the Government could react. I should like to tell the hon. member for Edenvale, who apparently misunderstood the meaning of our amendment and argument, that we are not asking that it should be necessary to wait for a court verdict before the Minister acts. All we are asking is that the action of the Minister must or may be subjected to an objective test in the Supreme Court.

That does not appear in the amendment.

I can understand the hon. member not understanding the amendment. I think that the hon. the Minister will in fact understand it. I just want to add that we accept with pleasure the further amendment to our amendment which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout moved, because we feel that it brings about an improvement. I think that the motivation of the Official Opposition for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park is to inspire further confidence among the Coloureds in regard to the action taken by the Minister, should steps have to be taken. This is not for nothing. There is a specific motivation for it. These are far-reaching powers; they are extraordinary powers and if these powers are exercised, there could be general dissatisfaction when the Minister has to intervene at one stage or another. There is going to be disillusionment with the system, the Minister and his department. Because that will be the case, these powers will have to be given the highest possible status in terms of the amendment moved by the official Opposition. In other words, the decision must be taken by the highest possible body in the country and it must be given the status of a decision by the State President himself.

One of the points made by the hon. the Minister caused me some concern. He stated that these powers were to be used even for unimportant appointments, even for the appointment of a teacher at the lowest level, the remuneration of a teacher at the lowest level, promotion and the payment of a pension to a person. This is unthinkable and I cannot conceive what the Minister or the Government’s motivation could be. They are requesting powers which they intend to use, not for a crisis, not in the case of the general collapse of their system and policy, but solely in respect of a minor administrative aspect. This is evident from an admission which the hon. the Minister has just made, viz. that the Government is itself quite prepared to intervene in regard to such an unimportant aspect, something that could easily be carried out administratively by the existing order. If I am correct in my analysis of this admission by the Minister, this legislation and the motivation behind it is more suspect than ever before. If that is so then the legislation is not as innocuous as members on the other side of the House want to imply. The legislation is not so innocuous if it is really the aim of the Government to utilize it to intervene in the interests and administration of Coloured affairs in regard to such an unimportant aspect of administration.

Mr. Chairman, the knowledge of the hon. member for Bryanston on matters of public administration seems to be so poor and infantile that even after his monologue of 10 minutes I do not find anything on which to answer him. Although I know that it will not make any impression on him, I must tell the hon. member for Walmer that I take strong exception to the word “interference”. “Interference” implies that one is going to poke one’s nose into the affairs of someone who is doing his duty.

Tell that to the marines!

That is not the case. I am only going to act when someone does not do something which by law it is necessary to do. Interference does not come into the matter, therefore, and I reject the inference. I have also said before and I am only going to repeat it this once, that to appoint a chairman for the executive or to dismiss him is a matter that is so serious that it is generally acknowledged that it has to be taken to Cabinet level or the State President.

And salaries?

That is also a very important aspect.

And the building of schools?

Does the hon. member for one moment imagine that decisions on salaries are made by one person? The hon. member’s allegation is nonsense and I have stated why it is nonsense. I do not think the hon. member understood what I meant. He did not listen.

I listened carefully.

Then it is a pity the hon. member did not understand.

*I must apologize to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for not having replied to his question. I thought he had concluded that I replied indirectly when I indicated that the legislation would remain the same as before. The people will still have the same limited powers of legislation. Perhaps he did not infer that from what I said, and therefore I concede to him that the position as outlined in section 21 remains unchanged. Legislation which the CRC wishes to pass still has to come to me for approval. The council is therefore limited in its legislative powers, but I mentioned yesterday that all these matters will be extended in the future. But this is the position in which we find ourselves at the moment and we can do nothing about it. However, I am not removing those rights. Secondly he asked that we should insert the words “Coloured person”. I regret that I am unable to do so. I have to keep that discretion. If a situation such as this were to continue for a long time and there were to be a Coloured person outside the council, a Coloured person in a senior administrative post whose training qualifies him for this, it would perhaps not be difficult to do so. But if I were to take someone from the council, surely it would mean that I would be interfereing again, because the council would already have taken a decision. If it has been decided that the people should not do their work, should I go and poke my nose into the council’s affairs? To restrict the Minister by inserting the words “Coloured person” here—and I am not saying that a Coloured person cannot be appointed, because he can be appointed—is asking too much, because this in itself limits the possibility that I shall be able to succeed in avoiding administrative chaos.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what the hon. the Minister said, there is a specific question which I want to ask him. The hon. the Minister said that the Government, or the Minister, was not in a position to remove people one by one from their posts in the CRC. Section 17 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act provides that the State President may appoint and dismiss the chairman. If we look at the new section 22A, which is being inserted by clause 2, we see that if the Minister is satisfied that the chairman of the executive fails to carry out his duties, he, i.e. the Minister, may take over the functions of the whole council. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether we are not dealing with a contradiction here. On the one hand, the existing legislation already makes provision for the chairman to be dismissed in any case if he—so we accept —fails to carry out his duty. But this Bill, too, specifically includes the chairman of the executive. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he can provide clarity in this connection. We could end up in the practical situation that when the State President is of the opinion—on the advice of the hon. the Minister, of course —that the chairman is no longer competent to carry out his functions, or that he has failed to do so, he may dismiss that person and appoint another person to the post. It would create confusion if the hon. the Minister were to make use of this new section rather than section 17 of the Act. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether we should not perhaps omit the word “chairman” from this provision, because such a situation is covered in any case by section 17, in terms of which the State President may appoint a new chairman so that the CRC may continue to function. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could explain to us, when the opportunity presents itself, whether there is not a contradiction in these two provisions. I should also be pleased if he could tell us in what circumstances the chairman may be dismissed without the functions of the council having to be taken over by the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer this question. I do not intend to prolong the debate, and therefore I am not going to react to arguments which I have already dealt with. However, I do regard this question as a fair one, and for that reason I want to reply to it. We are dealing here with a question of degree. Sometimes the State President, too, takes action pursuant to the recommendation of a single Minister. I want to mention an example. When I admit patients to or discharge them from State institutions, a single Minister’s signature is sufficient. Such a matter need therefore not be taken to the Cabinet. But when a matter is important, the term “State President-in-council” means not only the Minister, but the Cabinet as a whole. However, it is in the discretion of the Minister. Cabinet government presupposes co-ordination, and a Minister must therefore consult his colleagues in determining policy and in matters of importance. The hon. member was actually concerned with the problem of the dismissal of a chairman. I think that when a chairman is dismissed, it is an important matter. It would be very peculiar, to my mind, if such a matter were not raised at Cabinet level. In terms of the Act the Minister does in any case have the discretion to do so. Hon. members must understand that the chairman may be dismissed in terms of section 17. However, that is not related to his failure to carry out his administrative functions in terms of the Act. A chairman may be dismissed for many other reasons. I do not want to go into those reasons. Hon. members know, after all, that there are even certain conditions to being a voter. For example, a person cannot be a voter if he is insolvent, if he is out of his mind, if he is mentally ill, etc. In the same way there are also different reasons which are contained in section 17, but they are not relevant here.

Mr. Chairman. I listened very attentively to the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park. I must honestly say that one gains the impression that the members on the opposite side are unyielding to the point of ever refusing to accept amendments moved with honest intentions. We proposed that the word “Minister”, where it appears in line 8, it should be substituted by “State President”. This does not apply to the rest of the clause. In other words, it only has a bearing on the taking of the decision whether certain functions should be taken over by the Minister. We ask that that decision be taken by the Cabinet and not by the Minister alone. The hon. the Minister’s answer to this was that he did not want to involve the Cabinet in every little function to be exercised by him in terms of the Act. However, that is not what we are asking for. Our amendment merely asks that the word “Minister”, where it appears in line 8, be substituted by “State President”. In other words, the fundamental decision whether the Minister should exercise certain powers in the place of the executive, the chairman or the CRC. is a decision which in our opinion should be taken to the Cabinet. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has not had time to consider this amendment. Surely the amendment does not imply that the Minister must obtain the approval of the Cabinet for every step he takes. We ask only that the word “Minister” in line 8 be substituted by “State President”.

I have the same problem with the second amendment as moved originally by the hon. member for Bryanston and amended by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As I see it, the Minister is not being asked in this amendment to report to Parliament on every little detail of the action taken by him. It is only asked in the amendment that the Minister table a report in the House of Assembly “setting forth the power, function or duty which was not exercised …”. After all, it cannot logically be expected that the Minister should in terms of this amendment tell the House of Assembly that the executive refused, for example, to promote Mr. A to the post of principal of a school. What the executive will have refused to do in such a case is to carry out its functions in respect of education. We expect of the Minister that he will report this to us and not the cases of the individuals affected by the action taken by the executive. This is how I interpret the proposed amendment. The amendment has therefore been phrased in the negative. It says: “… the power, function or duty which was not exercised”. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout moved that “and in what respect” be inserted after “who so failed”. Once again it does not affect the minor details to which the hon. the Minister referred. What is more, the words “and what action” do not, to my mind, include the details which the hon. the Minister advanced as an argument as to why he does not find this amendment acceptable. It does seem to me, though, as if the hon. the Minister—and perhaps this is our fault because we did not place it on the Order Paper—has not had time to really give proper consideration to these amendments.

In conclusion I want to ask a question in connection with the interpretation of the law. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out yesterday that there were measures which would fall by the wayside if provision were not made for enabling the Minister to take over certain powers in the event of the chairman and the executive not wanting to function. I should like to refer to one particular aspect. He referred, inter alia, to the powers of local government in respect of which delegated powers had been transferred to the executive of the CRC and which relate to the ordinances of the various provinces. My question is purely a question in connection with the interpretation of the law. The proposed section 22A refers only to Dowers, functions or duties conferred or imposed by this Act. If there are other measures, such as an ordinance of a provincial administration, which are not covered by this, the hon. the Minister will have to go back to his law advisers …

Provision is made for everything in the original Act. The hon. member should just read it attentively.

My question to the hon. the Minister is whether subsection (6)(a)(ii) of section 17 of the Act makes adequate provision for the exercising of the functions by the Minister in these circumstances in respect of local government.

Does the hon. member want to give me an answer or does he want to ask a question?

This is actually a legal question with reference to the remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to know whether section 17(6) (a)(ii) also makes provision for ordinances of a local authority in connection with local government for the Coloured population? I ask this in the light of the fact that this section only refers to the Act.

Mr. Chairman, section 17 is the comprehensive section which makes provision for action under this Act. In this Act provision is also made for the Administrator’s power to make ordinances so that he may delegatec ertain powers in precisely the same way as the Minister may delegate them under the Group Areas Act. The Administrator may delegate these powers as part of his provincial powers, and everything falls under this Act. That is why one finds a form of double delegation here. However, all of this is still under the umbrella of this Act.

On Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg,

Question put: That the words “If the” stand part of the clause.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Reform Party dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. D. M. Streicher,

Question put: That the word stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux and W. L. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived and amendment (2) moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson dropped (Official Opposition and Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux and W. L. van der Merwe.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate yesterday, the hon. the Minister indicated that he would be more explicit during the Committee Stage about some of the issues raised on this side of the House. Under clause 1 I merely want to draw his attention to the inclusion in the definition of a “measuring instrument” of the words “or a counting by means of gravitation”. I believe it is important that the trade, who is rightly concerned, and also the users should know specifically what is intended by the inclusion of these words. The fact that they are now included must have had some cause. I only asked the hon. the Minister to indicate graphically whether it is a meat scale, a rule scale or a yard scale or a burcher’s scale so that we can have it on record in Hansard and both the user and the trade can be quite certain what the meaning of the inclusion of these words is.

Unfortunately I cannot give a definition, and therefore it is better for me to explain exactly what is meant by the insertion of this particular measuring instrument. Unfortunately I shall have to give a lengthy explanation to make the matter clear. All that is happening in this clause is that the words “or a counting by means of gravitation” are being inserted. This amendment is necessary because the existing definition of “measuring instrument” can be interpreted in such a way that counting measuring instruments which bring about a counting by means of gravitation can be excluded from the application of the Act. Regulations in terms of the Weights and Measures Act of 1958 have existed for many years in regard to the composition and certification of the measuring instruments concerned. I shall name them presently. As it is undesirable for these instruments to be used in the trade without being subject to certification, it was never the intention that instruments of this kind should be excluded from certification. I want to emphasize this point. The reason why these words are being inserted into the definition of “measuring instrument” is to ensure that these specific instruments will also be subject to certification. The insertion that is now being made in the clause will ensure that any doubt that may exist is removed. According to the regulations in terms of Act No. 13 of 1958, the old Weights and Measures Act, the expression “counting scale” means an instrument which, on account of its design, indicates by means of a weighing process when a number of articles of an equal weight, placed on a loading platform or in a bowl, are equal to a predetermined multiple of one or more identical articles which are placed on the scale in proportion.

As for example at a bank.

Yes, as for example a specific number of coins at a bank.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Last night the hon. the Minister did not have a chance to reply to the question we put in connection with clause 3(g) where the words “any person” are being omitted and the words “the purchaser of such goods” are being substituted. I can quite understand why the words “any person” are being changed to “the purchaser of such goods”. Referring to the purchaser, however, one assumes that the purchasing has already been done. Is it not possible for the Minister to draw a line to include a category of people who in good faith are intending to make a purchase? Under those circumstances presumably they would want to have the goods weighed before they made the purchase rather than after. I say this because if there is possibly anything wrong which could result in an appeal either to the courts or to the department, this could prove to be a considerable difficulty. If attention could be given to this matter in advance, one could perhaps avoid the difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would refer to the particular provision, he would find that at the moment any person can require the certificate of certification to be produced; in other words, a person can call for the instrument to be produced so that he can see that it has been certified. In clause 3(g) it is proposed to substitute “the purchaser of such goods” for the words “any person”. What the hon. member wants to know is why we do not refer also to the prospective purchaser. How does one prove that someone is a prospective purchaser? I should like to repeat that the provision of this particular clause is to ensure that this particular instrument has been certified. It would be very difficult to prove that a person is a prospective purchaser while it is easily proved that a person is a purchaser because the action of purchase has been completed. It is then an easy matter for the purchaser to satisfy himself that the instrument has been certified. The hon. member will understand that it is most difficult to differentiate between the person and a prospective purchaser.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause seeks to amend section 30(2) of the principal Act and deals with a very important aspect of modern merchandising, namely the concept of prepacking. A large institution can pack goods in a warehouse and then distribute the goods to many outlets. One can take a major organization such as O.K. Bazaars or Pick-’n-Pay which will pack such articles as tea, bacon, cold meats, etc., in their warehouses and distribute those goods to their many outlets. I understand that clause 6 alleviates the position of the actual retail distributor. Previously, it would appear, any person at any stage could demand that on those particular premises the goods should be weighed in front of him on a scale which correlates with the scale where the original packing took place. Is it correct that the intention of this is to indicate that only a purchaser may make this demand and that he may only demand that the goods should be weighed, not necessarily on a scale on the premises, but on the original scale?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain again what the provision in the existing Act means. It should then be easier to understand the meaning of this clause. The provision of section 30 of the existing Weights and Measures Act is confined to weighing instruments. The wide definition of. “measuring instrument’ in the provisions of the Act will however mean that dealers, in order to comply with the provisions of section 13(4) of the principal Act, should also have available, apart from weighing instruments, other instruments for example instruments for measuring length, surface area and volume in terms of those provisions. Experience has shown that purchasers seldom, if ever, make use of the said kinds of measuring instruments to ascertain whether the contents or length is correct. Furthermore, section 20(2) of the principal Act requires anybody who sells any prepacked goods in the retail trade—this is what the hon. member has referred to—to keep available certified measuring instruments for the use of any person dealing with him. In other words, it relates to the person with whom he does business—in other words, the purchaser. That is my reply to the first question. Because such goods are often packed at a place other than the one where it is sold—a dealer is compelled under these circumstances to keep a set of measuring instruments at the packing area as well as the place of sale. What we are providing for here is that it will be sufficient if these are kept at the place of sale, because the purchaser will then be able to satisfy himself at that point that everything is in order. In summary, the proposed amendment will therefore mean that the burden on the dealers, namely to keep measuring instruments at two places, would be alleviated, but at the same time the purchaser of the prepacked goods who wants to measure the quantity he has bought from such dealer, would not be caused any inconvenience because the dealer would have to make available a measuring instrument to such purchaser.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Local authorities have for almost a decade now been complaining, through the United Municipal Executive, that they do not have the financial means to provide community facilities such as halls, swimming baths, recreational facilities, etc., particularly in the new, rapidly developing Coloured and Indian areas. It has been argued by quite a number of Government bodies that this problem does not fall within the scope of their activities, with the result that the provision of these very important facilities in the life of a community has constantly remained in abeyance, except in so far as local authorities have, with their own means, been able to accomplish this to a limited and unsatisfactory extent.

On the first occasion on which this matter was brought to my attention, I considered it necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry to institute a thorough investigation into the problem and possible solutions to it, and to advise me in this regard. The committee functioned under the guidance of my Department of Community Development, and included the four directors of local government, the president of the United Municipal Executive and other very senior officers of the Department of Indian Affairs, the Administration of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. The unanimous recommendations of the committee, which also heard evidence from members of the CRC and National Indian Council, were, as I announced in this House on 9 October 1974, accepted by the Government. With that the responsibility of lending a helping hand to local authorities in the provision of community facilities, particularly in the rapidly developing and newly established Coloured and Indian townships, has been entrusted to me and to my Department of Community Development. This measure creates the legal machinery enabling us to do this, and since my announcement of 9 October 1974 met with such enthusiasm and approval from all, and sundry, I have every confidence that this measure ought to meet with the same reception, for everything contained therein as far as community facilities are concerned is in keeping with my announcement and with the unanimous recommendations of the committee to which I referred.

The financing aspects of this legislation are the most important, and consequently I shall deal with them first. As I have already said, the areas that have to do without these facilities, are those townships in which the lesser privileged people are establishing themselves in great numbers. Many of these inhabitants are hardly able to make ends meet, with the result that they are able to make little or no contribution to community facilities. Therefore the facilities have to be provided, with the least possible direct additional financial burden being placed on the shoulders of the inhabitants. Financing resources which could meet this requirement very appreciably are the maintenance funds and rent reserve funds of local authorities which they have accumulated over the years in respect of existing housing schemes, as well as surplus rentals on leasing scheme in regard to which the loans have already been redeemed. Profits which local authorities make from the sale of land could also be applied for the financing of facilities, and the amendment of the Act as proposed in clause 7 deals with this. Since local authorities already have an aggregate amount of almost R50 million available in the maintenance and rent reserve funds, and have invested a major portion of this elsewhere in internal funds, I am convinced that these sources in themselves could already go a long way to providing those facilities which could be commenced at the present juncture. The reaction of local authorities to my announcement in this regard was very promising, and my department has already received a large number of inquiries and even applications for approval to apply some of these reserve funds for the establishment of community facilities from a number of local authorities. For the sake of completeness I could just mention that an additional financing source has been created by loading actual rentals from schemes by only 1%, which will progressively swell the funds for these facilities. This addition to rents should not cause lessees any inconvenience, and enjoys the support of both members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council as well as members of the National Indian Council. Apart from the sources which I have mentioned, however, it should also be possible, as a supplementary financial resource, for local authorities to provide community facilities with loans from the National Housing Fund, and consequently it is being proposed that the definition of “scheme” be expanded to include “a proposal for the provision of facilities for community development” (clause l(b)(d)). This would authorize my department to consider and grant loans for the establishment of community facilities. Of course these loans will only be considered after local authorities have proved that other sources such as surplus, reserve and maintenance funds, profits from the sale of property—to which I have referred—and surplus rentals are inadequate to finance such facilities. Because local authorities have to keep this money which accrues to them for community facilities, and to which I have just referred, available in a special account for application where necessary, I deem a prescription such as the one contained in clause 3 to be essential.

I think you all agree with me that the provision of community facilities is a very desirable step forward in promoting the development of happy, independent communities. My department and I are enthusiastically intent on ensuring that nothing should curtail or delay this step. Consequently, whenever a case may occur where a need exists and a local authority does not regard it in this light, there has to be a measure in terms of which that local authority may be encouraged. For this reason it is being proposed that the National Housing Commission should be able to call upon a local authority to present a scheme, and if this encouragement evokes no response, it must be possible for such a scheme to be carried out and the costs defraged from the local authority (clauses 5 and 4). The fact that local authorities are in the first place to apply money which is being internally invested elsewhere, makes this measure even more necessary. It is important that there should be uniformity throughout the country in the provision of community facilities, and some local authorities have consequently advocated that authoritative guidance should be available to them in this respect. To achieve this object it is consequently necessary for a committee to be appointed representing not only local authorities but all population groups as well, a committee which is able to determine the necessary standards when the facilities are established with the funds to which I have just referred. My intention is that this committee, which is being requested in clause 6, will consist, inter alia of representatives of the provincial administrations, the departments of Indian Affairs, and Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, the United Municipal Executive, etc. I have already taken steps to constitute the committee, which will be a representative one and which will determine standards for effective community facilities throughout the entire country, and as hon. members will observe, local authorities are represented on this committee by the president of the United Municipal Executive. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the approval of these measures, by this Parliament, and I should like to make a very serious appeal to local authorities, as soon as the measures come into operation, to give my department their full co-operation and to make a maximum effort without delay to provide these community facilities. My department is only too eager to be of assistance in word and deed.

There are, as hon. members will observe, a few other amendments to the said Act as well. The principles contained therein I shall, for the sake of clarity, elucidate by dealing with each clause separately.

Clause l(b)(c)(i)

It is a normal need of elderly persons to maintain their independant way of life and remain members of the ordinary community as long as possible. Growing older in modern times is a process which is, however, associated with specific circumstances and needs. For example, it is usually attended by a falling-off in professional labour and a consequent loss of social contact. In this way there are elderly people living isolated and lonely lives in their flats or rooms.

The object of the making available of service centres, as is being proposed in this paragraph, is to prevent such circumstances as far as possible by creating opportunities for elderly people to have pleasant and sustained social intercourse, and to have at their disposal a variety of auxiliary and support services able to meet the primary needs of these people.

Clause l(b)(c)(ii)

A great need for crèches exists among the middle income groups because it is these mothers in particular who enter, and who have already become an integral part of, the labour market. To prevent the children of these working mothers, as well as fathers who have to care for children, being exposed daily for long hours to the care of strangers and to undesirable care, provision is now being made in this paragraph for the making available of funds for the construction of crèches.

It may be mentioned that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in the case of Whites, the Administration of Coloured Affairs in the case of Coloureds, and the Department of Indian Affairs in the case of Indians, will establish the need for such institutions (as happens at present when applications are made for a loan for an old-age home) and that the Department of Community Development will then, on the basis of a recommendation of the abovementioned bodies, consider and grant loans to local authorities for re-issuing to utility companies and registered welfare organizations.

Clause 2

The amendment which is being proposed here, is in accordance with certain reorganizations which have taken place in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and consequently it is necessary that the representatives of that department on the Bantu Housing Board should now be indicated only as two officers of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Clause 8

Section 75c of the Housing Act, 1966, allows a person who qualifies to be assisted from the National Housing Fund to purchase a completed house which has been built by private initiative. However, it is a condition that it has to be a new dwelling, which has not yet been occupied.

However, it so happened during the 1974 flood disaster that a person’s whose house had been devastated by the flood waters could not be assisted from the National Housing Fund to purchase an existing house which was available because it was a house that had previously been occupied. The prohibition on the purchase of old houses with loans from the Fund was intended to stimulate the construction of new dwellings, and in this way meet the growing need for dwellings. This object is not being overlooked, but it neverthless appears that cases do occur where the prohibition causes major deprivation, as in the case mentioned above.

The amendment which is being proposed in this clause, therefore seeks to enable respective home-owners qualifying for assistance from the National Housing Fund to purchase with a loan from the fund, at the discretion of the National Housing Commission, dwellings which have already been occupied previously.

Clause 9

Section 76 provides that the National Housing Commission, on such conditions as it may determine, may approve of a loan not exceeding R500 to the registered owner of any land, who has any water available, to enable him to make provision for an adequate supply of such water for domestic purposes on such land.

The determination of an amount in this section therefore necessitates the amendment of the section concerned as soon as it should be decided to increase the amount, as did in fact happen recently. In order to eliminate this procedure, the amendment as contained in this clause is being proposed.

Clause 10

The amendments being proposed in this Bill, particularly to make provision for the establishment of community facilities, also necessitate the amendment of the long title of the Housing Act 1966, as contained in this clause.

Sir, before I resume my seat. I should just like to say, for the information of hon. members, that as a result of representations that have been received I shall move amendments in clauses 3 and 7 in the Committee Stage to make provision for prior consultation with local authorities before the steps envisaged there are taken.

Mrs. Speaker, I find it a great pity that so few of us are present in this House this afternoon at a time when important legislation such as this is being introduced here. [Interjections.] Sir, I distinctly said “of us”; I did not say anything about the Nationalists. I spoke of “us”, and when I speak of “us”, I speak of all the members of this House. I do not know why the hon. members in that corner on the opposite side feel so badly about that, for they are all here. I am only sorry that this important legislation was introduced by the Minister in a virtually empty House. I hoped that more of us would be here when the legislation was introduced.

The hon. the Minister gave us a detailed account of precisely why this legislation was being introduced. He started by saying that it was to enable him to make arrangements for the provisions of facilities like halls, swimming pools and facilities for recreation. I think we all agree that facilities of this type are what we should like to have. We should like to have such facilities for every population group and in every local authority throughout the country. But I think we should consider these facilities for a moment simply to ascertain whether they are facilities which will be used by the inhabitants of that local authority only. I do not think the hon. the Minister has in mind, for example, a huge Olympic swimming pool or a big hall in which a political meeting can be held. Nor do I think that he has in mind the type of facilities for recreation that we usually find in big cities. I should appreciate it none the less if the hon. the Minister would indicate in his reply the size of the halls, the swimming pools and recreational facilities he has in mind.

The hon. the Minister also said that these facilities would be provided in the various townships in which the under-privileged settle in vast numbers. We know that the hon. the Minister has a very good case in this regard and we gladly concur in the proposals he made this afternoon. We should like to make sure, however, that where there are under-privileged people in a local authority area, the provision of the facilities will take place in consultation with them. Shortly before the hon. the Minister resumed his seat, he said there would in fact be consultation with, the various local authorities, but we should like to know on what basis such consultation will take place. As far as housing for under-privileged people is concerned, we know that it happens that townships are not very keen to provide them with, housing. On what basis will the hon. the Minister select the townships in which these facilities are to be provided? I can foresee even at this stage that when such facilities are provided in a township, the under-privileged will also be settled in that township. This is a difficult matter, for we know that there has been trouble in the past regarding the housing of people who cannot make the grade on their own. Subsidized housing had to be provided for them at the time.

We on this side of the House are very interested in the financing of these proposals, I see that the financing will, in the first place, be affected from the profits on the sale of land by the local authority. The reserves in the funds of the local authorities for the maintenance and rentals of schemes may also be used for that purpose. The hon. the Minister also referred to the loading of rentals by 1%. I do not know whether this is something that has already been put into operation, or whether the hon. the Minister only envisages doing so. Nor do I know whether the loading of rentals is done in terms of other legislation or by means of proclamation by the Minister. Is it perhaps so that the Housing Commission does the loading? We should like to know on what basis and by whom the loading is done. It seems to us as though a local authority must first satisfy the Minister or the Commission that it does not have sufficient funds from the sources I mentioned a moment ago, before it will be able to obtain loans from the National Housing Fund. In other words, only if there is not sufficient profits from the sale of land and there is not enough money in the reserve fund and if sufficient revenue is not derived from the loading of 1%, will loans be available from the National Housing Fund. The question which poses itself to us, is what of the interest and redemption in respect of these loans? For example, will the rate of interest be very low and will redemption take place over a very long period? If this is not so, we are going to place an additional burden on the shoulders of local authorities as a result of these loans from the National Housing Fund. In that case authorities will most probably have to increase their rates and taxes so as to enable them to pay the additional interest and redemption I think that it is very important to take notice of this, because this is legislation we should like to pass. There is, however, another principle, and that is that we on this side of the House who feel the same way— are of the opinion that local authorities should manage their own affairs to a large extent without interference from the commission or Parliament. We now have these two contradictory principles in the legislation. We are now going to give the commission the right to order a municipality or any other local authority to establish these facilities. If the local authority is not so inclined we give the commission the right to oblige that local authority to provide the facilities.

They must be obliged to do so.

I know that there are certain municipalities in the Cape Province that do not want to know anything about this and I also know that there are some of those municipalities whose councils do not consist of United Party people, but of Nationalist Party people. They, too, are as opposed to this. This matter of being obliged is something that worries me. It is also something about which, we have misgivings. We have misgivings about the fact that the Minister and the commission will now have the right to oblige these municipalities to provide the facilities, when those municipalities perhaps do not have the funds to create those facilities and to maintain them. Therefore, the question as to how the financing is going to be done by means of loans is a very important one. Suppose that these loans are made on the basis of a rate of interest of ½% and that these loans may be repaid over a period of 50 years. In that case I should say that there would be very few municipalities that would raise objections to accepting a loan of this kind. But if the loan is for a period of 15 years at a rate of interest of 10%, for example, I can understand that there will certainly be many of these local authorities that will refuse to have anything to do with this. We now give the Minister the right, however, to oblige those local authorities to undertake such schemes. I think the hon. the Minister should inform us very clearly with regard to this point. The hon. the Minister used a very fine word in his speech. He said that local authorities would be “encouraged” to do these things. Encouragement is an excellent idea and we all agree with that, but when encouragement becomes obligatory we are not so sure any longer whether we are happy with that.

In addition, the Minister spoke about the Committee that is now being appointed to look into the matter and to establish what type of scheme it should be, what standards should be maintained, and so on. According to what I have heard from the Minister it seems to me as though this committee is to be constituted from all population groups. I am not sure whether I understood the matter correctly, but it seems to me that it is a committee which is being appointed by the National Housing Commission. Therefore this is a sub-committee of the National Housing Commission. This sub-committee will then make recommendations and decide what standards should be maintained, what those facilities should be like, etc. It seems to me as though this committee will have to co-operate very closely with local authorities, because there is an additional requirement in this legislation that when a local authority is required to undertake such a matter and does not do so within six months, the Commission has every right to do so and to recover the costs from the local authority. It is important to know what type of co-operation and consultation there will be and it is important to know how this committee is actually going to do its work. This is not clear to us. I think the hon. the Minister should inform us about that aspect. We all agree that there is a need for service centres for elderly persons. There also is a need for crèches for children. These are facilities the hon. the Minister now wishes to provide and we agree with that. In this case, however, it seems to me as though the funds may come from sources other than those I mentioned a moment ago. When I examine the hon. the Minister’s speech, it seems to me as though funds will most probably come from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as a contribution towards maintaining these service centres and crèches. I am not sure of this because it is not clear from his speech. I should like to know whether this is, in fact, the case. If it is not the case, it will be another financial burden on the shoulders of the local authority. Although we agree that those service centres and crèches should indeed be established, we do feel that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should also do its duty in this respect. We feel that matters of this kind actually belong under the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has already had consultations with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. As far as I am concerned, before we can clinch this legislation, we shall have to know to what extent the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will be prepared to co-operate and to what extent it will be prepared to provide funds. I do not think that this burden should be accepted solely by the inhabitants and taxpayers of a local authority area.

We are very glad to see that the Housing Act is now being amended so as to allow a person who wishes to acquire a house to obtain a loan from the Housing Commission to buy a house that has been occupied previously. It is not clear from the hon. the Minister’s speech whether this is intended for the victims of floods only or whether it is a general principle which will apply in the future.

It is of general application.

If it is going to be of general application, we are very glad about it.

†I believe there has been a great improvement in the attitude of the National Housing Commission and the department towards local authorities and towards people in general. I am wondering how this change in attitude came about. I can remember the days when the National Housing Commission was a most dictatorial body. It laid down the law in all respects. As a result of its attitude it had very little co-operation from local authorities. One of the favourite sayings of the Commission and the Minister at that time was that people should not come and talk to them about housing but that they should go and talk to their municipalities who did not want to build the houses. Their attitude was that the municipalities should build the houses. They asked: “How much did they ever ask us to give them? Have they applied for loans?” I see a great change in this attitude. I do not know whether I am right or not, but it seems to me that one of the reasons for the change in attitude may be that the department has had another Minister since that was the attitude of the Commission. If that is so, I must say that I am very grateful for the influence of this hon. Minister. As a result of the change in attitude we find that there is much better co-operation between local authorities, the Department of Community Development and the National Housing Commission. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Defence thinks that it is a great joke that I should be praising one of his colleagues.

I was not listening to you.

Despite the fact that the hon. the Minister thinks this is amusing, I believe that if the hon. the Minister of Community Development is in fact responsible for this change in attitude and if he has in fact been responsible for the state of co-operation between the local authorities and the Commission …

Order! Is the hon. member not discussing matters that can be discussed under the hon. the Minister’s Vote?

Mr. Speaker, I am trying not to do that, but I am afraid that I was rather put off by the hon. the Minister of Defence.

The only other observation I wish to make in connection with the attitude of the Housing Commission in the past and how it has changed today, is that it was dominated entirely by some of the rather nastier aspects of the Group Areas Act, namely the removals. I think that that is probably what dominated the scene. In those days the Housing Commission was only interested in providing housing for those people who were displaced as a result of the workings of the Group Areas Act. There seems to have been a change in policy now. This new idea of providing something for the benefit of the community is an idea which we on this side of the House welcome. We should like to be satisfied only on the few points on which I want to sum up. I hope we are not going to interfere with the autonomy of the local authorities by passing this Bill. It seems to me that an inquiry is to be made by the Minister if a local authority does not come up to scratch. If a local authority is told that it must get on with a scheme—this is provided for by this legislation—it is given a period of six months within which it must plan the scheme. It is then given a further period within which the scheme must be put into operation. If it does not do so, according to the amendment it seems as if an inquiry is carried out. In the proposed new section 15(3A) as set out in clause 4 of the Bill—

I think the hon. the Minister could probably allay a number of doubts in our minds if he told us just how this inquiry is going to work. Is he only going to inquire whether the local authority has been diligent or is he going to inquire into all the surrounding facts of the matter such as why the local authority does not want to enter into the scheme? Is he also going to inquire into the fact whether the local authority merely defaulted because it could not see its way clear financially to enter into the scheme? I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should tell us just what inquiry he has in mind. I know that it involves a principle that has already been accepted and is to be found in other sections of the Housing Act, but I do not think the House has ever been told what that inquiry entails. I think the hon. the Minister could clear the air very considerably if he told us just what he inquires into in such instances and how he proposes to have this consultation with the local authorities. He told us this afternoon just before he resumed his seat that he was going to make an amendment to the Bill before us in which he was going to provide for consultation. I think he should tell us in his reply to this debate what sort of consultation that is going to be. If it is merely the sort of consultation we have had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I do not think we shall be interested in it. When that hon. Minister consults, he simply writes a letter to the Bantu Authority concerned, saying: “We are going to do this.” If he does not get a reply within a month, he says: “They have not written to me, so I have consulted.”

Order! The hon. member is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that I hope that that is not the sort of consultation which the hon. the Minister of Community Development had in mind when he mentioned consulting local authorities.

How do you consult with Wynberg’s?

Generally speaking, we are very pleased with this Bill and we give it our blessing. We hope the hon. the Minister will give us the information we have asked for, because then we shall be quite happy to accept this Bill and we shall not move any amendments in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to reply to the questions the hon. member for Wynberg put to me as quickly as possible. Firstly I want to convey my appreciation to the Opposition for their support of this measure. The hon. member for Wynberg expressed the hope that no extravagent facilities will be created. For that very reason a standards committee is being constituted, something I am working on at the moment. The committee will consist of the head of the Building Services Division of the Department of Community Development, a member of the National Housing Commission (NHC), the Director of Housing in Port Elizabeth, Mr. Cleary, the president of the UME, as well as representatives of the Departments of Indian Matters and of Coloured Affairs. The latter representatives may be Whites or Coloureds. The departments have to appoint people themselves. Then there will be representatives of whichever province the activities are taking place in. The function of this committee is to lay down standards and to guide local authorities so that the best results may be obtained at the minimum cost and so that there may be uniformity and a standard which will be applied.

The hon. member elaborated on the basis upon which consultation will take place. There is only one basis upon which consultation will take place. Consultation will firstly take place on an official level. If uniformity cannot be achieved there— each side reports to his Minister or local authority—the Minister and the local authority meet, as often happens in my department for example. In that way problems will be sorted out. I just want to say in parentheses that it is my experience that, when one sits down at a conference table with a local authority and discusses their problems, after one has also presented one’s own problems, an answer is normally found which satisfies both parties.

The loading of rentals is done by the institutions which administer the housing schemes, sub-economic and economic. It will be either my department or the local authority that will load rentals with. 1% to make those funds available for community facilities. I pointed out that both representatives of the Indian Council and the CPR who gave evidence, welcomed it because the burden is very light. It gives those people the feeling that they are also making a contribution towards what is being made available. The funds from this source will, therefore, not be a loan; in other words, it will not be repayable by the local authorities. Thus funds which are, for instance, derived from profits on the sale of properties and business premises will not be a loan; it is money which came from the community. Moneys that come from reserve funds—rent reserves and maintenance funds—will be a loan and will go back to those funds, just as moneys of the National Housing Commission will be a loan. If the community is predominantly sub-economic, the rate of interest will be 1%. If the community is predominantly economic, there will be an economic rate of interest.

The hon. member expressed concern about the commissions right to compel. I can hardly imagine that cases of compulsory action could occur. The possibility exists however that local authorities might be tardy. Therefore a provision exists in the Bill by which the commission can make a housing scheme compulsory on a local authority. In that way these schemes can also be made compulsory in this instance. In my opinion something like that will occur very seldom, if ever, but the provision has to be made.

I have already dealt with the composition of the committee. The hon. member made inquiries in connection with the funds for service centres and for places of safety for children. This does not impose any additional burden on the local authority. These institutions are created in co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare, as institutions are at present created in co-operation with that department, for example homes for the aged. It is undertaken by utility companies and welfare organizations which then receive the funds and recover it in the same manner in which funds are being recovered today in respect of old-age homes for example.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Sir, when we discussed this Bill last week, we saw that it was a rather simple measure which only sought to rectify the position since there had been a judgment in a court case which decided against the co-operative societies. It is a fact that the words “subject to such reasonable restrictions as the society or company may in general meeting impose”, were incorrectly inserted in the English version only, which was the signed version, and the object of this Bill is simply to rectify this matter. These words are merely being inserted in subsection (3)(b). They mean exactly the same thing. Only it goes a little further, by stating that an annual general meeting also has to determine the nature of the books of account now. Sir, it was suggested by the hon. member for Newton Park that it is being made even more difficult for a member to have access to the books of account. I want to contend that this is not the case, because the annual general meeting has had the right to determine the nature of the books of account in any case, and for that reason the position will be virtually the same because, according to the provisions of this clause as they read at present, the right is being granted quite specifically to the annual general meeting to determine the nature of the books of account, while, according to the English version, it only determined the hours and office hours.

Sir, the hon. member for Bethal suggested here that, while amending the Co-operative Societies Act, we may possibly consider deleting section 46 altogether. This idea was supported by the hon. member for Yeoville. Sir, I think there is a great deal to say in favour of this suggestion. However, one will have to consider a few matters in this respect. One wants to retain the principle that it should not be possible for an interfering member to obtain information which may be to the detriment of officials of the co-operative society or members of the co-operative society or in connection with the contracts or business dealings of the co-operative society. If this principle could be retained, it could possibly be inserted in another section of the Act—possibly in section 45—So that those provisions will in fact be retained and it will not be possible for a meddlesome member to interfere unnecessarily with the books of account of a co-operative society. Sir, I want to suggest that experience over the years has proved that co-operative societies report in a proper manner and very fully on their activities. Usually, it is the experience of co-operative societies that, when submitting to their members an abridged version of their balance sheets, they find that not one out of the hundreds of members asks for an inspection of the detailed financial statements of the co-operative society. Therefore it seems to me that this Bill, although it serves as a guarantee to the member who wants to have access to the books of account, does not curtail the rights of the member unnecessarily.

I should like to attempt to clarify in the minds of hon. members opposite precisely what our object is in speaking to this Bill. We are supporting the Bill and I want to make it quite clear that we have no objection to the principle proposed to be adopted at Second Reading. This arises out of a specific occasion, mentioned by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, and against the background of a court case which was recently decided and which I do not want to touch on. We had a specific case where a member of a co-operative, attempting to establish his right and interest in the business being conducted by the board of directors elected at a general meeting, was prevented from doing so by an official of that co-operative. That is the background to the legislation. There is, as has been said, a difference of interpretation between the Afrikaans text and the English text, and the proposal here is to set that right and to clarify precisely what was intended in the English text, which I understand was the text which was signed. Now, what we want to make clear is that a co-operative general meeting is entitled to lay down certain restrictions to be imposed upon members as to which books they may see in any case in which they may wish to establish their own personal rights and interests in the business of the co-operative, and this applies to every single member of the co-operative. That general meeting of the co-operative is going to impose certain restrictions upon every single one of its members. This will apply to every member. What we are anxious to see, however, is that that annual general meeting shall be so instructed by this House that it shall not limit beyond what is regarded as reasonable the rights of a person who wishes to establish his own interest in the business being conducted. It was for that reason that the hon. member for Newton Park told the hon. the Minister that he proposed to move an amendment at the Committee Stage which will define the books which may reasonably be made available to a member of a co-operative. It is surely quite reasonable for us to say that members of a co-operative at a general meeting should not impose unreasonable restrictions upon themselves. This is all that we are asking for. We are trying to get this home to the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite in supporting the legislation. We want it to be quite clearly laid down by this House that members adopting restrictions which will apply to all of them should not be led in their enthusiasm or for any other reason to adopt restrictions which will be unreasonable and which will in any measure limit the right of a member to inquire into the proceedings and the business in his own personal interest. Sir, I wish to make it quite clear that we do not wish all the books to be thrown open so that members of the co-operative can go there, and, as one hon. member said, “dit deursnuffel”, to find out what other people’s business is in the co-operative. We want to know that an individual member of the co-operative can have reasonable access. It is our proposal that the books should be defined as laid down in a sworn statement produced in the court case which was recently decided here in the Cape Province. That is all we are asking the hon. the Minister to accept—that the sworn statement which was regarded by an accredited accountant as being the minimum number of books which should be available to a member, should be laid down here so that the general meeting, when they meet, will know against that background that they may take any decisions they wish limiting themsleves. All we want to do is to say that this is a reasonable set of books, sworn to by an accountant in a court case which has been decided. That is all we ask the Minister to accept.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to give the Opposition an assurance in this one respect, i.e. that this statutory amendment has nothing to do with the judgment in the case of Raubenheimer v. Klein Karoo-Koöperasie, which is now awaiting appeal.

But George Malan says it does.

It is not of a retrospective nature. This is not going to interfere with the decision of the Judge. It is merely for the purpose of rectifying the Afrikaans and English versions. I know what your concern is, and I know who paid you a visit, but let me say quite frankly that at one stage these 1 800 members of this co-operative society were on their knees because they did not have a protective one-channel co-operative society such as this. I am telling you now that an attempt is being made to break this kind of thing, an attempt by people who do not appreciate that when there are 1 800 people who organize themselves in a co-operative society in order to save themselves, there are such people … The hon. member referred to wool. Any person is in a position to ascertain the quantity of wool in stock in the country; the whole world knows how much wool there is. Wool is quite a different story. An attempt is being made here to do certain things to harm those 1 800 farmers. They are my customers. All we are asking—you have been satisfied with the English version since 1939 because that was the signed version; the Afrikaans version, which is different, was not the signed version—is that the two versions be brought into line. What is the spirit of a co-operative society? 1 800 people come together and say that they unite in a common front, that they convene an annual meeting and such a meeting lays down that people may have reasonable access to the books of account. That is their business. The hon. member for Mooi River says: “Members should not impose unnecessary restrictions”.

†Restrictions on whom? This is their own business. Why should they not have the right to say that they want restrictions?

That is what I have said.

It is nobody else’s business to know what is going on in the co-op, but people want to know what the supply is that you have on hand.

*We can never accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River, even though we have to vote all next week. He wants to nullify the right people have to keep certain things within their own concerns to themselves. Politically speaking these are the most nonsensical arguments I have ever heard in this House, i.e. to place the future of 1 800 farmers at stake. This is a delicate kind of business.

Could the hon. the Minister tell me what the object of section 46 is?

If you read it, you will see that it says “within a reasonable time”. If it is decided at an annual meeting of a business undertaking that access should not be had to certain things because ill-disposed people would want to obtain information in this way, is it then not right of those people to do so? The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the person who supplies hides and dried fruit The hon. member wants to relate two matters and wants to obtain this, that and the other information. It is still the business of those people. If we who are sitting in this House, would form ourselves into one company and an outsider comes along and wants some information—I am not referring to the Raubenheimer case now, because this case is sub judice and I do not want to create dissent in that respect— and if we, as members, would say …

He has to be a member.

He is a member and he has joined, but then he became a Reformist … [Interjections.] This stranger comes along and says that he wants certain information to furnish to outside people. Is it not our right as co-operators to say that certain aspects of our business are of a confidential nature and that we cannot allow such information to be disclosed to the outside world? I think the matter is quite in order and for that reason I do not want to go into all the arguments that have been raised.

I should like to co-operate with the Opposition, but I am sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, agriculture was one of the matters which were placed under the legislative jurisdiction of the legislative assemblies of the homelands when those areas were granted self-government. That meant that the function of regulating marketing affairs in the homelands was transferred to the Governments of the homelands, as a result of which the agricultural authorities of the Republic have no longer had any say in these matters in those areas. The Marketing Act is still shaped to the mould of the previous dispensation and therefore suffers from certain deficiencies, which make it difficult to apply marketing schemes in an effective way. This Bill therefore seeks to co-ordinate the provisions of the Marketing Act with those of the constitutions of the homelands and to make further provision for the granting of assistance by control boards in the marketing of homelands products. The Marketing Act already recognizes the principle that control boards may grant assistance in the marketing of products produced in neighbouring states. In this connection I refer to the provisions of the Act in terms of which importers of products from neighbouring states are deemed to be the producers of such products for the purposes of the marketing thereof in the Republic. Therefore, such importers, as far as a particular marketing scheme is concerned, are subject to the same obligations and are entitled to the same advantages as local producers. In the second place, control boards are authorized to undertake exporting schemes in respect of the products of neighbouring states. In the third place, control boards administering one channel schemes may enter into agreements with the Governments of neighbouring states concerning the purchase or marketing, in an agreed manner, of products produced in such neighbouring states. These arrangements work especially well in respect of the member countries of the customs union. The Bill envisages making possible the application of all these provisions in respect of the homelands as well.

Although the abovementioned measures entail far-reaching advantages for homelands in the long term, these are inadequate because of the Republic’s special responsibility towards the homelands. Therefore, it is proposed further that control boards be authorized also to carry on activities, at the request and with the consent of the Government of a homeland, within their sphere of action as an agent for such government. Here it is being envisaged that it be made possible for control boards to assist, even within a homeland on an agency basis, in the execution of a marketing scheme for the products of a homeland. I want to make it quite clear that it will depend on the homeland Governments themselves whether or not they want to avail themselves of this assistance. However, I might mention that requests in this connection have already been received from homeland Governments. As hon. members know, the marketing of agricultural products is not a matter which can be tackled in an unco-ordinated way, and in order to be successful in marketing, producers have to act in a spirit of unanimity. This Bill therefore provides the necessary incentive for South African producers to liaise with each other in pursuance of common objects and to undertake the marketing of their products in a co-ordinated way.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. the Minister concluded with the most important point when he said that the main object was to promote the common interests of producers in South Africa and the homelands. We on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, because the principle contained therein is a good one. I do not intend to cause the blood pressure of the hon. gentlemen to rise as has been the case with the previous legislation. However, this Bill goes to show that although one can go a long way with self-government as far as homelands are concerned, it is still essential that there should be the highest degree of co-operation in different spheres. We also know that the homelands are for the most part dependent upon us to sell on our markets the products they produce there, even though this is not done on a large scale. This proves to us that the co-operation which should exist in the economic sphere, is to a great extent embodied in this legislation. Because we realize this irrefutable fact of the South African set-up, we believe it is essential for us to make available this assistance to the homeland Governments. The provision which is being made in this Bill that a control board itself may act as an agent in a homeland in connection with the control, sale and marketing of products, is a sound step. Therefore, the provisions which are being made in this Bill, are sound. One can only express the hope that the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will be able to render the highest form of service to the homeland governments by means of these control boards, because one can hardly foresee the time when they will be able to act completely on their own. It is also essential that we should not have a surplus of products in our own markets from time to time. In other words, there has to be proper control. If this is the object of this legislation, I believe that it can be supported to establish orderly marketing for those people and, at the same time, to protect the South African farmer as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the attitude of the Opposition. I do not foresee that the homelands will become completely independent in this respect, because of their production and the present marketing methods overseas. This does not only concern the homelands. Lesotho is selling her products through our Wool and Mohair Administration. The overseas marketing system is a sophisticated concern and many of our control board have to carry out research in this respect overseas. Many foreign countries are marketing under our auspices today. I think it is quite correct that we also involve the homelands, and therefore I am glad that the Opposition also supports this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.