I have to inform the House that, as I shall be representing the Republic at the funeral service for President Chiang Kai-shek, I shall be absent from the sittings of the House from 14 to 18 April. During my absence the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 will apply.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the following announcement on the business of the House. After disposing of the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, we shall proceed with Order of the Day No. 2. On Monday, the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to the Budget debate.

†After the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance, we shall proceed with the legislation as printed on the Order Paper. I just want to point out that Orders of the Day Nos. 10, 11 and 12 will be moved down to become Nos. 16, 17 and 18.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most topical issues which we face today is the housing of our people here in the Republic. In the last few years we have had an unequalled influx of Coloureds from the rural areas to the urban areas. This influx of Coloureds makes exceptionally high demands on the State and also places a burden on the Department of Community Development. Therefore we are grateful to know that the hon. the Minister has once again made provision for millons of rands which will be spent on housing. Sir, perhaps there are reasons why the Coloureds are flocking to the cities. Perhaps one reason is that there are more and better educational facilities in the cities for their children. Perhaps another reason is laziness, because one finds foot-loose people who move from one farm to the next. They are under bad influences and under the impression that they will lead a kingly life here in the cities. Sir, we have large Coloured populations in the cities, especially in Port Elizabeth and here on the Cape Flats. That influx of Coloureds to the cities is not attributable to a shortage of housing in the rural areas. But we find that hon. members of the Opposition stand up here and blame the Government for the shortage of dwelling units and that they exploit this position. Here I am thinking especially of the hon. member for Walmer, who is one of the people who said that this Government is to blame for the shortage of houses as a result of the application of the Group Areas Act. I shall quote from a speech he made here later. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member whether the Government should have known beforehand that thousands and tens of thousands of Coloureds would stream from the rural areas to the Cape Flats? Should the Government also have known that a large-scale migration of Coloureds would take place from the interior, from places as far as Graaff-Reinet, Victoria West, Loxton, Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp? From all those parts, the Coloureds are streaming into Port Elizabeth. Should the Government have known that beforehand? The hon. member says that the shortage of houses is attributable to the application of the Group Areas Act. Is the Group Areas Act of application in the rural areas, on the farms?

You should read a little history.

Sir, the fact is that there is an influx of Coloureds from the rural areas to the cities, and now the three opposition parties want to try to take political advantage of that. The Progressive Party and the Reform Party especially, those twin brothers, want to pretend that we discriminate against the Coloureds. They try to make political capital out of this. They want to delude the world into the belief that we are not giving attention to Coloured housing or Bantu housing. They want to disrupt the good relations which exist between the White man and the Black man. That is the only reason why they are here.

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, I want to quote what the hon. member for Walmer said in answer to a speech of the hon. member for Boksburg; he said—

That is the best part of your speech.

Sir, what the hon. member said there is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard in this House. He said further—

I want to challenge the hon. member to give me the name of one person who was removed from a good house in Port Elizabeth which was subsequently demolished.

The whole of South End.

Sir, let us argue this matter out here this morning. In every case where someone has been moved out of a good house, someone else has been resettled there. In every case where a White has been moved out of a good house and re-settled in another residential area, a non-White has been put in that house.

What about South End?

Where Coloureds have been moved out of good houses in an area which had been proclaimed a White residential area, Whites have been put in those houses. For example, we had a Coloured residential area in Holland Park. The Coloureds there were moved, but Whites were put into those houses. We had Coloureds in Schauderville and Dowerville. Not one of those Coloured houses was demolished; Whites were settled in those houses. Those houses were not demolished; Whites were settled in those houses, and where Whites were moved in other areas, Coloureds were settled in those houses. Therefore the hon. member must not come along here and say that the shortage of housing is due to the application of the Group Areas Act.

What about South End?

Of course it is.

Did the hon. member want that integrated living to continue? Did he want integration in South End? Sir, Bantu used to live in the centre of Port Elizabeth, in Dassiekraal. What is there today? There are more than 300 dwelling units. Did he want those slum conditions in Dassiekraal and in Korsten to continue? Did he want us to change Port Elizabeth into a breeding ground for communism? Did he want the process of interbreeding to continue there? Sir, I tell you there is still a crisis in the United Party. That hon. member does not feel at home where he is sitting. He will feel at home in the Progressive Party, and it will not be long before he sits there as well. Now he speaks of a housing shortage. We do not have a housing shortage for Whites in Port Elizabeth. If we still have a shortage of White housing in Port Elizabeth, why does he not stand up and plead for more houses? In the past five years, 7 292 houses have been built in Port Elizabeth for Coloureds alone. And now I want to ask whether they know where that money comes from. That money comes from the pocket of the White taxpayer. The hon. member talks about the shortage of Coloured housing in Port Elizabeth. I say the White taxpayer can no longer carry the loss on Coloured housing, and the Coloureds’ rental need only be increased by 25 cents for them to protest. But if one walks down the road, one sees that when the workers knock off at General Motors, they go and buy liquor for R4 or R5. There is no shortage of money. The time has come that we can expect the Coloured to make his contribution as well. The Coloureds’ wages have been increased. The Coloureds have good jobs on the Railways today and therefore they can help to pay for their housing.

Then I just want to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands. He is the hon. member who poses as the champion of the Coloureds in this House, but in fact he is not the champion of the Coloureds; he just wants to spoil those good relations which we are trying to establish here in South Africa. We know them. [Interjections.] Chief Kaizer Matanzima, the Prime Minister of the Transkei, has issued a warning to them. What do we expect? We expect a religious leader not to spread fire, but to spread love and to try to bring about co-operation. Now I just want to point out what this Government, together with the municipality of Cape Town, has done for Coloured housing. In the past five years the following Coloured houses have been built here in Cape Town by local authorities: In Parow, 1 222 economic houses and 100 sub-economic houses; in Bellville, 666 economic and 693 sub-economic houses; Cape Town, 23 457 economic and 13 000 sub-economic houses; and the Cape Town divisional council, 5 000 economic and 3 000 sub-economic houses. This adds up to 30 400 economic and 17 000 sub-economic houses in all. Can the hon. member not stand up in this House and also tell the Coloureds that 47 000 houses have been built in the past five years, and all with the White taxpayers’ money?

May I ask a question?

No, Sir. I cannot answer a question from the hon. member now. He has so much time to stand in the pulpit and therefore he can ask enough questions from the pulpit. I do not have time now to answer questions. Then I want to point out to the hon. member that at the moment there are 35 000 houses being planned for the non-Whites in Cape Town. Those are to house the slum dwellers, slum dwellers who have streamed in from the rural areas. Now the Opposition wants to announce to us that this is the result of the Government’s Group Areas Act.

You have half a minute left, Oom Fanie.

An hon. member here says that I have only half a minute left. I shall have to accept that and only say what this Government has spent on housing over the last five years, viz R197 million on White housing, R58 million on Coloured housing, and R14 million on housing for Indians. In other words, the Government has spent an average of R57 million per year on 19 000 houses for all population groups. My last point in connection with housing is that in the past five years, one and a half times as many houses have been erected for Coloureds than were erected in the previous 24 years in South Africa.

Before I conclude, I just want to associate myself with a plea which the hon. member for Algoa made. Unfortunately this is a matter which has to be raised with the provincial administration, but nevertheless I want to refer to the increased municipal rates and the conditions which prevail in our large cities. The fact is that the White ratepayer, the owner of property, has to pay such high rates that he can really no longer keep his house. In Port Elizabeth the rates which have to be paid for an ordinary three-bedroomed house vary from R570 to R600 per year. That does not include services such as water and electricity. The matter has become so serious that pensioners and ex-teachers have to move out of their houses or sell their houses because they cannot keep living in the houses as a result of the increased rates. The fact remains that something is radically wrong. It is time for the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry to institute a comprehensive investigation into the municipal affairs of our large cities. In Port Elizabeth, for example, the State has property to the value of R50 million, while its rates contribution only comes to R175 000 per year. We understand that Pretoria gets a contribution of R5 million per year. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister who is responsible for that to pay a higher amount to Port Elizabeth as well.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North has calmed down slightly since he had an outburst in this House last night. I do not intend to react to all the statements and wild accusations he flung at hon. members in these benches. I will have something to say about housing in the course of my speech. I want to say to the hon. member that to me he sounded like a voice from the past last night. He sounded like a politician who is still casting his politics in the political mould of two or three generations ago. The hon. member has apparently not heard of détente or its implications and perhaps he has not read Pik Botha’s speech either which he delivered on behalf of South Africa on racial discrimination. He is a man who still thinks in terms of the old struggle of Boer against Briton and who has apparently not yet realized that even the Nationalist Party claims to work for a wide South African nationalism. I thought for a moment last night that the HNP had got their first elected member in this House. The accusations of the hon. member last night had nothing to do with the Budget. I want to devote my attention more specifically to the Budget.

†The hon. members in these benches, especially the hon. members for Pinelands, Johannesburg North and Houghton, pointed to the imbalance in the priorities of the Government in its spending of the millions of rand which the hon. the Minister of Finance seeks to appropriate.

Are you not first going to announce the banns, Colin?

Secondly, they also pointed to the inflationary nature of the present Budget. I shall deal with that in some greater detail in a few minutes’ time. What we have heard, not so much from the hon. the Minister in his Budget, but from the hon. members in the course of the four-day debate, were hymns of praise for the Government, flights of fancy and we have had them extolling the virtues of the huge schemes which the Government is now bringing under way. But we have not heard anything from the Government members during the course of this debate about a concern for the ordinary South African, whether he be Black. Brown or White. One gets the impression that the hon. members opposite have become so mesmerized by the billions of billions of rand which are going to be expended that they show no more concern for the millions and millions of ordinary South Africans who are battling to make ends meet.

*This has not always been the case. I see that the hon. member for Brits is looking at me earnestly The Nationalist Party has not always been like this. In the past it did pay attention to the interests and the needs of the ordinary South African citizen and it saw to the needs of the poor people. But that was in the past. The Nationalist Party knows how, when it was still sitting in the Opposition benches, it attacked the United Party Government about the rise in the cost of living. The Nationalist Party knows how it exploited the question of mutton and white bread during the election of 1948. It knows that it stopped the immigration scheme because it would allegedly aggravate the housing shortage in South Africa and the problems of the ordinary citizen. The hon. member for Brits knows this, and he also knows that today it is no longer the ordinary citizen and the poor man who are considered to be important by the Nationalist Party, but the big schemes.

†This Nationalist Party has become too grand, too smug and too pleased with itself. This is what is happening to the Nationalist Party. They know that the people outside are saying that hon. members opposite are not concerned with the massive rise in the cost of living that is hitting the average South African. Do not make any mistake about it—the rise in the cost of living and in the price of ordinary household commodities have become major problems. Inflation and the cost of living have become enemy number one as far as the South African public is concerned. The former Minister of Finance showed some concern in his Budget speech last year when he said that he would attempt to find a balance between combating inflation on the one hand and stimulating growth on the other. But if one reads the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance on this occasion, we find no reference to trying to curb inflation. There is no measure being introduced to attempt to do this. He accepts inflation and builds his whole financial structure into an inflationary spiral. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if we are doing him a disservice, will he indicate when he replies on Monday what specific measures he has introduced in this Budget in order to deal with inflation and the cost of living problem of the ordinary South African citizen? There is nothing in his speech other than an acceptance of inflation and there is nothing in his Budget and figures he has produced to indicate that he really lakes this problem seriously. This National Party Government has become smug and self-satisfied and indifferent to the way people feel.

It has never more graphically illustrated its inability to communicate with the ordinary person than in the debacle over the fuel conservation policy which was introduced 18 months ago. If one recalls the history of that fuel conservation policy, one will remember that there was a tremendous response when the Government first introduced it. Everybody co-operated with the appeals of the Government to save fuel in South Africa. Why? Because the Government at that stage communicated in a sympathetic way with the average South African. The Government informed the public of its goals and how it intended achieving those goals. The Government itself set an example to the private sector in fuel saving. For all these reasons it motivated the public and won their co-operation and they, in turn, assisted the Government in its fuel saving policy. But things have changed. The Government in this particular field introduced, first of all through the then Minister of Economic Affairs and now the Minister of Finance, an increasing measure of secretiveness and stopped communicating sympathetically with the ordinary public. It did not motivate the public and there was no indication any more of the Government itself setting an example. This year there have been more threats instead of persuasion. There have been tougher fines and in this particular Budget there is a R117 million levy which is none other than a penalty on people using petrol. I say this that in the ordinary course of Government financing, Sasol 2 would be financed from loan funds and the cost recouped out of revenues when the chemical products and petrol flow on the market in a few years’ time. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism waxed lyrical on the tremendous petrol and chemical industry that was going to be built up around Sasol 2; the chemical industry was going to be a major part of this undertaking. I want to know why the motorist of today, who is already paying a higher price for petrol because of imported costs, should at this stage subsidize a chemical industry of the future. This is surely totally unreasonable.

Let us examine the figures which were given by the hon. the Minister of Transport of the amounts which were payed into the National Road Fund from the sale of petrol over the last few years. This shows a very disturbing trend. The levy was constant until this Budget was introduced, and it indicates that in the last year compared with the previous year, there was a saving of only 6,5% in petrol consumption. When one looks at the figures for the quarters of the last year ending on 28 February there is a very disturbing trend. While I realize that taking quarters within one year does not give the total picture, it nevertheless shows that if one takes the first quarter as the base of zero, the petrol consumption in the second quarter ending in August, increased by 10%. In the third quarter it was up by 14% from the base and in the fourth quarter by 22%. These figures are not so much an indictment of the motoring public, but an indictment of this Government and its inability to get its message across. If fuel saving is important—and let’s accept that it is—then I believe that this Government has a duty to re-examine the way in which it is dealing with the public and to enter into a new communication with the public and to show to the public that the Government itself is saving fuel. There is no indication whatsoever that this Government itself is saving fuel on any significant scale.

During the course of this Budget debate much has been said about the virtues of decentralization. There was a down-to-earth speech by the hon. member for Eshowe and there was a less down-to-earth speech, in fact an up-in-the-coulds speech, by the hon. member for Port Natal. Decentralization for sound economic reasons will be supported by everyone in this House. But decentralization can only achieve certain limited objectives. It is, moreover, extremely costly and can only really be achieved where there are natural facilities or resources which can be exploited. Most of the examples which the hon. member for Port Natal gave of the Black cities of tomorrow, were not decentralization in the sense of new regional growth points, but merely the extension of the existing metropolitan areas. In due course nearly all the points that he mentioned are going to be swallowed up by the multiracial industrial complexes which have already been established in those areas. Much has been said about priorities and while I do not want to dismiss the claims of the people who are living in the platteland, the hon. member for Smithfield, or the importance of decentralization, I believe that this Government should pay more attention to another priority, i.e. the cities. The movement of the people and growth is towards the cities. The importance of our South African economy is more and more being geared to the secondary industries in the cities. It has been estimated by demographers that in the year 2000 there will be 28 million people living in the cities. This means 28 cities of a million people each, if you limit the size of your cities to a million people each. We in South Africa have a major city problem. The city has become the barometer of the decline in our social standards and of social tensions. When one looks at the increase in alcoholism, in the divorce rate, in drug abuse, in crime and in anti-social behaviour, then one finds these are all indicators that there is something wrong in the cities of South Africa. The Government has a responsibility to put this right. I think that the Government should think in terms of a new deal for the cities. It is no use thinking of plans for the rural areas while it is the cities, the growing cities, which to an increasing extent are the economic heartbeat of South Africa. I call on this Government to spend more money by giving a greater priority rating to the cities and to seeing in particular that there is adequate housing for all sections and all classes of the community and to seeing that there is cheap and effective transportation for the millions of people who commute to and from their work daily. I call upon them to see that there is an upgrading of the physical quality of the cities. This includes town plans, urban renewals, services and amenities. Finally, this Government has a responsibility to deal with a new menace which is manifesting itself in the cities and that is the rapid growth in the crime rate in our major urban areas.

When one looks at the housing situation, one finds that in debates earlier this session it was pointed out that this is a major problem for the middle and lower income groups of Whites who live in densely populated areas. Land values, building costs and finance charges are making the rentals which they have to pay beyond their means and at the same time making property development of this kind unattractive to the investor. It has been said before, and we say it again today, that this Government in considering the problems of the cities has a responsibility to see that sufficient accommodation at a reasonable price is made available to people who live in densely populated areas of South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to Soweto. I want to concentrate more on the Cape Peninsula. The fact is that if there is a problem amongst the Whites in the Peninsula—there is, in fact, a problem— then I say there is a crisis in the Coloured population. It is no use recounting how many houses have been built; what one has to look at is the shortfall of houses today and what the prospect is, in terms of the money which is being spent by the Government, of eliminating that shortfall. The latest figures, given by the Government last year, revealed that in the Cape Peninsula area there was a shortage of housing units of some 49 000 for Coloured people. This has been interpreted to mean that 153 000 Coloured people are either homeless or do not have proper accommodation. The hon. the Minister said that if he carried on building at the rate which he anticipated, he would build a significant number of houses. However, by the time his five-year plan has been completed there will still be a shortage of 24 000 units for Coloured housing. At the end of his plan there will still be a housing shortage for 75 000 Coloured people. If one looks at this Budget, one sees that there is precious little allowed for additional expenditure on housing. The National Housing Fund is being increased by R66 million compared with R58 million in the last Budget—an increase of R8 million, or 15%. But the building cost index is increasing by between 14% and 15%, so that there is no provision for an acceleration in the housing programme. It is business as before; we are just going to continue.

The result is that there is a critical condition. There is overcrowding, there is vagrancy, there is squatting and social tensions which we are starting to feel in the Cape Peninsula.

But there is the highest birth rate in the world as well.

This is the answer which the hon. member gives “The highest birth rate in the world.” [Interjections.] A high birth rate usually goes hand in hand with depressed communities. Raise the standard of living of the community and you reduce the birth rate. This is the procedure to follow and not to ask, as the hon. member does, “Whose fault is it?”

The second point is the question of crime. There is no doubt that the lack of amenities, the lack of facilities, bad town planning, inadequate transport are together pushing up the crime rate. We all know what is happening in the townships around Cape Town. Open your newspapers and day by day you find reports such as “17 people murdered today”, “Murders in the Cape Flats double the rest of South Africa”, “Statistics tell a grim story of Peninsula violence”, “City of killers worse than that of New York”, “Judge on township planning—Judge Steyn says there is a direct correlation between the planning, amenities and the services in the township and the mounting crime rate”. It is time that the Government realize that the crime rate is directly related to the social and economic conditions and the physical environment in which people live. I think one has to get to the root of this. This Government must start tackling these basic things. The hon. the Minister says he is doing something. I will concede that the Government is doing something, but it is not doing enough. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is he satisfied with the amount that he is spending on playing fields and sporting facilities for the Black community in South Africa? Is he satisfied?

Of course not!

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are saying. Let us provide the facilities, provide the amenities, provide the sports fields, provide the houses, provide the schools, create the environment. By so doing we will lower the crime rate and the social tension in South Africa.

There is also a problem developing in the city centre areas. If you look at the statistics and you read the reports, you will find that more and more crimes of violence are taking place in the centre of Cape Town. One need only look at the newspapers and the crime statistics to realize that this is so. In addition to the requests for changes in the social conditions, there have been repeated requests for better policing in the city areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately have no time to answer questions. There have been requests for foot patrols which the Police have acknowledged. In fact, Brig. Heyns, in a statement only a short while ago, had this to say—

Mr. Speaker, here we have the chief Police officer in the Cape Peninsula saying that they would like to provide better protection but that the police do not have the personnel to do so. Sir, I say that this Government has a responsibility to see that there is better protection against crime in the cities. I believe that they should start by re-examining the salaries and conditions of service within the Police force not only to see that there are sufficient people, but to see that there are sufficient people of the right calibre to police the cities of South Africa. I believe that they should look at the whole question of the Police Reserve, to see whether the Police Reserve, on an extended basis and receiving some remuneration for their services, could not be used as an auxiliary force both in the city areas and in the townships.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous problem. There is a social problem, there is an economic problem, and I believe that there is also a health problem. While this Government is playing around on the fringes, while it is doing certain things in the cities, it is not doing enough. It is not seeing the cities as a priority area in South Africa. It is for these reasons that we believe that this Minister and the Minister of Community Development and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration should go to the Minister of Finance and say that the allocations of funds are inadequate, because in the cities are to be found the problems of South Africa. The cities reflect the social ills of South Africa. They are the flash points. By changing the social conditions in the cities, we will create a climate which will prevent them from becoming a danger to South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad, now that the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party has spoken, to be able to reply, not only to his speech, but to that of the hon. member for Houghton as well, and in part also to that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, whom I want to thank for his contribution. I want to begin by saying that there are certain facts which one can sometimes dissociate from the emotional level, if our intentions are sincere—and I do not doubt the sincerity of other people. I just think that unfortunately matters sometimes get bogged down in an emotionalism which does nobody any good. I know, for example, that I was recently accused in a newspaper of adopting an unsympathetic attitude to the Bantu. I do not mind the personal accusation, but my department was accused of this as well. This accusation was made by an organization known as the Black Sash. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I did not take this to heart, for the simple reason that my conscience is clear. I tried to see these people, contrary to what they alleged in the newspaper, namely that it took months to obtain an interview with me. That is just not correct. I saw representatives of that organization on several occasions. Having said this in passing, I want to add that there are certain matters on which I cannot grant interviews. There are certain matters in respect of which interviews are unnecessary and a waste of time. This is when petty things are inflated into mountains and when isolated cases are generalized, suggesting that this department has no human sympathy at all. For this reason I just want to begin by saying that as far as the Department of Bantu Administration and its officials are concerned, I have personally reached the point where I am tired of officials being insulted in the way in which they are in fact insulted by some people. The officials of the Department of Bantu Administration have one of the most difficult tasks in South Africa to perform.

They are only administering your own laws.

We may differ about all the legislation; we may have our own opinions of that, but the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration have one of the most difficult tasks to perform. They deserve the co-operation of all, and not what they often have to put up with, i.e. the reproaches of some people.

I want to try to keep this debate on an unemotional level and I shall be glad if hon. members will allow me to do so. I want to say at once that what was said by the hon. members for Sea Point and Houghton in regard to the housing shortage just cannot be argued away. For me to stand up in this House and to say that shortages do not exist would just be to deny facts, and that I do not want to do. There is a very great housing shortage and this is leading to undesirable conditions. Anyone who denies this is denying a truth. Therefore we must face the fact that something will have to be done to relieve this housing shortage and the other shortages which exist, such as the lack of recreational facilities. I think it would be unfair to suggest that I can pass this off by standing up and saying that the Government will have to do this and that someone should go to the hon. the Minister of Finance and tell him that he must make the money available for this. It is not only a question of money. There is the question of labour and the acquisition of land. There are many practical problems which, we shall have to face before we shall be able to solve this problem. It is true that there is a housing shortage and it is true that there is a shortage of schools. This is not in the interests of the Bantu, and for that reason it is not in the interests of South Africa either. Consequently we have to do something about it, and a great deal more will have to be done about it in the future as well.

What are the causes of this? The causes are, inter alia, slum clearance, lack of money, other priorities and the industrial explosion. An hon. member on the other side also mentioned the question of the population increase, which is far above normal. If all those factors are causes, it still does not take away the fact that the situation exists, and that we must deal with it to the best of our ability. It is not only the responsibility of the Government. Over the past month and years a great deal has been done and an attempt has been made in the first place to clear up slum areas and to create better conditions. In recent times appeals have been made to the effect that private initiative and the public sector should assist in rectifying these conditions and should not merely criticize from a distance. It does happen frequently that the one is blamed by the other. This will get us nowhere. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out—I do not want to be personal in this connection—that the Bantu Administration Board is being blamed for the fact that the road used by the Bantu in Pinelands is not suitable, because they pass certain people; the Bantu should rather pass other people. That is so. I want to say that this kind of thing happens too often, on the part of all people. For this reason I want to do something less fortunate in this House this morning. I want to do it in all seriousness, but also, I hope, in all humility. I want to issue a serious warning. We cannot argue away these facts of a housing shortage and of an alarming increase in serious crimes, nor can we put up with them. We cannot expect our policemen almost to risk their lives even at a soccer game. We cannot allow the order in South Africa to be disturbed because of a lack of facilities. Mr. Speaker, we could do untold harm if we were to regard this matter as something we can pass on to the shoulders of the Government. I want to quote one phrase from the speech, made by the hon. member for Houghton, and I hope she will allow me to do so without interjecting. Sir, there is a great deal of truth in this speech of hers. Whether these things are said by a Progressive or by a United Party member makes no difference to me. There are things which she said and which the hon. member for Sea Point said which are true, and we cannot run away from truths. But, Sir, what worries me is that the hon. member just makes certain statements and then fails to elaborate on them. I quote from the unrevised Hansard report of her speech; she said—

She is referring here to those who do not have homes—

†Sir, I think the time is ripe for us to start referring to these people who are illegally in the urban areas, not only in the Cape Peninsula but all over South Africa. It is well known to all of us that the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to invite the homeland leaders to join him to take a proper new look at the influx control measures that we have in South Africa. Sir, the Bantu Administration boards have only been operating for two years and I think they have achieved a lot during these two years that they have been operating under the Department of Bantu Administration. But these boards need assistance. They can do without the insults which are hurled at them from time to time. I think we can assist them to perform a great task for South Africa by at least giving them the sort of advice which has from time to time come from the other side and by emphasizing what the hon. member only pointed out in passing, and that is that the present situation under which thousands upon thousands of people are illegally entering the urban areas can no longer be tolerated. As hon. members know, the Prime Minister has appointed a commission, and I am glad to say that the homeland leaders have already appointed their members to this commission, which will start its work very soon and try to do away with those things which, as I said before, are quite unnecessary and irritating both to employees and employers. I hope that we will be able to do away with many of these irritating things. I have no doubt that it will be done, but in the meantime we are faced with a problem which we cannot allow to be aggravated by people who are willfully breaking the law. After all, whether we call them influx control measures, or whether we keep on talking in a derogatory sense about pass laws, the fact remains that we have laws on the Statute Book and that those laws have to be obeyed. We must realize that by assisting people to break the law, we are making criminals out of innocent people.

You are making criminals out of them…

Sir, I said that I would like to appeal to hon. members not to become emotional. If that hon. member wants to discuss that matter with me when this department’s Vote comes up for discussion, I will gladly discuss it with him and I will then have a few things to say to him, but that can be left for a later date. Today I have more serious things to deal with. Sir, it has been brought to my notice that on the cape Flats where, as the hon. member for Sea Point has rightly pointed out, conditions are such that they give cause for great concern, there are certain organized efforts today which can cause serious trouble which may escalate at any moment. Sir, anybody who has the interests of South Africa at heart will assist us to stop these things. Whether we like influx control or not, the fact remains that outside of Pretoria, in a homeland area, the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana saw fit to introduce legislation to apply influx control in the homeland area because the slum conditions which have been developing on the outskirts of Pretoria, in a homeland area where there were no influx control regulations, are worse than anything to be found in the rest of the Republic. Anybody who doubts my word, even the hon. member for Bryanston who saw fit to make an interjection just now, would be most welcome to come along with me to see what is happening in that area where influx control measures are not applied. But at the moment in the Cape Peninsula we know that the Police have been trying to cope with the crime rate. We know of the difficult task of the Health Department. For the past week we have been having discussions, we and the Police and the Department of Health, because I agree with people that we have a duty to see to it that at least the living conditions of these people are made as happy as possible. Even though, they are there illegally, we have been trying, with the assistance of the Health Department, to give them a water supply. Even when they are there illegally, we are trying at least to give them the services which are most essential.

*But on the Cape Flats, close to the airport, hundreds of families, who had apparently been organized, started to move in just before Easter weekend according to first reports, and started to lay out a township in an orderly manner there on land belonging to the Bantu Affairs Administration Board. A situation may arise there which, according to the health authorities, could seriously endanger the health of the whole Cape Peninsula. Those people are employed by Whites in the Cape Peninsula. There could be an outbreak of typhoid, for example, and it would not be restricted to that area. It could be carried into the Greater Peninsula area. It could cause the death of innocent Blacks and innocent Whites.

†My information at the moment is that many of those people who are there now, especially the women and children, are there illegally, and they are endangering their own lives and they are endangering the lives of other people as well. I am not going to allow it as far as it is in my power. Therefore I want to issue a warning. For those who are there right now—because we have sympathy with them—we will try to provide those services which will at least ensure their health, so that we do not have an outbreak of typhoid. But they must realize that they are there illegally and that they will not be allowed to stay. I want to issue this warning in all seriousness and in all modesty, namely that White employers must know that they will not get off scot-free this time; they will not be allowed to see their Bantu employees go to gaol for the privilege of having a Black domestic servant illegally. They will not be allowed to go scot-free. I want to issue this serious warning that the time has now come for action. Whereas in the past the gaols have been full of Black people who have been asked to work and were allowed to work, well knowing even on the advice of members of the staff of the Bantu Affairs Department that they are there illegally …

And who want to work.

Yes, but if a White man wants to work, he has to look out for accommodation. Whether they want work or not, if I have to allow everyone into this area who wants to work in Cape Town, then I would not like to see the chaotic conditions which will prevail. As I have said on a previous occasion, it will need a city to house the one million people in the Cape Peninsula if we do away with migratory labour, however much I dislike the system, and it is not practical to do it right now. Therefore two wrongs do not make a right. It does not mean that we will now allow people to squat illegally on the Cape Flats and to endanger their own lives and the lives of others. Those people, the employers, who assist them in doing this, must be warned that this will not be allowed. The employees must understand that we will treat them with all the sympathy at our command. We will provide services seeing that they are trying to comply with the law, but if they are there illegally I cannot allow the law to be broken by people who know full well that they are breaking the law.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give an assurance that he will not evict or send these people out of the urban area if they are employed unless he can provide alternative employment for them in the place to which they are sent?

I want to reply to the hon. member because I know that questions like this one have been put on the Order Paper, too, in the past. If people are legally employed here, they are entitled, I think, and I have said so, to be treated as a human being, maintained under the best possible conditions and be provided with housing too. I know that it has not been done in all cases and I regret that, but those who are here legally we must of course allow to stay on and provide for them as soon as possible and as best as possible. But those who are here illegally, will not be allowed to stay on in the Cape Peninsula or in any other area.

I should like to ask the Deputy Minister whether he should like these people who are here illegally to leave their jobs and become unemployed?

There are ways in which the residence of Bantu here may be legalized. There are labour bureaux and the Whites know much better than the innocent Bantu do that they can in fact get in here legally. But there are the many thousands—who were mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton and not by me—who are here illegally.

†There are thousands upon thousands who are here illegally, many thousands of whom are not working, but are stealing and doing other things. These will not be allowed to stay on.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to say that in my dealings with the hon. the Deputy Minister in the past, I have not only found him courteous, but extremely helpful as well. I want to say that I appreciate his having discussed a specific problem in South Africa this morning, and having done so with the highest degree of seriousness and apparent sincerity. This is what we have come to expect of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this House since he has occupied his portfolio and I think it would be a very good thing for South Africa if he were to continue in this way. It is true that the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed to certain facts this morning, facts which must give us all much food for thought. His providing us with these facts ought to set an example to his colleagues behind him, bearing in mind the debate has taken place in this House over the past few days. What did the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us? He said that he frankly admitted—bearing in mind the debating background, this was a major admission to make—that there was a serious shortage of housing.

Who is contesting that?

The hon. members opposite are not contesting that; they are merely keeping quiet about it, and that is just as serious. The hon. gentleman told us that there was a serious shortage of schools and that we could not allow a lack of facilities to cause disorder in South Africa. He also said that we could not allow the human irritations that occur today, to continue. I agree with him entirely. Of course we cannot allow that to happen. Looking at the whole problem, I as a South African come to one conclusion— I am not playing politics now—and that is that the issue is so wide in scope and is so serious that it will require an effort on the part of the entire population to rectify it. Again I want to state clearly that the hon. gentleman must not think that I am playing politics when I also tell him that the Nationalist Party cannot plead “not guilty” in this regard because in the course of 27 years it has brought into being a state of mind which has sometimes made it politically disadvantageous for a White to assist a non-White. [Interjections.] This is one of the biggest problems which the Nationalist Party is experiencing today. The verkramptes in their ranks are a constant drag on them and want to hold back the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, too—I take it that that is the case—from what is today being called “positive verligte efforts”. This drag on them has its origin in the very atmosphere which the Nationalist Party has created over a period of 27 years. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must not ake it amiss of me when I say this. Nor, as I have already said, do I want to play politics. There is another fact which is as plain as a pikestaff and the hon. the Deputy Minister, with his objective approach, dare not overlook or disregard this fact. The hon. gentleman, in a very serious spirit—which we appreciate—went on and addressed a warning to the employers of South Africa, from the housewife to the industrialist, to the effect that if employers allow Bantu to work for them illegally, they Will not co unpunished, but that the law will be applied to them. No-one wants a race, a population or a group to grow up as lawbreakers in South Africa. Everyone wants the laws of South Africa to be obeyed. Of course we agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

However there is another issue which he did not deal with. If this man who, according to the laws of the Nationalist Party Government is at a certain place illegally—I take it that there are thousands of such people—and is sacked from his job in terms of an Act that appears on the Statute Book, what must become of that man? Where is he to work and find accommodation? In a nutshell, what is he to live on? [Interjections.] I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to be candid again and tell us that we have just as great a problem in this regard too. It is very good that the Act should be implemented, but the hon. the Deputy Minister with his humane approach ought to be just as concerned about the fact that when he implements his Act, he will be responsible for the fact that thousands of people in South Africa will quite probably lack houses and may go hungry.

May I ask the hon. member which party was in power when Act 45 of 1945, the Urban Areas Consolidation Act, was passed?

We have already had a number of admissions by the hon. the Deputy Minister this morning and I therefore say that I appreciate his approach. However I find it singular, although coming from him it is not strange, that the Government should now for the first time admit that influx control was really introduced, not by them, but by us. After all, according to them we want to open the flood-gates; that is supposedly our policy. The United Party did in fact introduce influx control, but that is not the point. It is the humane approach to the Black man that counts here; it is how one applies the Act that counts. I now ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in all earnest— we are not playing politics—whether South Africa can afford to tell Africa and the world that we have an Act on the Statute Book and that we are going to apply that Act even though it should mean that people will be without houses and without food. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to play politics. I just want the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider these things as well. I want to repeat that it is very clear to me that what we have here is an issue of such major significance that after 27 years, the Nationalist Party should have to admit in this House, through its Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, that we have impossible conditions that call for a solution.

I did not say “impossible”.

Then let me rather say “very difficult” conditions that call for a solution. The time has come for the Nationalist Government to go to the people of South Africa and say:“In spite of the fact that we thought we had a solution, the economic forces of South Africa have torn our policy into shreds to such an extent that we are finding it virtually impossible to find solutions to the problems.” I want to leave the hon. the Deputy Minister at that, but I just want to repeat that I appreciated his speech. I appreciated its honesty and sincerity. It is the best speech made thus far in this debate on the Government side as far as non-financial matters are concerned.

I now want to come back to the Budget.

Go and say the same things in Middelburg, Transvaal, at the by-election.

With the greatest pleasure. I say it in my constituency in Brooklyn, where more than half of the people are Nationalists, and more and more of them are voting for me. As I have said, I want to come back to the Budget.

We have listened to many speeches in the course of this debate. I should like to say that there is not one of us who, as a politician, is unaware of the fact that the cost of living places an enormous burden on the population of South Africa today. There is not one of us who is unaware of the rising and corrosive rate of inflation. There is not a single person in this House who is unaware of the additional and continuous burden which will be caused by the duty on petrol. What I find so extremely strange is that not one of my hon. friends opposite has had a word to say about this. When it comes to matters such as these, that are of vital concern to the people, then they are silent as the grave. Do you know what is done by those who do refer to this? They attack us for daring to mention it. [Interjections.] When it comes to matters of vital concern to the people of South Africa, then I tell you that the ranks of the Nationalist Party on the Government side have become totally irrelevant as a force to provide assistance. All they know is that they are a “yes boss” force behind the Nationalist Party machine. They are no longer prepared to plead for their people. Where are the days when the Nationalist Party was justified in saying that they championed the cause of the poor people? Surely they know what the burden of inflation is, but what do they do? They attack us and tell us that we are not patriotic. What nonsense; I do not even want to discuss that.

What is more, they seek other scapegoats. Yesterday the hon. member for Vryheid, Natal, referred very angrily to the fact that the consumer himself was not helping to force down prices. Do you know what he says? If the price is too high, then one should not buy the goods. It seems to me as if we should then have to live without food. If the milk price, the bread price, the meat price, the vegetable price are all too high—then turn around and go home and let the larder stand empty.

The hon. member for Paarl told us about the lady who drove to Elgin to buy a box of apples for R3 and it then cost …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have already replied to questions. The whole outing cost the hon. lady R14.

Hon. lady?

Yes, she may have been honourable. I always refer to ladies with great veneration. I, again, go to Elgin merely for the outing. Possibly it costs me R14, and I do not even buy apples. That is quite probably what this lady did. However, do you know what the hon. gentleman tried to do? He tried to indicate that the housewife of South Africa buys injudiciously. Certainly, there may be housewives who can afford to buy judiciously, but if so they are few in number. Owing to the burden of the cost of living, the vast majority of South African housewives are literally compelled to buy only the essentials. In the urban complexes, owing to the influx of people, more and more people are able to buy fewer of the goods which are becoming more attractive, goods they have to walk past all the time. Surely that is true; there is no doubt about it. That is what the hon. member tried to do.

But there is something else they are doing as well. The hon. members for Algoa and Port Elizabeth North found another scapegoat. Neither the consumer nor the housewife, but the muncipality and the Divisional Council are the scapegoats. Not the Government—never! Because they know that the divisional council and the municipality do not vote for them, they now hammer those two scapegoats. That is what they are doing. Not one of them will say that the Government itself should also perhaps have interested itself in the matter. But they are silent, knowing full well what is of vital concern to the people. I could continue in this way to indicate that the Nationalist Party, the hon. members opposite, are continually seeking scapegoats other than the Government on whom they can place the blame.

Let us consider the issue of inflation, a word that has been so overworked. For years the Nationalist Party has been waging war on inflation. All we are told each year is that they are waging war on inflation. Two or three years ago they said that one of the main reasons for the inflation we have in South Africa was the rise in the oil price. At the time we could not argue with them, because the reason they advanced was a good one. The enemy was beyond our borders; we import oil. If the price of that commodity rises, then that is of course a cause of inflation. What do we find now? The hon. the Minister himself is increasing the high price of petrol even further!

For what reason?

I am coming to the reason. If the rising price of petrol furthered inflation a year ago and the hon. the Minister is increasing that price even further now, then surely he is consciously and intentionally furthering inflation. If one bears that in mind, how can the Government expect us to take them seriously when they maintain that they are combating inflation? The Trojan horse was outside the walls, but now the hon. the Minister has brought it inside; knowing full well that it was the enemy, inflation, the Minister brought it within the borders of South Africa. How can we accept that they are in earnest in combating inflation? I support the hon. the Minister when he states that we should attempt to save fuel, but there are other methods of doing it. Anyone driving on our roads can see that the motorist is building up a resistance to the regulations concerning speed restrictions. We shall have to do something about the matter, other than impose duties. Has the Government ever tried to talk to the people of South Africa continuously by means of publicity and pointed out to them that we must try to save? No, that is not being done. In fact, it has now become a game for a motorist to get the better of a traffic constable. This is a state of mind we cannot tolerate if we wish to conserve petrol. However, we find that the Government is creating this new basis to further inflation. I really do not think that the hon. the Minister has a very good argument.

What else did the hon. the Minister say? He said that he wanted to use the money for the construction of Sasol 2. When he says that, the question immediately arises as to whether we are against Sasol 2. I say immediately: No, we are not.

Were you in favour of Sasol 1?

I think the legislation to establish Sasol 1 was piloted through Parliament in 1947 when the United Party was in power. [Interjections.] However. I do not want to discuss history, because then I would have to refer to certain other aspects as well. I want to come back to Sasol. The question could justifiably be put to us: “Do you want Sasol 2?” In reply to that I say that I very much want it, because in my opinion it is essential in the dangerous times we are living in. But now a second question arises: Where are we going to get the money? This, too, is a good question.

I am only a home-spun economist and if I am to apply the situation to myself, then I reason as follows: I am a worker in South Africa. The Government gives Sasol 2 a high priority, but I too have a high priority, because I want to send my son to university. Unfortunately I do not have the money for that although that is the highest priority in my private life. What do I, as a citizen of South Africa, do? Let us talk farming economy. The first thing I shall try to do is to borrow the money. Now, I am not a farmer and consequently the Land Bank will not lend me the money. Furthermore, the Land Bank will certainly not lend money for anything like that, even to a farmer. On the other hand, again, the banks’ interest rate is so high that I could not borrow the money from them. In the same way as the hon. the Minister does not want to borrow the money for inflationary reasons, I do not want to borrow it because I cannot afford it.

You are now playing a bluffing game, Tony.

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister must keep listening. Surely he, too, is a farmer’s son. He must tell me where I am bluffing. [Interjections.] Another alternative is that I could try to save. If I am the father of the house, as the hon. the Minister of Finance is the financial father of the people of South Africa, I should say that I, as the father, would have to set an example. Instead of smoking cigars and drinking whisky, I should limit myself to a glass of wine and perhaps a pipe, although the duty on tobacco has also been increased. I am being very polite when I say that the hon. the Minister of Finance is the financial father of South Africa. Is he satisfied that his financial policy is also geared to this approach? Is the Government not perhaps continuing to smoke cigars and drink whisky while the people have to be satisfied with suckers and skimmed milk? That is what the hon. gentleman must ask himself.

In the second place, I am going to try to save on my expense items in order to obtain the money necessary to send my son to university. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has tried to save. Has he approached all his series of departments in this regard? All he has to save on his total expenditure is 2%. Then he can build Sasol 2. Can the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that he really cannot save 2%?. Can he give me the assurance that he cannot, in fact, save thousands upon thousands by asking private initiative to invest capital in the Bantustans instead of the taxpayer having to do it? When I have finished trying to save, there is a third method which I could still adopt.

Tony, it is not 2%, but 20%.

No, my friend, it is 2%.

Order! Hon. members must not start a dialogue here.

Sir, I did not have my calculator with me, but I think that it is 2%.

It cannot be 20%.

In any event, the third thing which I, as the father of my house, would do, would be to try to place myself in a position where I could earn more. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he did in fact try to place the people in a position to earn more.

Yes, with this same Sasol.

No, forget about Sasol. I am still coming to Sasol. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that he is going to encourage the working housewife to work more with this insignificant little improvement? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that he is not perhaps discouraging the entrepreneur from producing by means of his tax system? As I have said, in the third place I should try to place myself in a position where I could earn more, but I shall also have to try to produce more. If I was unable to work harder I should try to improve my position by training. Now, on the subject of training, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he has done for the people of South Africa to allow them to qualify themselves by means of training? He said that he was establishing the economic infrastructure for South Africa and I am entirely in agreement with him that that must be done. That is one of the facets of his Budget. But apart from the economic infrastructure, there is another element that is just as important, and that is the human infrastructure, viz. trained people to run the modern economic machine. What has the hon. gentleman done in that regard? He has not uttered a single word about training.

[Inaudible.]

No, you may as well listen. The time has come for us to consider the mass of workers streaming into South Africa.

He is talking about industrial training.

But he did not say so.

I am talking about industrial training, my friend. The time has come for the hon. the Minister to do a few things quickly, because he has problems. If he wants to effect improvements on the labour front in South Africa, he will have to shake off his “verkramptes” because they will not back him in this regard. Let us make no mistake about that. Let me just state the facts quickly before someone tells me that I am interpreting the position incorrectly. At the moment it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to allow the Bantu to become semi-skilled only and to go no further.

Now I want to mention a few things to the hon. the Minister which, as I see it, he will have to tackle as a “crash programme”, as I have already said on a previous occasion. Firstly, he must go to his own people and say: “The time when a modern South Africa could continue with a labour force 80% of which is unskilled or semi-skilled, is long past.” Secondly, he will have to shake off his own “verkramptes” entirely and tell the Government: “We want a new approach to labour in South Africa.” Thirdly, he will have to send word to the industrialist in South Africa and tell him: “I shall assist and encourage you financially and otherwise to train people.” Fourthly, the hon. the Minister will have to say: ‘The Government and I will not only ask that the industrialist train the people, but we ourselves shall tackle the matter to the greatest possible extent and spend as much as possible to train people.”

To me there is little difference between workers as far as labour is concerned in South Africa. The other day we listened to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Labour in which he told us what had already been done in the field of labour. However, that was only in regard to the workers over which the hon. the Minister has control, viz. the White workers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to take control of the entire labour market of South Africa and to ensure that they are all trained. That is the appeal I want to make to the hon. gentleman this afternoon.

I want to refer to one final matter and I should not like the hon. the Minister to forget this, either. In his speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance said that he would continue to build on the foundations laid by his predecessor, taking into account the fast-changing circumstances of South Africa. I agree with him. That is a good ideal. The field where the most rapid change is taking place in South Africa, is this very field of the urban Bantu where tens of thousands of them congregate in the cities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not support me in regard to this matter. I am not coming to him as a liberal; I am coming to him as a South African. I want to tell him that this is the flashpoint in the society of South Africa. If he is as concerned about this as his colleagues apparently are and as we are, and about the continued existence of the White man in South Africa, then I say that he must start here. He must not wait long. Times are becoming too serious for that. When the hon. the Minister refers to changing conditions, he must look at the most important of the changing conditions and make a start there. Here I am referring to the mass of people in the urban complexes of South Africa. When the hon. gentleman is finished with that, then, with great respect, he should perhaps fall back a little, if I may put it like that, on the objectivity he displayed as a younger man. He must tell the Nationalist Party: “No, we are on the wrong road. Come back to the days when T, as a young man, was right.” [interjections.] Then he must try to guide South Africa along that road in his financial capacity. Then not only the Nationalist Party, but South Africa, too, will be glad that he joined them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland made a very emotional speech. He mentioned the fact that this Nationalist Government has done very little for the so-called poor people in this country. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that the so-called poor people, as he puts it, know that this Nationalist Party has looked after them through the years and that is why those people vote for this side of the House. The hon. member for Maitland went on, just as other hon. members on that side of the House have done, to make a major issue of the allegation that the Nationalist Government is not doing a great deal about the training and utilization of its manpower. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that in the course of my speech I shall deal at length with the statements he made here and I believe that when I have done so, he may have acquired new insights. We are now in the last day of this Budget debate. I do not know—possibly hon. members on this side of the House could assist me—but I think that we who have been sitting on this side of the House for many years will have to agree that the contribution we have had from hon. members on that side of the House in the course of this week has undoubtedly been one of the poorest ever made in this House. What did we find? Hon. members on that side of the House criticize this Government for having, of necessity, had to increase customs and excise duties on our petroleum products. A major issue was made of this by that side of the House but hon. members on my side of the House have already set that matter right. Sir, one hon. member on that side of the House devoted his entire speech to the fact that the price of beer had been increased and the effect this would have on our young people who will now have to pay a cent or so more for beer. Sir, in their squabbling, hon. members opposite have entirely failed to perceive the fine things incorporated in this Budget. Not a single hon. member opposite made mention of the fact that this Government and the Minister of Finance have increased social pensions in this Budget. I must say that the hon. member for Pinelands did refer to this in passing. This side of the House knows, and that side of the House knows, too, that through the years we have hardly let pass a single opportunity to improve the position or our social pensioners. Sir, not a word has been said on that side concerning the fact that the subsidies payable to institutions caring for handicapped persons have been increased. Praiseworthy and fine things have been incorporated in this Budget. But I have not heard a single word from hon. members opposite in regard to tax concessions for our elderly people. No mention has been made of the fact that estate duty has been reduced, that the maximum deduction has been increased from R50 000 to R70 000. We have not heard a single word from that side concerning the tax relief afforded in regard to the earnings of married women. In fact, the contribution made by that side of the House in regard to this Budget has been extremely negative. We have not heard a single word from hon. members opposite concerning the increase in subsidies to old-age homes. Not a single word has been said by hon. members opposite about the fact that the concessions in regard to social pensions for Whites has been increased by 68% during the past five years, whereas the annual expenditure involved has risen by 88% or over R63 million, from R71 million to R135 million. Sir, when a Government has of necessity to increase tax, or when it has of necessity to increase customs and excise duties, then in the nature of the matter this is not a popular measure. Hon. members on that side of the House know that this Government has been governing South Africa for the past 27 years. During that period of 27 years there have been occasions when this National Party Government had necessarily to take unpopular steps because those steps were in the interests of the country. I want to give hon. members opposite the assurance that when certain measures are in the interests of the country, however unpopular they may be for the present, they will be taken by this Government. Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member for Hillbrow is not in the House at the moment because I want to refer in particular to a speech made by the hon. member in this House, a speech which I can only describe as the most irresponsible speech, in these times we are living in, that has been made in this House of Assembly for a long time. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is furthering the cause of détente today. He is effecting a détente policy for Southern Africa and Africa. Sir, I am aware of the fact that this entire matter is extremely delicate, in view of the fact that a conference is being held today in Dar-es-Salaam. But in spite of the fact that there are countries in Africa and in spite of the fact that there are other countries in the world which criticize South Africa’s image, I want to give you the assurance that it can never be said that what the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are doing in regard to this great matter is not being done with the greatest sacrifice and, what is to me far more important, with absolute honesty. This being so, Sir, one is amazed and stunned at the fact that an hon. member like the hon. member for Hillbrow should have said certain things a day or so ago which amount to the grossest and the most extreme irresponsibility. Sir, before I tell you what he said, let us just analyse for a single moment who the hon. member for Hillbrow is. Who is the hon. member for Hillbrow? The hon. member for Hillbrow is a front-bencher of the United Party on that side of the House. The hon. member is one of the leaders of the United Party in the Transvaal. But what is more, the hon. member for Hillbrow is being held up by certain of his newspapers as the so-called successor to the Leader of the Opposition, the so-called crown prince of the United Party, the man who will eventually take over from Sir De Villiers Graaff. Now, Sir, I want to say that I am very sorry that the hon. member for Hillbrow is not present. I do not like speaking behind his back, but in view of the fact—he can read my Hansard if he wants to—that he made irresponsible statements in these times we are living in, he must be brought to book. I want to read to you what the hon. member said. I quote from the unrevised copy of his Hansard of two days ago. This is what he said—

and now listen to this absolute irresponsibility, and then I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they agree with what one of their so-called leaders has said—

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow states that while the hon. the Prime Minister is engaged in a major task in the interests of South Africa, one African leader after the other is standing up at that conference and stating that Vorster is conducting dialogue with them while at the same time he is arming the whole of South Africa to the teeth. Now in the first instance I want to say this, and I address these remarks to the hon. member for Hillbrow in his absence, that I believe that those words were never uttered because I believe that those African leaders are too responsible to say things like that. Well and good, Sir, if this has not been said, as I accept and believe, then by implication I must deduce that this hon. member for Hillbrow, that front-bencher and so-called crown prince of the United Party, is saying things here which he would like to put in the mouths of those people. And then, Sir, I want to tell you, in all honesty, that this entire great effort by the hon. the Prime Minister has been called into question by that hon. member. Last night the hon. member spoke about patriotism here. I say that if this has been said, then I call his patriotism towards South Africa into question as well. I am very pleased, Sir, that the hon. member for Hillbrow is now present. Perhaps I should repeat, just for his information, what I have said. I am dealing with the irresponsible statement which the hon. member for Hillbrow made a day or two ago when he said, inter alia, that the African leaders at the conference in Dar-es-Salaam stood up one after the other and said that while Vorster was conducting dialogue with them, he was at the same time arming South Africa to the teeth. I am pleased that the hon. member is now present. I want to tell him that I do not believe that those leaders did in fact say that, and I now want to challenge the hon. member for Hillbrow here in the House, he who is supposed to be a responsible person. He must prove to me, in chapter and verse, that those words were uttered at that conference.

But you do not read the newspapers.

I did read the newspapers. I say that he must prove to me, in chapter and verse, that this was in fact said. But now I want to tell the hon. member that he knows as well as I do that those words were never uttered. I also said, and I repeat it, that the hon. member knows they were not uttered, but he irresponsibly used words in this House which he would like to put in the mouths of those people.

Order! The hon. member may not maintain that the hon. member knew that certain statements were not made while at the same time stating in this House that they were in fact made.

I withdraw it. I went further and I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that as far as that statement he made in this House is concerned, I question his bona fides. Arising from the statements made by the hon. member in this House, I want to say that I question his bona fides in regard to this entire matter of détente. The hon. member for Green Point spoke about patriotism. I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I am being honest when I say that I question his patriotism towards South Africa. [Interjections.] Just to refresh hon. members’ memories, I want to take them back to what occurred in the no-confidence debate and then I want to link this event to the argument I have just advanced. At the beginning of this year the hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the no-confidence motion introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I must honestly say that I gave the United Party the benefit of the doubt at that stage because I thought that the people did not really know what they were voting against. The hon. the Prime Minister caught them off-side and there was no opportunity to hold a caucus. To refresh hon. members’ memories I should like to quote the amendment again—

Thereafter the hon. the Prime Minister said—

As far as that matter is concerned I have great respect and regard for the hon. member for Yeoville because he, at least, was man enough and had the courage of his convictions not to vote against this amendment, but rather to leave the House. The other hon. members opposite voted against this amendment. Now I must link this conduct on the part of hon. members to the irresponsible words uttered yesterday by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House at the moment, but I nevertheless want to make an appeal to him today. Since the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are engaged in matters of great importance in the interests of South Africa and Africa, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must call the hon. member for Hillbrow, his so-called right hand, to order in the interests of South Africa; he must tell him that he must act more responsibly in this House, because in the process the hon. member is not only harming himself as leader, but—and this is more important—he is harming South Africa and—perhaps even more important—Africa. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I say this with great respect, is not going to call the hon. member for Hillbrow to order concerning these utterances, I doubt and question the bona fides of the entire Opposition in regard to these great efforts to bring about détente. I want to leave the hon. member for Hillbrow at that and express the hope that he will not say reckless things and harm South Africa. He must not say irresponsible things here merely for political gain. I believe that if the intentions of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are good, and I believe that they are good, then he will call the hon. member to order. [Interjections.] I want to leave this matter at that. I want to deal with another matter arising from the criticism expressed by one hon. member after the other on that side of the House. It was introduced by the chief spokesman on that side of the House, the hon. member for Constantia, but I shall not quote him because my time is too limited. However, it was said that the Nationalist Government is not doing enough to train our manpower in South Africa and utilize it better. Let us now discuss this whole matter in a calm and peaceful way. The hon. member for Maitland also referred to this towards the end of his speech. I know of no country in the world in which there is a greater degree of industrial peace than in South Africa itself. In view of the fact that we, here in South Africa, have an enormous Bantu, Coloured, Indian and White labour force, this is certainly an achievement of which we can be proud. Hon. members on that side of the House always tend to draw comparisons with all countries of the world. They therefore know just as well as I that I can rightly say that I know of no other country in the world with a greater degree of industrial peace than South Africa. What, for example, is the position in England? In England it is part of their way of life that strikes take place from day to day. A year or so ago there was a major strike of post office workers that continued for almost six weeks and paralysed the whole of England. What about an industrial country like Italy? There, too, it is part of their way of life that strikes take place virtually every day. If it is not the workers in aircraft factories that are striking, then it is the railway workers. If it is not railway workers it is workers in another sector. Thus, whereas unrest and even chaotic conditions prevail in other countries of the world, I believe that we here in South Africa are exceptionally fortunate. We can truly be proud of the labour force we have here. Hon. members opposite can only accuse this side of the House, day in and day out, of not doing much in regard to the training of manpower in South Africa, but I believe that the National Party Government has built up a proud record in this regard over the years. Let us take the Industrial Conciliation Act as a practical example. The hon. member for Pinelands said that this Act must be changed, whereas other hon. members always have misgivings about that Act. I believe that the Industrial Conciliation Act is one of the finest Acts in the Statute Book. Many other countries envy South Africa this Act. There are already more than 100 autonomous industrial councils which confer about conditions of service. These councils control 104 wage agreements, as well as another 93 agreements, providing for pension, medical and vacation benefits. More than one million workers in South Africa share in the benefits of these agreements. I can say with pride that there is not a country in the world that would scorn such a system.

Let us dwell for a moment on the reproach that is continually levelled by that side of the House and which has come to the fore again during the Budget debate in particular, to the effect that the Government is not doing enough to train our manpower in South Africa. Let us look critically at this matter for a moment and consider whether the Government has neglected its duty in regard to this highly important matter, as the Opposition is always maintaining. On 26 February 1975 the Government announced that it regarded the target rate of 6,4% per annum in our gross domestic product for the period 1974-’79 as realistic. Surely hon. members opposite are aware that in the same statement the Government said that it regarded the training of our manpower in an extremely serious light. I see the hon. Whip near me. Evidently my time is almost up.

There are still a number of facts which I could have pointed out to you to prove that through the years this Nationalist Government has in no way neglected its duty to train our manpower in South Africa. I can prove to you in chapter and verse, and I can prove it to you statistically, that we have done our duty. Just as we have trained the Bantu in South Africa through the years, and just as we have trained our Whites in South Africa, it will also be the responsibility of this side of the House to ensure that in future years we shall train those people to an ever-increasing extent in an economically developing South Africa.

Finally, I could perhaps just say this: It is impossible for this Government on its own to train millions of people. The private sector in South Africa also has a great responsibility in this regard. I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to those in the private sector who have made vigorous efforts to train our people in South Africa, but they have a great responsibility in this regard and I want to make an appeal to the private sector in South Africa to assist the Government to an increasing extent in training our people. Having said that, I want to tell hon. members opposite that in spite of their unjustified criticism in this regard, this Government will continue unhesitatingly to ensure that this fine industrial peace we have in South Africa today will never be disturbed in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welkom dealt broadly with three matters in his speech. He dealt with the argument over the training of labour and certain industrial matters, about which subjects I do not wish to comment in my speech. He dealt very effectively with the hon. member for Hillbrow and I do not wish to interfere in that argument at all. He did, however, mention the discussions and debates which are taking place at Dar-es-Salaam at the moment. That is a subject which I would like to touch upon during the course of my speech. This Budget debate has taken place during a very interesting week, a week in which, in spite of the importance of the financial matters which were being discussed and debated here, the debates in this House have, in my view, not riveted the attention of the public for more than fleeting moments during the week. There had been good reason for this. The events in Southern Africa of real consequence, events which are affecting the lives of all of us, have taken place during the course of this week not here, but elsewhere. It is interesting to take a glance at the picture of what has emerged during the course of the week. It was, for instance, a proud moment on Monday when we heard of the achievements of South. Africa’s scientists in the field of uranium enrichment, and when the public of South Africa paused for a moment to consider with some gratitude the vast benefits which are going to accrue to the entire population of South Africa as a result of South Africa’s rich endowments and as a result of the proper utilization of these resources. It was a disturbing picture when we learnt of the shooting, on Tuesday, I think it was, at the Boeing which landed in Luanda. It was a picture which brought home to many South Africans the realness of conflict in Africa today and the uncertainty of life inherent in the African scene. It was a mildly exciting picture on Wednesday when some 40 000 South Africans tried to crowd into a stadium which was built for 25 000 people in order …

Whose fault is that?

I am not casting any blame on anyone. These people tried to get in in order to witness and celebrate, free from racial hang-ups, a soccer match which was one of the few exciting milestones in the timid, I think, and circuitous, perhaps, and yet inevitable road on which South Africa will yet advance towards the acceptance of racial normality in the field of sport. But, coming back to the few words spoken by the hon. member for Welkom, the picture which has been with, us the whole week and which is being studied by many South Africans with some apprehension, is that picture which means most to us, and which derives its content from the many statements, reports and disclosures emanating from this week’s meeting of the OAU in Dar-es-Salaam. The events of this week mirror the changes which are taking place around us and fortify me in my belief that there is prevalent in South Africa an atmosphere of change, an atmosphere which cuts across race barriers and which at all levels is manifesting itself in an expectancy, an air of change. What I find disturbing is that this expectancy, of change has not been reflected as urgently as I would have liked it to be reflected in the debate during this week. We have heard, for instance, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, I think it was, fighting battles and expressing views which I thought had died with our forefathers. We have heard the hon. member for Parys fighting the traditional battle against the “Sappe”. We have listened to the members of the United Party taking a few points off the Progressive Party. I tend, however, to agree with those who feel that a budget should express in fiscal form the expressed intentions of the Government which, as I understand it, are to curb inflation and yet to promote growth, to uplift the people and the peoples of Southern Africa, to eliminate poverty, to build a stronger South Africa, and to foster a more relaxed normality in our relations with Africa at large.

All South Africans share a vital interest in the price of petrol. All South Africans are worried about the increasing inflation which is biting into their pockets. All South Africans are interested in the financial problems with which this Government is today grappling. However, the question which, lingers with all of us, the question which certainly lingers with young South Africans, with South Africans who have growing children, the question which is in all of our minds is simply: What does the future hold for us in this southern tip of the sub-continent? I ask whether there is any real dapth to détente or is it, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Welkom, as brittle, as fragile as the speeches and disclosures emanating from Dar-es-Salaam seem to suggest? Secondly, assuming that the situation is brittle, assuming that it is delicate, that it is poised, what can South Africa and South Africans do to consolidate the situation, to translate uncertainty into security? Many suggestions have been made during this week in regard to the elimination of race discrimination, to the creation of job opportunities. The hon. member for Jeppe, I think, talked about aid to emerging Africa and there were discussions on more money being required for financing education. Despite some of the speakers in this debate trying to infer artificial motives to those who have queried defence spending, it is clear that South Africans are prepared, as we are prepared, to agree to the necessary guns being purchased provided our other social economic and political initiatives keep pace with the security precautions.

It all boils down to one thing, to one basic problem which, is the cause of apprehension and concern in South Africa and which is the cause of hostility from outside South Africa, and that is the question of human relationships, the question of human rights. This is not a new problem; we have lived with, it for many years. The world has been grappling with it since history was first recorded. In more modern times some of the nations of the world have even tried, in one form or another, to document codes of conduct regulating relationships between people. They have enshrined such documents in many cases in their constitutions. They are broadly called “bills of rights” and they date from the Magna Carta. In 1688 the English, enacted a bill of rights which even today is part of that country’s law and it laid then a solid foundation for the reign of law and of a free Parliament in contrast to the arbitrary authority exercised during the reign of the Stuarts. I should like to refer you, Sir, to one extract from the English declaration of 1688.I quote—

This was a provision which, was incorporated in British law in the year 1688, and which has stood the test of time. The American and the French revolutionists of the 18th century believed themselves in the rights of man, and in the practical capacity of men to realize those rights. The French, in 1789 created a declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen. The Americans in 1791 drew up their bill of rights. These documents, which are hundreds of years old, are today incorporated in the constitutions and in the statutes of those countries. Let me tell you what is stated in the 1789 declaration of France. I quote from article 4—

This, Mr. Speaker, has been carried forward into the French, constitution of 1958, which stands today. If we look at the American bill of rights of 1791, we find the following in article 1—

Even, Sir, in Soviet Russia we have the constitution of 1936 …

What is it worth today?

Well, let me read you this one clause which is of interest to me. I believe that most of the clauses in the document of Soviet Russia are not worth, all that much in so far as individual liberty is concerned, but I should nevertheless like to read the following clause—

Now this has nothing to do with race—

In this respect the Soviet Union is ahead of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the most useful of the documents that I have looked at very briefly, is the Canadian bill of rights. That country adopted a modern bill of rights as a federal statute. I should like to quote the following interesting part of the Canadian bill of rights—

Later, in the same law, we find the following—

Mr. Speaker, there are many documents of this sort to be found in the world. You will find them from the Lusaka declaration to the EEC convention and its five protocols. You will find them even in the organization of Arab States. What I want to say about these is the following: I realize, as we all do, that a bill of rights in a constitution is not a protection against a revolution. I realize this. I realize that a bill of rights in a constitution or as a statute of a country is not the final answer to this and the final balm to all the racial difficulties which are found in a country.

Does Britain have a bill of rights?

In 1688 Britain had a bill of rights and this bill of rights still forms part of the common law of Great Britain. That particular bill of rights relates to the freedom of Parliament to operate as against the arbitrary authority of the throne. That was the significance of that particular bill of rights. I realize that bills of rights are not the complete answer. I have said this. But I say that if South Africa—and in this the Government would be supported by every single opposition party, I think excluding the HNP—were to enact such a document being its own bill of rights at this point in time, a document drawn up and backed by the Government, a document against which legislation and public action could be weighed when it came before this House, what would the results be? What would be the result of having such a document in our legislation? Surely it would create goodwill internally. Surely it would set South Africa peaceably on the road to real reform. Surely it would give credibility to the often publicised statements of good intent by our politicians who are sent abroad, such as Mr. Botha, and even our Prime Minister. Perhaps it would even assist in the promotion of good relations with the rest of Africa. And, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Prime Minister could, following the example of Europe, bring about the agreement of the nations of Southern Africa— and I am suggesting that he tries it, publicly or privately—to subscribe to a convention of human rights in the Southern African scene, which inter alia would be geared to the protection of minorities, be they White minorities, be they Coloured minorities, be they Indian minorities, and in certain areas be they even Black minorities, and if we were ourselves to subscribe to such a document, how much closer would we be to assisting in the eventual settlement of our problems in South West Africa, how much closer would we be to assisting in the allaying of the fears of people in reaching equitable settlements throughout the Southern Continent and various other countries, and how much closer would we be perhaps even to assisting in a settlement in Rhodesia?

I say that a bill of rights, while not being a final answer, is something which at this juncture, at this tense moment in Africa, should be considered very carefully before it is rejected by South Africa as a Republic and by our Prime Minister as its leader.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member delivering an argument for a Declaration of Human Rights. The hon. member’s basic premise is that if we were to have such a Declaration of Human Rights in South Africa, which would be drafted by the Government or by responsible people together with the Government—because I assume it would be an official document—we would bring about a relaxation of tension, inter alia, in Africa. Now the position is that there is hardly a single Black country in Africa which does not have some form of Declaration of Human Rights, and what relaxation of tension is there? There is not a single Black country in Africa, at least south of the Sahara, which does not have security legislation which goes even further than the security legislation of South Africa. There are very few countries in the British Commonwealth in which a so-called “bill of rights”, a so-called “Magna Carta” does not apply, and in which there is not security legislation which goes just as far or further than our country’s security legislation. After lunch, if I have the opportunity, I shall even quote from the Canadian legislation to indicate that, in spite of the position there which he outlined to us, there is legislation in Canada which constitutes a very powerful invasion of the freedom and movement of the individual.

That was in an emergency.

No, it was not only under those circumstances. These measures also exist without the safety valves which the hon. member has in mind.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was telling the hon. member for Sandton, who is not here at the moment, that I would let him have the particulars of, inter alia, the latest legislation in Canada concerning the subject we are discussing. I refer him to Canada’s Public Order Temporary Measures Act of 1970. Unfortunately I do not have time to quote details from the Act, but I should like to point out that this Act corresponds to a large extent to the security legislation applicable in our own country. There is virtually no difference between the preamble to this Act and those of some of our Acts. With reference to the other matter which he mentioned here, viz. the so-called Declaration of Human Rights, I can also give him particulars of probably 25 to 30 countries in Africa on the basis of which I can indicate to him that this sort of thing is not only applicable in Africa. The reason for this is that the voice of Africa does not recognize a federation. A Declaration of Human Rights, or a “Bill of Rights”, a Magna Carta, or any of those sort of things, has a justification for their existence in a federation, but not in a unitary system. In Africa there is simply no federation which is functioning successfully today. That is the most important reason why we in South Africa do not need to have a so-called Declaration of Human Rights because, even if we did have it, who in Africa would take any notice of it in any case? The rest of Africa does not take notice of anything like that. It is all very well to refer to the Magna Carta of 1215, which actually arose from a class struggle between the king and his subjects, but in South Africa we do not have a class struggle. Nor do we have a struggle between peoples. We have a multinational situation in South Africa, and for that we do not need a Declaration of Human Rights. In reply to the hon. member I want to say—and with this I want to drop this subject—that our answer to a Declaration of Human Rights in the Republic is the policy of this side of the House, viz. one of separate development with the emphasis on, inter alia, “development”. Freedom of the individual, freedom of belief and religion, freedom of speech—all those things—are built into our common law. Our common law in South Africa is, to a large extent, the security for which the hon. member is looking. The security which he wants to be written on a piece of paper, is weaved into our common law. Therefore, if we in South Africa want to occupy ourselves with a so-called Declaration of Human Rights, we must strive for the full extension and application of the Government’s policy within the provisions of, inter alia, our common law. That is what we need, but we do not need that for which the hon. member asked.

The hon. member asked an interesting question, viz. what our young people ask of us and what the inhabitants of South Africa ask of this House and this Government when we discuss the Budget, inter alia. The hon. member used this approach: Are we offering our people in South Africa security with a view to what is happening in Africa? He referred to certain incidents. He referred to what happened on Tuesday, to what was happening in Dar-es-Salaam and to the events the other evening here in Cape Town. What is interesting about this, is the question: What do our people ask of us and can they ask something of us? This is what hon. members on the opposite side evade. The position is that our young people in South Africa ask something of only two groups of politicians in South Africa. On the one hand there is a very small percentage of young people who look to the hon. members of the Progressive Party and the Reform Party. They are an extremely small group. We know the locality of that small group and we need not tire ourselves on that score. The rest of South Africa’s young people look to the National Party. They do not look to the United Party, because they know that the United Party can offer them nothing. They know that in the last line of the United Party’s Book of Life, the words “mission completed” appear. That is what our young people of South Africa know. Therefore I can tell the hon. member that the young people of South Africa look to this Government when we discuss the Budget. They ask us certain questions. What do they get as answers? From this side of the House they get lovely things as answers. [Interjections.] From this side of the House they get positive things. When the young people of South Africa look to this side of the House they ask themselves in the first place: Who is the man who leads us? How is that man leading us? Does he have drive, does he have will-power, does he have energy, does he have principles? Those are the questions which are asked. Hon. members on the opposite side know that very well.

What answer do they get?

What answer do they get? They get a forceful, energetic and strong leader who is not scared to say where he stands, who is not scared to implement his policy and, what is more, who is not scared to speak to other people from a position of strength. He does not stand there and rub his hands and say that he is sorry that he has built up such a strong army, as the hon. member for Hillbrow says. Our Leader does not say that. He does not go to people outside our country and say to them, “Sorry, people, that I have a little petty apartheid in my country and that there are a few aspects of my policy with which you do not agree, but I shall try to adjust them here and there.” No, he goes and tells them, “Here is my policy.”

What about discrimination?

I shall come to discrimination, and also to what our leader on this side says in that connection. That is the situation which young people find in South Africa when they ask themselves what has been happening in Parliament this week. They ask: What are we to look up to? In the first place they can look up to the Government side, and, in the second place, and this is very important, to our leader. They can also look up to all the men who serve with him in the Cabinet, who are just as purposefully prepared to do their work without excuses, who do not offer an excuse for every little thing. I shall come to the excuses. When those young people and the voters of our country ask themselves those questions, then they see planning in this Budget. In this Budget they see that there are people who are prepared to accept the challenges and who make something of those challenges. That has been proved in the past. I need not go into the particulars of those challenges. Hon. members on the opposite side complain bitterly because those great challenges are taken up. When R1 000 million is spent on one project, they complain when perhaps R3 million is being spent on another project. That is the ratio between their thoughts and those of the Government—R1 000 million on the one hand and R3 million on the other hand.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says that this is nonsense. Do you know why hon. members are sitting on that side and why there will only be about 20 of those hon. members remaining in the United Party after the next election? The other 20 will move elsewhere in the political scene in South Africa, because the political scene in South Africa is changing and nobody can deny it. Quite a few of those members are going to end up in other parties on the opposite side, quite a few of them are going to end up in the wilderness because they simply do not see their way clear to join another party, and quite a few of them are going to find themselves in the National Party in the future. There will simply be a reorientation in South African politics which those hon. members will not be able to stop. The greatest tragedy of all was the performance of the hon. member for Albany last night. There we had an illustration of the tragedy which is occurring in the United Party. Then it is taken amiss of hon. members on this side if they talk to the United Party in this Budget about their own situation and about politics. The Budget debate is there for the Opposition to test the Government’s administration of the country on the basis of the money which is put at its disposal. They must also test the Government’s policy which goes together with that, because that money is spent in terms of a policy. However, at the same time, the Government is entitled to say to the Opposition: Let us see to what extent you are entitled to criticize us.

You know nothing about the Budget.

The hon. member must not talk about the Budget, because he admitted in his own speech that he did not have the slightest notion of the principles of a Budget. On that basis he then proceeded. I agree with him—he does not have the slightest notion of what this is all about. He should just read his Hansard. We have had this example here of hon. members on that side telling us, “We do not know any longer to which culture we belong.” Because one of our best-known opera singers sang an aria in Italian at the Nico Malan and because there were Whites and non-Whites present in the opera house, the hon. member for Green Point does not know any longer to which culture he belongs. Sir, that is why our young people tell us that they do not want those people as leaders. They want leaders who tell them where they stand with their own culture, and we on this side of the House can tell them that, Sir. We can tell them where we stand with our culture, but hon. members on that side cannot say that. Their own front-bencher asked us here, “Where do I stand? What sort of culture is this; is it a South African culture?” Sir, we on this side do not favour such a watered-down South African culture. Sir, let us go further. Take the hon. member for Hillbrow’s attitude with reference to defence expenditure, which simply amounts to his making excuses in that connection. We must not spend so much on defence in the light of what can be done with that money and in the light of what is happening with détente.

You must spend it on defence.

Then we come to the hon. member for Albany. We have the situation that 30% of the hon. members of the United Party on the opposite side are still General Smuts United Party members. Forty per cent of them, to use general political terms, are Sir De Villiers United Party members and the remaining 30% are no longer United Party members as we know United Party members. They are people who are moving far to the left. Some of them are looking me in the eye now; they have moved far to the left. The hon. member for Albany is sitting over there; he began his speech by saying that there was no word of truth in the allegation that a member of the United Party had ever said in this Parliament that their policy was one of sharing authority on a multi-racial basis and from a multi-racial body of authority. He denied it categorically, and when he denied it, people like the hon. member for Maitland began to murmur and if the hon. member for King William’s Town and other members on that side had been here, they would have murmured as well. That is how they would like to see their policy. When I asked the hon. member, “But what is the ultimate goal of your federation, is the ultimate goal of your federation not a multi-racial authority?” then he admitted it. When I asked the hon. member whether there would be sharing of power on a multiracial basis in that multi-racial body of authority, he replied, “Of course”. In other words, the hon. member says by implication that we shall have a completely politically integrated state in South Africa in terms of their federation policy. Sir, then you should have seen the faces of that other 30%! This first group of members was bitterly disappointed and I wish you could have seen the fluttering over there. If I am not mistaken, Sir, you were in the Chair and you must have heard it. They were bitterly disappointed to think that someone could admit so blatantly in this House that that was the true, naked, ultimate goal of their policy. Do you know why the other group in the United Party was so disappointed? They were disappointed because that which they did not want to say out loud in this House, was being stated so blatantly here in the House. Sir, I can quote you examples of this, but I do not have the time. The hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated this same matter in a very roundabout way in previous debates in this House this year so that the real truth would not emerge. That is the situation which prevails on the opposite side of this House, and therefore the young people ask themselves the question, “Is this the party, is this the Opposition, of which we should take notice in this Budget debate?”. Sir, how do those same young people see this Government? They see us on this side as people who are prepared to admit that internal situations have to be adjusted and can be changed, while certain principles are being retained, in a way which will allow South Africa to maintain its position in Africa in every respect. Sir, I can give you many quotations of what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this connection; how the hon. the Prime Minister said that he had always seen it as his task to move away from discrimination based solely on grounds or race or colour. But the hon. the Prime Minister also said, “I am not going to run away from this; I am not ashamed of the situation in South Africa and I am not ashamed of that in which my party is engaged; I admit that there is a connotation attached to discrimination which I do not like and there is another connotation which may be more favourable and therefore I prefer to speak of differentiation; and with reference to this difference in basic premises, my party and I strive to make South Africa such a decent country to live in, for all races in South Africa, that we shall not only be proud of it, but that we shall also be able to stand first in the line of African countries as far as our approach to human relations on a multi-national basis is concerned.” And we prove it in practice. We have made very important adjustments from time to time. I know that the hon. member for Hillbrow does not like these things, because his candle is burning very low and will be burnt out soon. He knows it; it is only a question of four years, then he will no longer be here. Sir, the Government has proved time and again in the field of culture, in the field of general social life, and it has been said time and again that if we were to eliminate 60% of the unmannerliness on both sides, we would be able to progress much further than we are today. The Opposition asks us to serve together with them in a Select Committee or in a general committee, and other people, such as hon. members of the Progressive Party, even ask that other races also be represented in that committee, and that this joint committee of South Africans take decisions and make recommendations about these matters, viz. the extent to which discriminatory measures can be removed in South Africa. Sir, we are not prepared to co-operate with the United Party on such a basis for the simple reason that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in the no-confidence debate this year, “My party’s basic premise is the abolition of all discriminatory measures.” That is his party’s basic premise.

What did the hon. member for Johannesburg West say?

The hon. member for Johannesburg West has never said anything of the kind. Our ambassador in Washington has never said this. I can prove it. I have his complete speech here, but I do not have time for that. After all, hon. members know full well that he did not say that in this context. Nor did the Prime Minister say that in this context. It is hon. members on the opposite side who put it into this context, and who, on the basis of these speeches, now give us to understand, as the hon. member against the wall over there at the back tried to do yesterday, that this will be the alpha and the omega. However, the hon. the Prime Minister said explicitly that he agreed with everything that was said in that speech at the U.N. and that he was striving for this and that, but that the situation is this and that. It is recorded very clearly in his Hansard. [Interjections.] I can quote this in full to you, but now I shall tell you this: We in the National Party are prepared to see to these matters, and we do see to them, but not on the basis on which hon. members on the opposite side want to see to them, because these matters cannot be settled just like that. You appointed a commission yourselves three years ago, and what has happened to that? Do you know where that commission will end? Surely you know, because we debated it three years ago here in this House. It is a few separate entrances and a few separate buses, and those who cannot afford it, travel together with each other in one bus, and those who can afford it travel to Sea Point in their own bus, and in connection with the swimming baths, it is the same story. And in connection with the toilets it is the same. Those who can afford it, can build their own toilets here on the parade. You know what is in your little report. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was a member of that committee, and the hon. member for Hillbrow was the chairman, but the hon. member for Hillbrow, with his committee, could not get any further than about seven points. [Interjections.] But now you are saying that you will abolish all discrimination. Sir, in conclusion, if the question is asked: To what should one look in the debating in this House today? then we can feel free on our side to say that we offer challenges and we take up challenges and we do this purposefully. And we can do it without the help of the United Party, and we do not even bother ourselves about those small one-cent parties on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister stood up today to deliver a speech. There were great expectations on this side of the House that the hon. the Deputy Minister would give a very clear explanation of what had been said on this side of the House up to now. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister pecked here and pecked there and told us why the young people supposedly were so interested in the Nationalist Party. I do not find it strange that he spoke as he did, because he addressed a meeting in his constituency the other evening with the new hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism, where he made the following statement as reported in Die Vaderland of 7 April (translation)—

That is the hon. the Deputy Minister—

Now I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what kind of political philosophy it is when one says, in the first place, that one is conservative, then that one is progressive in one’s thinking and, finally that if anybody looks for one, one will be found immediately to the right of the centre. This just goes to show how confused the hon. the Deputy Minister, who talks about confusion on this side of the House, is in his own political thinking. The hon. the Deputy Minister also told us that they had such a competent hon. Prime Minister on that side of the House and that everyone in the Cabinet supported him equally strongly. He said that there had been an example of that in this debate. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten the article that appeared in Rapport a year or two ago under the heading: “Bring Jan Haak back” and “Void in Nationalist Party, say businessmen”? The hon. the Deputy Minister boasted of their being so wonderful in the handling of the financial affairs of South Africa, but he himself did nothing to justify the Budget. He cannot justify the Budget. That is why we get attempts from that side rather to discuss racial issues. This side of the House has never been afraid to discuss racial issues in South Africa. But the issue that the people of South Africa want to have settled is: What steps are being taken by this Government to protect the value of our money, to keep the cost of living stable, and what is it doing in order to promote growth in the national economy of South Africa? This is the issue we wish to settle in this debate with hon. members on that side of the House. They will have other opportunities for discussing racial issues. What do they do? They totally misquote the hon. member for Albany when he reacted to the speech of the hon. member for Parys. What exactly is the point? According to that hon. member the United Party stands for a form of power sharing in this country.

But of course he said it!

Of course, and we have never denied it. What the hon. member for Albany was discussing, was how we could accomplish power sharing in this country. The hon. members tried to create the impression that first we wanted to make this Parliament multi-racial and then accomplish power sharing in that manner in South Africa in the course of time. The hon. member for Albany made it clear that this Parliament was the body which would initiate, launch, and control it. I want to quote what the hon. member said—

There is no doubt on this side of the House that we shall ultimately have a form of power sharing in South Africa which will find expression in a multi-racial federal council. But what those hon. members are usually reluctant to say and fail to say, is that the policy of the United Party is not one of power sharing alone, but that we also wish to divide authority in South Africa that we wish, to give groups and communities the highest form of responsibility and authority in accordance with good government. Then one will have certain spheres of national administration in this country in future, as one also has under this Government today, relating to common interests and in respect of which a division cannot take place. Such common interests must be the subject of mutual discussions. If hon. members think that there are no such matters of common interests that Black, White and Coloured must discuss with one another, they must tell us why the hon. the Prime Minister has an advisory council in South West Africa which consists of all races in that territory. Therefore, the principle already exists. Does the hon. member want to tell me that the time has not arrived and that it is not necessary for us in South Africa to realize that the time is past when we could think for and do everything on behalf of the non-White? Nor are they prepared to accept this state of affairs. They want to have a share, in planning, in conducting dialogue, in consultations and in administration; they want to join the Whites in doing these things in the country. Hon. members on the opposite side know that they are on the horns of a dilemma as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. They know that they can never give them sovereignty and complete independence. This is simply a case of impossibility. That is why they are moving in the direction of giving these people a share and a say. What they are giving at this stage may not be the final answer, but they are moving in that direction. The hon. member spoke of confusion on this side of the House, especially with regard to the disappearance of discrimination in the country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with what the hon. young member for Johannesburg West said at the time he was fighting the election in that constituency. He was asked certain questions. It was reported in a newspaper as follows—

Surely that is right.

I want to ask the hon. member whether, if a Black man from the Transkei were to be here in the city, he would still have apartheid for him at post offices, etc. I am referring to all types of klein apartheid. Another question was put to the hon. member and the report proceeds—

I do not disagree with the hon. member for Johannesburg West; I think he is perfectly correct, but I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he agrees with that and if he does, what difficulty do they have to remove discrimination in South Africa? One cannot treat the Black man who comes here from Malawi like an “honorary White”, as is done in the case of the Japanese, and then not treat our own Black people in South Africa in the same way. It is to this type of question that the hon. gentlemen must reply. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister must talk to the hon. member for Waterberg, for that hon. member regards any concession that is made as the thin end of the wedge. He is the man who says that once one has started making concessions, it may subsequently be impossible for one to stop. The hon. the Minister of Defence is the man who says that if one throws open the Nico Malan to all races, that is not to be regarded as a form of integration. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister reconcile the attitude of the hon. member for Waterberg with, the attitude of the hon. member for Johannesburg West and at the same time with that of the hon. the Minister of Defence?

Their attitudes are all the same. [Interjections.]

If those hon. members do not get clarity about themselves and the direction in which they are moving, I do not believe that they will achieve as much success as they anticipate in persuading large numbers of young people to support them in future. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to have devoted a certain percentage of his time to the Budget, but he ignored it altogether and I do not blame him for that, because he did not know what to say about the Budget. In this Budget there is more that the people of South Africa would like to forget as soon as possible than what they would like to remember. Not only has the Budget been described as being colourless and neutral, but I think it has been one of the greatest disappointments in the past 27 years to John Citizen. The Budget cannot be seen in isolation from what we discussed in this House at the time of previous Budgets. It must be seen against the background of the expectations of John Citizen. There have been various attempts from that side of the House to divert the debate from the expectations of John Citizen.

It is not “John Citizen” but “the man in the street”.

Why have attempts been made to divert this debate in this manner? Because the Government has to come up to those expectations of John Citizen up to this stage. He expected the Government to announce definite steps in the course of this debate aimed at protecting the value of his money and keeping the cost of living in South Africa stable. A Cape newspaper recently published the results of a certain opinion poll. The opinion poll was conducted by Market Research, probably one of the most renowned opinion poll companies and one which has the most experience in this connection. What did they find amongst the public? The public was asked one simple question—

†Seventy-eight per cent of the people who were interviewed said, “Undoubtedly, yes.” What is even more significant, is that the greatest degree of concern about the cost of living in South Africa was encountered in the platteland areas. A full 93% was worried about the cost of living in South Africa.

*Those are the hon. gentlemen who always claim that they represent the platteland in this House. But what do we get from their side? In the cities 81% of the people are concerned.

One hundred per cent of the people must be concerned.

Order!

In the urban areas 76% of the people are concerned. These people are asking the Government that steps be taken to combat the marked and continuous escalation of prices in this country. The Government, however, takes little notice of this kind of thing. What has the Government done up to now in this regard, especially in the Budget Speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance? I hope to prove to the hon. the Minister that he has done preciously little to keep the cost of living in South Africa stable, and that he has done preciously little to break the spiral of inflation. The only thing the governing Party can say, is that the Budget is moderately expansive and that the rise in the cost of living in the course of this year, will not be as high as it is at the moment or was in the past year.

The voter, in other words the tax-payer, John Citizen, probably has to be grateful for the mercy he has been shown on a small scale. On a previous occasion, we on this side of the House said the Government evidently was powerless to do something about the cost of living and the spiral of inflation. We said it because at that stage we were still sympathetic towards the Government and the handling of the problem. Today, however, I want to change that statement by saying that they deliberately promote and encourage inflation and the higher cost of living in South Africa. Every one of us in this House as well as every one outside, whether a labourer, an industrialist or a farmer, will be compelled to charge more for his services on a wide front in future. The Government seems to be unable to escape from this spiral, and the more so since the Government itself gives it greater impetus. The previous Minister of Finance said that it was difficult to ascertain what influence increased oil prices would have on inflation and the higher cost structure. That gentleman made a correct observation in this regard. I think the hon. the new Minister repeated that thought on another occasion. If it is time that the increase in oil prices has resulted in an enormous rise in the cost structure, the hon. the Minister of Finance should have been exceptionally careful in the circumstances in which he now finds himself. Surely in that case he should have refused to increase fuel prices once more. To allege that fuel prices had to be increased because fuel was cheaper here than in many other countries of the world, as the hon. member for Paarl did, is, in my opinion, not only unfair but also utterly foolish.

Now you are talking nonsense.

That hon. member says that it is nonsense, but I am sure the hon. member has had that experience overseas.

I say that Wynand Malan did not say that.

Of course he did. The hon. member told us of the two visitors he had and who said to him: Your petrol in South Africa is very cheap; if your fuel is so cheap, you will never save fuel in South Africa.

Do you want to say that the visitors were lying?

That is not what I am saying. To advance that argument and even to say, as the hon. Minister did in his Budget Speech, that our prices still were very much cheaper than those of many other countries in the world— after all, he did say that; it is a fact— why increase the price for the very reason that fuel is cheaper here than in other countries in the world?

Surely that is not the reason.

So why did the hon. gentlemen try to seek justification for the increase? The hon. gentlemen should in fact be grateful along with us for the fact that we do have an item such as fuel which is still cheap in South Africa. Therefore the hon. gentlemen may argue just as well that, because fuel still is so much cheaper than in many other countries in the world, that is another reason why the price actually ought to be even higher. We should rather see our low cost structure, in comparison with those of other countries, as a feather in our cap. I want to take the instance of the South African farmer. Last year the South African farmer spent R130 million on fuel, whereas it was R80 million the year before. That is an increase of approximately R40 million, and now this increase on top of that. What is going to happen now? We shall now be faced with the situation that the maize farmer will want an increased price, not only because of the increase in the prices of fertilizers, not only because of the increase in labour costs and the increase in administrative costs, but also because of this increase in the price of fuel. The dairy farmer of South Africa, who must be encouraged to produce more milk, also adopts that attitude. If the maize farm is to receive an increased price for his product, which will bring about a considerable rise in the cost structure of the dairy farmer plus a further rise on account of the increase in the price of fuel, we may simply expect our food prices to soar even higher. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows that this will be so. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has already warned him of higher food prices to come, especially as far as milk and grain products are concerned. The chairman of the Milk Board has warned him and every agricultural leader has been warning them about that for the past six months. What do we now find in his Budget? Do we find any proof in his Budget of his willingness to increase subsidies on food for the consumer of South Africa? No, Sir. All we find, is a small increase in the total appropriation for Vote 26 in comparison with that of the previous year. In fact, we find that while the subsidy on dairy products was R14 milion in the previous year, it dropped to R8 900 000 for the financial year 1975-’76, a decrease of approximately R6 million. There is indeed an increase in the subsidy which will be paid on wheat, but in the case of maize, there is approximately R1 million less than the year before. When one takes a further look at this Budget, and especially at what is required by Agricultural Credit for the purchase of land, one sees that there has been a decrease. The very thing the Government ought to realize is what a wonderful role we can play in détente on the African continent, to keep people in this country satisfied and to provide them with enough food and to keep food prices stable. We find the opposite, however. An enormous amount of money is spent on defence, but for this essential primary industry in South Africa there is, what I may virtually call a decrease in what the Government wants to spend. I want to know in what way it would help us to have the best arms in hand, while the population of South Africa is starving and we are not taking the correct steps to stimulate food production in South Africa.

As far as that is concerned, the Government need not listen only to what we have to say, it can also listen to what the S.A. Handelsinstituut as wel as Dr. M. D. Marais said about this Budget. The hon. gentlemen on the opposite side say that we are unpatriotic to talk about the heavy expenditure and about the fact that a second Sasol is going to be established at this stage by means of a further increase in the price of fuel, but Dr. M. D. Marais said exactly the same thing. I quote from Die Transvaler [Translation]—

He was referring to Sasol, Iscor, to the introduction of television, etc.

He did not say “R10 million”.

R10 000 million.

Yes.

Mr. Marais went on to say:

No arguments have been advanced from this side of the House against the principle of the establishment of many of these big new State undertakings—nobody is opposed to that—but one must get one’s priorities into the right order, and this Budget is not an example of that.

The hon. the Minister has been listening for a week to excellent thoughts and ideas being advanced from this side of the House, and now he should draw up a list of priorities which will be to the advantage of South Africa and which will really combat inflation in this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Order! I announce in terms of Standing Order No. 68 that the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill will be extended to three hours, excluding the reply of the Minister in charge.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the Third Reading of an amendment to the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act and I think it will be useful if we recall for a moment what that Act set out to do. That Act set up a council for the Coloured people which was described in various ways at its inception in 1964. One of the descriptions which it enjoyed at the hands of Government’s spokesmen was that of a Coloured parliament. It was envisaged as a body which would give full control of Coloured affairs to the Coloured people in a period of 10 years, and it was seen as the principal agent of this Government for the emancipation of the Coloured people. Glowing words were used by the present Leader of this House, then Minister of Coloured Affairs, when he introduced the Bill here in 1964. He spoke about race relations which had to continue to be handled in a spirit of goodwill and sympathy; he spoke of proper channels and means for consultation and he spoke about seeking goodwill and consultation. In his remarks in introducing this measure then he referred to what had been said about the previous Coloured Advisory Council. In Hansard of 10 April 1964, col. 3998, he had this to say—

He went on to say—

In the same speech he then went on to summarize the objects of that Bill, which we find in col. 3999 of the same Hansard. This is what he said—

Finally, Sir, the hon. the Minister in introducing that measure—and it is that measure that we are amending today in a very material sense—dealt with the evolutionary nature of the council concerned, and in that regard he had this to say—

He went on to deal with other racial groups, and then said—

Sir, here then you have a Coloured Council introduced by the hon. the Minister 10 years ago, introduced in a speech which had sympathetic terms of reference to what was being done, with emphasis being laid on the need for sympathy and consultation, with emphasis on the fact that substantial differences of opinion and approach could develop between the Minister and the council and, indeed, were to be expected, but that that was nothing unusual and nothing disastrous to the even course of events, generally speaking, and with emphasis on the forward-looking evolutionary nature of the new machinery; and finally, Sir, the fact was dealt with that real power was being given to the Coloured people by this measure. Sir, it is in the light of what has gone before, and particularly what was said and envisaged with the introduction of the principal Act, that we must examine this Bill which is before us at Third Reading. What does this Bill set out to do? What are its terms? Far from enlarging upon and developing in an evolutionary way the powers that were given in 1964, far from acting in a manner which allows for differences of opinion, even material differences of opinion, between the executive authorities of that council and the hon. the Minister, this Bill sets out to enable the Minister, should the executive or the council fail for whatever reason to exercise or perform certain functions or powers, to exercise those powers himself on behalf of the executive or on behalf of the council. What it does, Sir, in simple terms, is to provide for the Minister utterly to negate the powers exercised by the executive of that council or to negate the action of the executive in refraining from exercising powers, and in certain instances wholly to substitute his discretion for the discretion of that council through its executive. Sir, I think we are permitted to look and it is right that we look at the circumstances which led to the introduction of this measure. The hon. the Minister set out the circumstances in his reply to the Second Reading debate. That reply is to be found in the current Hansard, at columns 3495 and 3496. The hon. the Minister there said—

He dealt firstly with a report which had appeared in the newspaper Rapport of 16 March to this effect—

He then went on to quote from The Herald of 21 March, where Mr. Leon was reported in this form—

The hon. the Minister goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister goes on to say—

Now, what is the effect of the newspaper reports which the hon. the Minister quoted earlier in these debates and upon which apparently he acted in this regard? What is the effect of those reports? There is confusion because one day, in the Minister’s own words, there is a report which suggests co-operative action by Mr. Leon and the leaders of the Labour Party, and the next day there are reports which apparently suggest non-co-operation by those gentlemen in their dealings with the Minister and in their handling of the Coloured Council. There is a complete conflict in the reports which the hon. the Minister has quoted and upon which apparently he has acted. So far as we can judge, the hon. the Minister relies for the introduction of this Bill entirely on Press reports as to what these gentlemen have said as to their intentions. Can you imagine it, Mr. Speaker! A minister of State introduces drastic legislation which constitutes a material negation of the executive powers of an important subordinate tier of government, a tier of government dealing with the daily lives of over 2 million people, and apparently he does so solely or largely on the basis of Press reports, conflicting Press reports, in the Minister’s own words, and as far as I can see, unconfirmed Press reports. The hon. the Minister in those circumstances apparently makes no attempt to consult with the people concerned, the duly elected representatives of the Coloured people, people who are chosen by means of the very machinery deliberately set up by this Government for that purpose. Nowhere has the hon. gentleman said that he has consulted with the people concerned who are of course the leaders of the Labour Party, neither indeed has he consulted, as far as we can judge, with the leaders of the Federal Party, the outgoing executive which at present still holds office. All that was required was the lifting of a telephone receiver or the sending of an emissary to find out what was going on. Sir, this is far-reaching legislation having the most adverse effects in the circumstances under which it was introduced on relations with the people concerned. I believe that to put it in that way is not an over-statement, and it was apparently introduced, I say again, on the basis of Press reports which, as I have indicated, themselves speak with two voices, voices which suggest co-operation and voices which suggest non-co-operation. They are ambiguous, Sir, as to the intentions of the Labour Party. Now, the hon. the Minister is not a mere cypher; he is not a mere machine. I ask the hon. the Minister: Why did he not meet with these people and try to talk them out of their apparent intention, if he believed that it was non-co-operation in the exercise of the powers they had acquired by their victory in the election? Surely persuasion is one of the greatest weapons which a Minister of a central authority has in his relationship with subordinate tiers of government? Surely that power of persuasion, the exercise of that power is one of the Minister’s most important functions? That applies, as I say, in respect of any newly constituted agency of government at a lower tier of operation than the central authority. I believe the greatest power the hon. the Minister has is his power of persuasion. It was apparently not exercised and apparently no attempt was made to use it. As events turned out, it is very likely that he would have succeeded had he used that power because as the result of subsequent negotiations, so far as we can judge, following upon the delivery of letters by hastily despatched couriers—a course of action which gives one the impression of bordering on panic—the Labour Party has apparently agreed to take office and to operate the machine.

Is that a substantiated report?

I said “apparently” that is the situation. Only the hon. the Minister can tell me whether that situation is not correct …

You imply that.

… but I have not taken executive action as a result of those reports. I am merely putting it to the hon. the Minister in the course of this debate.

The second and perhaps more important aspect of the handling of this measure which merits attention is the timing and introduction of this Bill. It was introduced here on the day of the election and it was debated when the results were either coming in or had already been made known. This is a course of action which could only be seen at the time as controversial and provocative. Those are two factors which I believe should be absent from relations between communities of this kind. One wants an absence of controversy and provocation if it can be avoided. The hon. the Minister said that he had to introduce it then because it takes time to prepare, to draft and introduce legislation. He said that Bills could not be introduced overnight and that it was a matter which took time. We are dealing with a Bill of 20 lines, in other words, the effective portion of this Bill consists of 20 lines of print or one effective clause, a clause which could have been drafted by a competent lawyer in one day at the most. I suppose it takes a week or a little over a week for a piece of legislation to be put through, both Houses of Parliament and, as far as we know, Parliament sits until about mid-June. That is the normal time. The existing Federal Party executive holds office until some time in May. Let us suppose that the hon. the Minister’s fears were well-founded, what should his course of action have been in this respect? I believe he should have consulted his lawyers and had his Bill drafted if that was the remedy which he believed should be employed, and he should have waited quietly for the results of the election. He could then have spent the Easter recess consulting with and attempting to persuade the leaders of the Labour Party to change their point of view, if in fact their point of view was as indicated in some of the Press reports. I believe that he should have spent that time, if that was their point of view, in persuading them to adopt a different course. If he had failed and they had remained intransigent in his view—I emphasize this merely as a hypothesis, a possibility—he could have introduced his Bill at the end of May and still have seen it pass through, both Houses before the end of the session. The hon. gentleman would then have been able to come to this House and could have said to us that he feared that certain things would happen, that he based his fears on certain reports and upon his discussions with the people concerned, that he had attempted to use his powers of persuasion to make them see a different point of view and that he had failed despite bona fide attempts and, having done that, he felt it necessary to introduce this legislation. Only then would the Bill have been introduced. I believe that had that been done, the hon. the Minister’s position would have been much stronger and his actions would not have been seen as provocative and controversial as they were on the last occasion. They may indeed have been controversial but certainly been less so than in this case. I believe there is a larger principle which is also involved in cases of this kind. Every party in this House, I think, believes in the inauguration, in terms of its policy, of legislative bodies of one kind or another at a lower tier than the central authority. All parties believe there is merit in this course. Subordinate legislative bodies of that kind have no purpose unless they have executive functions as well. If the introduction of subordinate legislative bodies at lower tiers of government has any merit at all, these bodies must be entitled and allowed to exercise their functions with freedom and without interference from the central authority even if at times they do this in a manner with which the central authority disagrees. That is the very object and merit of subordinate legislative bodies, namely that they are free to exercise their powers within the law, even if they do it in a manner and in respect of policies with which the central authority disagrees.

And if they refuse?

If they refuse then their electorate is the one to put it right. That is the whole object of it. Their electorate will suffer any disadvantage which will flow from an unwise course of action by its executive, and I believe their electorate is the body to put it right. Without an acceptance of that principle and philosophy behind action of this kind the decentralization of power has very little meaning.

Now, what are we going to think of the hon. the Minister’s action in the circumstances I have discussed? One is bound to say that if it was considered action by the hon. the Minister it was at best a grave error of judgment—the introduction of this Bill, the time when it was introduced and the manner in which it was introduced—and at worst crass stupidity. If it was not considered action I regret to have to say that it was sheer incompetence. Either way the Government must take full responsibility for what has been done and for having introduced an ill-considered measure in circumstances of considerable delicacy. It is a measure which can only have, I believe, and as far as one has been able to hear, has had the result of bedeviling relations with a large and important section of the population and which could have been avoided. It is a measure which consultation at the right time and with the right people would very likely have shown to be unnecessary and which, events have in fact shown to be unnecessary. In these circumstances I believe there is only one way in which the Opposition can show their objection, namely to move, as I do now, the following amendment—

I hope that at this stage, the Third Reading stage, the parties seated to my left will find it possible to support this amendment which I have moved, the strongest amendment it is possible to move to express one’s objection to a Bill. I was a little surprised to find at the Second Reading, whilst these parties spoke strongly against the measure, the amendments which they moved were less severe than the one we moved. I hope that that is not the position today and that they will find it possible to support the amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will pardon me if I do not respond immediately to what he has just told the House; however, I shall come back to him in the course of my speech.

It seems as though the hon. members of the various parties have decided that this legislation is one of the measures on which they are going to conduct an endless debate. This is a measure on which they prolong the discussions, and they are trying, in various different ways, to put a spanner in the works of the Government. Apparently that was why they have asked for an extension of time for this debate. However, from the discussions we have had during the Second Reading debate as well as in the Committee Stage and now again in the Third Reading debate, it is not clear at all why they have found it necessary to have this lengthy discussion. However, if what they have tried to do with this lengthy discussion was to regain some of the prestige they have lost, I want to tell them that they have failed miserably.

They never had any prestige.

If they had any prestige at all, I am afraid that they have lost it permanently, because to listen to one speaker after the other reciting to us the same refrain, and reciting it very poorly at that, cannot do a party any good. In fact, they have achieved nothing whatsoever with their discussions and they know they have achieved nothing, but still they nevertheless persevere.

If the hon. members of the official Opposition thought they might score a few debating points on the hon. members of the Progressive Party by means of this discussion, if they thought they could outbid the Progressive Party for the support of the left-wing liberals, I am afraid the discussion was a disappointment to them as well, because we heard the same arguments from hon. members of the Progressive Party as were advanced by the official Opposition—and the one was as unconvincing as the other. It seems to me as if it could be regarded as a pointless draw.

If we analyse what we have heard in the debate so far, it seams as if we had only negative and destructive criticism, as we have had so often in the past. I know the hon. members of the Opposition always get very touchy when we tell them that they are guilty of negative criticism. They usually respond as if hon. members on this side of the House want to deny the Opposition its right to criticize, as if we want to deny them their right to oppose. I want to make it quite clear to them that no one on this side of the House expects the hon. members of the Opposition not to refrain from criticizing or from opposing. Nor does anyone of us expect them to sing the praises of the Government, although there is ample justification for doing so. We accept that what hon. members opposite want to do, is criticize. In fact, it is the function of the Opposition to oppose.

Order! The hon. member should come closer to the Bill.

As it pleases you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to do so now. We only expect the Opposition to oppose and criticize in a responsible and constructive manner.

This is what you always get.

After the Second Reading debate we still had the prospect that the Opposition might at least come forward with some concrete suggestions during the Committee Stage. However, what did we have? All we had, was a few unrealistic and negative amendments. These amendments, if they had succeeded in any way, would have defeated the entire purpose of the legislation and would have deprived it of all effectiveness. When we consider—and I am not doing so to try to have a repetition of the Committee Stage, but only to illustrate the attitude of the Opposition towards this legislation— the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, we find that he objected to the fact that the hon. the Minister should have the discretion to decide when a situation has arisen which requires action on his part. The hon. member wants to omit the words “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”. I do not know whether the hon. member had in mind sinkholes into which he might perhaps fall or have already fallen, but the fact remains that when one is dealing with the words “should the chairman of the executive, the executive or the Council fail” the question arises: Who is to judge? The hon. member for Bryanston then came along with the hackneyed argument that the courts should decide. If a situation should arise at the CRC which demanded action to be taken, as is envisaged by this legislation, and it is first necessary to go to court to obtain a decision on the matter—I almost want to say like the hon. member did: “Just imagine!”—when would one be able to rectify the situation one would like to rectify? One would be just in time for the funeral of the Council.

Then there is also another aspect. If we were to make the court the arbiter we would only be involving the courts in politics again and we would have a conflict between the legislative authority and the judicial authority. This is an unrealistic approach; an approach which testifies to a total lack of understanding of what the legislation is all about. This is merely another attempt to present the Government as a Government which is so insensitive to the authority of the law or rule of law. This is only another attempt— I almost want to call it a “gimmick” (“foefie”)—to sow suspicion.

The hon. member should not use his colourful Boland language here.

We have also had the further amendment in which it was proposed that the Minister should report to this House. We may well ask ourselves what the position would have been if the hon. the Minister, acting according to what he believed is right in a situation envisaged by this legislation, would take steps only to come to this House five or six months later to find out that the House did not want to approve of his actions. How would hon. members on my right then undo that which had already been done? It would be an untenable situation if an hon. Minister had to make his executive powers subject to subsequent approval. This is a state of affairs that cannot be tolerated.

Then the hon. member for Newton Park in his wisdom came along with an amendment to the effect that these powers should be conferred upon the State President instead of the Minister. The argument he advanced was that the State President was supposed to have the advantage of the considered opinion of the entire Cabinet. I ask myself whether the hon. members of the Opposition are so naïve as to believe that the hon. the Minister would take steps in a case such as this without consulting his colleagues in the Cabinet or without satisfying himself that what he does corresponds with the policy of the Government and that it meets with the approval of his colleagues in the Cabinet. In other words, we have an amendment here which seems acceptable. It seems fair and reasonable to ask for these powers to be granted to the State President, but what is this if it is not another attempt to discredit the hon. the Minister? That is the reason behind it all; he is not to be trusted with these powers. I say this is an unwarranted attempt to pretend that the hon. the Minister cannot be trusted with the responsibility. As has happened so often in the past the hon. members of the Opposition were again not prepared to accept the good faith of the Government and the Minister concerned during these discussions. As I have indicated a moment ago, they again cast doubts on the assurances we had from the hon. the Minister. They are not satisfied with the obvious realities, motivations and explanations which have been furnished. They are always looking behind the scenes for an ulterior motive. This is what they have been doing constantly during these discussions. They are for ever looking for inconsistencies and irregularities. This reminds one of the old adage to the effect that one judges others by one’s own conduct.

Last year during the discussion of the General Amendment Law the hon. member for Houghton said at one stage: “I just want to say that I was suspicious when I read it (referring to clause 1 of the General Law Amendment Bill) for the first time.” Why always be suspicious? In this case they were suspicious again. But they do not confine the matter to their own suspicions; they also sow suspicion here and outside, and this is what I find reprehensible. They are trying their utmost to embarrass the Government through this measure, as they do through every possible situation, irrespective of the harmful effects and implications to South Africa and also those people for whom they pretend to be the champions and for whose rights they are supposed to be the great protagonists. They regard it as the utmost form of patriotism to demolish the integrity of the Government and this particular Minister without apparently realizing to what extent South Africa is being identified with the Government. If this is not the case, one has to arrive to the conclusion that they do not care.

I say that they always have such a lot to say about the political rights of the Coloured people. However, they are neither interested in nor prepared to support a measure such as this Bill, which is so essential to protect the interests of the Coloured people. During the Second Reading debate it was stated repeatedly what the motivation for this legislation was, and for that reason I do not want to repeat it. It is to ensure that the Coloured people will not be detrimentally affected in case the business of the CRC, owing to circumstances, cannot be carried on with. It is to protect those thousands of Coloured people who are dependent for their remuneration upon the functioning of the CRC. However, these hon. members do not care for these things—as long as they can make political capital out of a situation such as this. This they did with every measure of this kind. They questioned every measure when it concerned the interests of the Coloured people. They were always suspicious and they always tried to put a spanner in the works as they are doing again in this case. This goes to show that they are not really interested in the best interests of the Coloured people, and that they are not really concerned with the best interests of the Coloured people; what they are doing here is merely to echo the sentiments of the more reactionary elements in the ranks of the Coloured people.

For what are the facts? The CRC was established by the Government as an important component of its Coloured policy. Therefore there is no reason or justification whatsoever for the idea that the Government or the Minister concerned would want to dissolve the CRC. On the contrary. The Government attaches great value to the successful functioning of the CRC. The Government also has great confidence in the CRC as an institution. In fact, more and more powers are either being granted to or envisaged for this Council. This is proof of the confidence the Government has in the CRC. Surely, these are not indications of a desire or intention to dissolve or demolish this Council.

The CRC has already achieved a great deal for the Coloured people. The Council has more than justified its existence and its continued existence. What is more, the Government also has great confidence in the Coloured voters. That is why it is being envisaged that the CRC will in due course become a full-fledged elected body. Surely, this is not proof or an indication of no confidence in the Coloured voters. On the contrary. Liaison at Cabinet level is also being envisaged and this would hardly be possible if the CRC were to be dissolved, or demolished or were to disappear. After all, it is foolish to allege that this Government or this Minister, who is a member of this Government, intends to abuse the powers granted to him by means of this legislation in order to dissolve or demolish this Council.

The fact remains, however, that the Government and particularly the Minister could not close their eyes to the facts. They had to take note of what was happening, of the statements that were made, of the attitudes that were adopted and the policies that were advocated. After all, they had to take note of these things, otherwise they would have been acting in an irresponsible manner. Experience has taught us that different circumstances may arise which could render the powers proposed in this Bill indispensable, and for that reason it was essential for the Government and the Minister to bring this particular legislation to this House to provide for such an eventuality. Sir, there is nothing in this Bill which indicates that these powers have to or will be exercised by the Minister. This is purely an empowering measure. In other words, the power is being granted to the Minister to act if and when necessary. It is therefore not a measure which indicates that the Minister will or has to exercise certain powers. It is purely empowering. I say that, under the prevailing circumstances, it would in fact be bordering on irresponsibility had we not granted these powers to the Minister. I can very well imagine what the hon. members on my right would have said had we not granted these powers to the Minister and had such a situation arisen; they would have accused this Government of being incompetent. Sir, I think—and I do not think I am wrong in thinking this—that a great deal of their vehement criticism in this debate has to be attributed to the fact that they regret that they have been deprived of this opportunity. I think they realize that they have now been deprived of this opportunity that it will not be possible for them to make political capital out of a situation such as this.

You are a pessimist.

No, I am not a pessimist; I am only a realist. Sir, when looking at the dwindling numbers of the Opposition members, I realize of course that they are neither pessimists, nor realists nor optimists. After all, they have no reason to be optimistic. They are not realistic either, otherwise they would have devised another plan long ago, and they are not pessimistic either, because then they would have done something more drastic than what they have already done.

Sir, to come back to the argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member himself referred to the contradictory statements of Mr. Leon, and he now suggests that the hon. the Minister should have taken no notice of these statements because they are contradictory. In short, this is what his argument amounts to.

Did he have to take it so seriously?

I shall come to that in a moment. Sir, the hon. member now argues that the Minister should have consulted the Coloured leaders. I am asking him: Which leaders should the hon. the Minister have consulted?

Their elected members.

These are for the most part members of the Labour Party, and Mr. Sonny Leon is the leader of the Labour Party, and he is the person who spoke so haphazardly as has been quoted by the hon. member himself, and now the Minister has to consult him? The hon. member criticizes the hon. the Minister because he allows himself to be led by the contradictory statements of Mr. Leon, but then he comes along and says that the Minister should have consulted Mr. Leon. Mr. Speaker, what kind of logic is this? This was the situation the hon. the Minister was faced with. He had to act according to his convictions and with the responsibility entrusted to him.

This is another problem of my hon. friends here on my right. They cannot, or will not, accept that the Government has been voted into office by the White voters of this country with a mandate and a charge to govern and that the Government really intends to govern and is, in fact, governing. All they want the Government to do is to ask everyone here and abroad, or wherever it may be, in every situation, how it should carry out its charge. The Government will not ask anybody else; the only people it will ask is its own voters, which have repeatedly given the Government a mandate to implement the policy it is in the process of implementing.

What about the mandage of the Coloured voters?

That is characteristic of the reaction we have time and again. It is being asked: “What about the Coloured voters?” One would swear that all these hon. members of the Opposition were elected to this House by Coloured voters and not White voters. One would say they are representing the Coloured people of this country and not the White voters in the first place. This is the cardinal difference between us and them.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana comes along with a further argument to the effect that the hon. the Minister should have persuaded these people to change their minds. Now I ask him whether the hon. the Minister should have gone empty-handed to persuade these people. Is a measure such as this not a very powerful factor to strengthen the hands of the Minister when he goes to persuade these people? Is the fact that nothing has come of the utterances of some of the elements in the Coloured ranks, not attributable to the fact that this legislation is before this House? Then the hon. member also comes along with the old argument about timing, an argument which had repeatedly been mentioned here, and said that the manner in which the Bill was handled was controversial and provocative. I say again that it is quite clear from the entire argument that they are disappointed because the Minister came along with this measure, and that they have in that way been deprived of the opportunity of blaming the Government for what would have happened had this legislation not been serving before this House.

In conclusion, we have had the argument that subordinate legislative bodies must have executive powers and that they should be able to exercise these powers without interference even if they exercise their powers in a manner with which the Central Government disagrees. This Government was placed into power by the voters, and received a mandate from them. As I have said, the Government has a policy which has been placed before the voters during the recent election hardly a year ago. That policy was endorsed by the voters with an even greater majority. Hon. members on my right have had every opportunity of presenting the policy in a slanted manner as they did during the election, but in spite of that the policy was nevertheless endorsed by the voters. Should this Government now allow subordinate legislative bodies—I am responding specifically to the argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—to torpedo and frustrate this entire policy by decisions they take? Should the Minister sit with folded arms, and is he not allowed to take measures to maintain this policy without exposing himself to this accusation of dictating to subordinate legislative bodies from above? Surely, it is not realistic politics to argue like this. Surely, one has to think and act in a realistic manner in situations such as these. One would not expect an hon. member like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a front-bencher and who has had many years of Parliamentary experience, to come along with such fallacious arguments. He could have left it to the hon. members in the back-benches to advance arguments of this nature.

In conclusion I want to emphasize that the Bill is, in fact, essential, that the introduction thereof is justified and that, if we do not accept this legislation and grant the required powers to the Minister, it would border on irresponsibility. The argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is nothing but an attempt to put a spanner in the words of the Government and to obstruct the Government in the implementation of its policy to make a success of the CRC. Therefore, the amendment carries no weight and should not be supported. As far as I am concerned, I should like to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and I want to say at once that in no respect was he able to refute the case put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member for Mossel Bay tried to intervene in the logical elucidation by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana of the weaknesses of the arguments presented in justification of this measure, but I am afraid that he failed hopelessly in that task. The case made out by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana stands firm, i.e. that there is no reason why such a measure should have been introduced in this House at this stage. There are a few things which the hon. member for Mossel Bay said which I want to comment on in any case, particularly because of the possible harm—if I may put it this way— of some of the implications of his statements. What the hon. member said was that the hon. the Minister cannot be expected to consult with the leaders of the Labour Party on this matter, particularly in view of certain statements they made. What has happened in the meantime? That same hon. Minister asked Mr. Leon to take over the chairmanship of the Executive. From now on Mr. Leon occupies that responsible position and the hon. the Minister is therefore obliged to hold consultations with him every day. How is it possible and conceivable that he can suddenly be considered suitable overnight to act as chairman of the Executive of the CRC, but is not considered suitable enough for consultation in regard to the introduction of this Bill.

But surely one could not hold consultations in regard to this legislation.

I do not think the hon. member for Mossel Bay meant that. What he did in actual fact do was to reflect on both his own Minister as well as the leader of the Labour Party. A further point was mentioned. I want to refer here to the reaction of the hon. the Deputy Minister to my speech on the Bill. The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked whether it was not possible that the Labour Party’s attitude on participation in the CRC had been changed and definitely influenced by this Bill. When we on this side of the House said that one of the disadvantages of this Bill was that it could be interpreted to mean that the Labour Party, or the CRC, was being approached with a big stick, or that a pistol was being held to their head, or a sword of Damocles suspended over their head, it was taken amiss of us. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said, by implication, that the reason for the CRC allegedly being prepared to co-operate then was because we had come forward with this instrument of power.

Oh no, please!

I hope I did not misunderstand the hon. member for Mossel Bay. As I understand it, this is in fact what he said. With reference to the matter of the big stick, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he knows very well that this was meant in a figurative sense because we are dealing here with a body and not with an individual. The hon. the Deputy Minister should certainly not level the accusation at us that when we use such terms, the overseas opinion against South Africa will be reinforced. If there is one thing which has alienated the outside world from South Africa it is the policy this Government is pursuing, more specifically in regard to the Coloured population, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this.

Furthermore I want to reject, with every possible means at my disposal, the accusations levelled by the hon. member for Mossel Bay at the Opposition as a whole. He said that we wanted to conduct an interminable debate and throw a spanner in the works of the Government. We allegedly wanted a prolonged debate—it is not clear why—and our object in doing this was allegedly to regain stature. He said we knew we would achieve nothing by it. I am afraid the hon. member for Mossel Bay is right, for we are coming forward with alternatives, suggestions and proposals which, in all honesty, are reasonable proposals and are deserving of consideration. But what is the reaction one encounters on the opposite side of the House? We find a constant rejection, at this moment, of proposals, not in the interests of the Opposition, but in the interests of our country, our people and relations between White and Coloured. The accusation which was made that the official Opposition, I or whoever it may be, was interested in outbidding the Progressive Party, or anyone else for that matter, is surely no argument which an adult person ought to use in a serious matter such as this.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay reacted to a proposal made by this side of the House that the Minister should report to this House. He asked the following theoretical question: “What is going to happen if this House rejects what the Minister has done in the meantime?” However the hon. member contradicted himself, for directly afterwards he asked: “Is it conceivable that the Minister will ever take these steps without having the full approval of the Cabinet?” How then can the hon. member for Mossel Bay foresee the possibility, if the Minister acts with the full approval and knowledge of the Cabinet, this House will reject the things he has done? This makes no sense, for the Cabinet is after all the Government, and the Government has a majority in this House of Assembly. In the last resort this Parliament, and not the Government, remains responsible for such actions The Government is the executive authority, but this Parliament, in its entirety, represents the overall will of the people. In addition this Parliament also has the task and the duty of serving the interests of those population groups which are not represented here, properly. On these grounds this House certainly—the members on that side as well as the members on this side of the House— has the right to know what has been done by this Government in the implementation of its executive function. This is our duty, and if we do not discharge that duty, we should not be here.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay also reacted to our proposal that the State President should take the fundamental decision and said: “I ask myself whether the Opposition is so naïve as to believe that the Minister will act without the knowledge or approval of the Cabinet.” I do not think we are so naïve that we will assume that the Minister, when it comes to the fundamental decision to terminate the functions of the CRC, will not consult the Cabinet. Surely the hon. member for Mossel Bay has also heard this saying: “Justice not only has to be done, but has also to be seen to be done.” The entire object with this amendment is that we want to make it clear to the people of South Africa, and to the Coloureds, that such a decision will not be taken lightly. With our amendment we want to make it clear that such a momentous intervention in the existence and functions of the CRC is of such a nature that it will indeed be done only by the full Cabinet. To my mind it seems to be a logical amendment, and is certainly no spanner we want to throw in the works of the Government. Since we wish to give expression to the sense of fair play of the entire population, and in that way to that of the Coloureds as well, we have asked that when it is necessary to take such a decision the full Cabinet should be responsible for and should, in fact, take this decision.

There are numerous other points in the speech made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay to which I should like to reply, but time does not allow me to do so. We have now come to the end of what I regard as being an extremely sorry episode in the entire political pattern which has developed in respect of the Coloured population. Nevertheless I do still want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having indeed done what he said in this House he would do, i.e. to offer the chairmanship of the Executive of the CRC to the leader of the Labour Party and also to ensure, in his nomination of the 20 members, that the Labour Party would have a functional majority in the CRC.

Say thank you for that.

I have already done so but if it will make the hon. member happy I want to tell the hon. the Minister again that I appreciate what he did.

Let us put this matter in its true perspective now. We must see it against the background of the powers which the Minister already has at his disposal. I am referring to the powers he received in 1972. It is true that before legislation may be introduced, it must first meet with his approval, but there are a tremendous number of other powers which the hon. the Minister also has. One of the last points raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay was the argument that the CRC would only meet after the present session of Parliament had ended, and that it would then be too late to take action if that appeared to be necessary. I do not know whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay has taken cognizance of section 15(2)(a) of the Act, in which it is provided that the Minister may appoint such times as he thinks fit for sessions of the CRC, and that he may also, from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, or otherwise prorogue the CRC. If this were really a consideration, surely the hon. the Minister has full powers in terms of the Act to convene the CRC before this session is prorogued. The only limitation is that the CRC shall convene not less than once every 12 months but there is no limitation on the number of times it may convene.

One of the other arguments was that the chairman of the Executive might refuse to carry out his duties. In this regard I want to refer the hon. member for Mossel Bay to the provisions of section 17(2) which reads that the State President may at any time remove the chairman of the Executive from office. If the chairman of the Executive does not carry out his duties, the State President has the power to remove him from office. Then it goes further. Section 17(3) provides that a vacancy in the Executive shall be filled by the designation of a substitute—the State President designates the chairman in the same manner as in the case of the member whose seat has become vacant. In other words, the chairman of the Council may be removed from office and at the same time there is, on the other hand, the power to nominate someone else to his position in terms of section 17(3) of the Act. Section 17(4) then provides that when the chairman of the Executive is for any reason unable to perform his duties, or if the office of chairman is vacant, i.e. if he has been removed from office by the State President or by the hon. the Minister, the Minister may designate another member of the Council to serve as acting chairman until the chairman is able to resume his office or until the vacancy is filled. In other words, even if the chairman of the Executive were to fail to carry out his functions, the hon. the Minister still has the power to dismiss him and put someone else in his place. It was also said that the Executive cannot be properly constituted— in other words, persons who have been designated to the Executive may refuse to meet or to function. Once again I want to point out that a quorum of three is required for a meeting of the Executive, and if there is no quorum, section 17(5) makes provision for that. In other words, if there are too many vacancies in the Executive and a quorum cannot be achieved, the chairman carries out the duties of the Executive until such time as the vacancies have been filled. In conclusion I want to draw attention to section 17(6)(a) in terms of which the Executive of the Council may carry out all the functions of the Council except in so far as the making of laws is concerned, while the Council is not in session. That is, if the Executive does not function, the chairman of the Executive may act in its stead, and as far as the chairman of the Executive is concerned, the hon. the Minister has the discretion, under specified circumstances, to dismiss him and appoint someone else in his place. As regards the considerations mentioned here as to why it is essential that legislation be introduced at this stage, not one of those considerations, in my opinion, have any degree of validity.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Unfortunately my time does not allow that. Let us pause for a moment at the possible implications of this. It is very clear—and the hon. member for Mossel Bay said this—that this is a subordinate body. It has also become clear here that the Coloured Persons Representative Council cannot be seen in any other way than as a relatively insignificant and subordinate body in the machinery established for the serving of the constitutional interests of the Coloureds. The argument which is advanced year after year is that the Coloured Persons Representative Council is a Parliament. I have heard so many members on the opposite side of the House and people elsewhere say that it is a Parliament. To think that we are going to treat a Coloured Parliament in this way— and I am weighing my words—with this contempt, I find to be totally and absolutely incomprehensible.

This Council is seen as the form in which the political aspirations of the Coloureds can be implemented and embodied. If this is true, the system, as a system, can only function properly and fulfil that function provided it is voluntarily accepted by the Coloured population itself. But now it is being alleged that the system can only function when this coercive measure is available, the attitude is that “if you do not do as I want you to do, or if you do not carry out your functions as stated in the Act, then I assume the power to take steps myself to carry out all the functions other than legislative functions which you had to fulfil myself.”.

Why so?

All I want to contend is that we should not in that case see this Council as the embodiment of the means by which the political aspirations of the Coloureds can be satisfactorily fulfilled, but as a subordinate, insignificant body which we can treat as we like. That is how simple it is.

Order! Hon. members must please not disregard the ruling already given by the Chair on a previous occasion, viz. that the principle of this Bill relates only to the additional powers which are being given to the Minister to carry out the functions of the CRC.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I gladly respect that ruling. I said that the Council can only function if it has the confidence of the Coloureds, and my contention now is that in passing this measure we will be destroying the confidence which the Coloured population has in the Council itself. That is the essence of my argument. In the last place I want to say that the Council can only function if a spirit of confidence exists between the Council itself and this Government. I want to repeat that when we act in this way we really cannot expect such a spirit of confidence to develop.

In conclusion I want to say that I am convinced that this measure is in fact going to strengthen the hands of those members of the Coloured population who are opposed to the Council. I expect that as a result of this measure which we are now on the point of adopting, even greater opposition will develop among the Coloured population to the CRC as a body which has to make provision for the realization of the political aspirations of the Coloured population.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but after having listened to them and to the Second Reading debate, I am more convinced than ever that this is an essential piece of legislation in the light of events which have taken place, and statements, and even threats, which would have prejudiced the functioning of the CRC very seriously. I am convinced that no argument has been advanced from that side of the House which carries any weight, or which could persuade us to revise or abandon this legislation.

I want to refer here quickly to a few statements made by the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member pointed to the supposed incongruity in that the hon. the Minister had now asked the Leader of the Labour Party to become chairman of the Executive. This supposedly constituted a kind of inconsistency in that we, although we had no confidence in him, nevertheless asked him to become chairman. In the previous debates on this matter, I tried to point that we had in fact accepted the result of the election, the decision of the Coloured voters and the designation of the majority of the candidates for the Labour Party as such. We did not agree with the conduct of certain leaders of the Labour Party. We do not agree with certain objectives which they have, but we accept that those people were elected by the Coloureds. I see no inconsistency and no absurdity in this. On the contrary. I see it as a wise step now to ask the Leader of that party that was elected to serve their own people in the CRC to become chairman of the executive.

The hon. member for Edenvale also tried to imply that we are in fact proving with this action that the CRC is only an insignificant body and that we are through this legislation expressing our contempt for the CRC. On the contrary. We are in fact reacting to the contempt which certain people among the Coloureds expressed in respect of their own representative body, people who do not want to accept their own representative body and threatened to dissolve and to destroy it. We wanted to prevent the contempt of those people for their own representative body resulting in a breakdown, in chaos or in a crisis. Therefore, instead of displaying contempt for this body we have in fact with this action— even if it appears to be negative—placed a positive stamp on this Council by saying to them: “Friends, we want this Council to function; we want the representatives of the Coloureds to do this work in the interests of their own people.” This is not contempt; this is an honour we have shown those people.

The hon. member for Edenvale went on to say that the hon. the Minister had the right in any event to convene the Council before the prorogation of Parliament. This may be so on paper, but suppose these people do not react, but do what they threatened to do, which was that they did not want to co-operate and that it was their intention to destroy the Council? Surely they would not even react in that case, when called upon to convene.

In addition the hon. member for Edenvale used the word “big stick”. I take it that he did not mean this in any derogatory sense. He presented this Bill as if it has to be the big stick with which to force the Coloureds, as it were, to concurrence or complaisance, to put them in their place or something of this nature. I hope I am interpreting the hon. member correctly.

Mossel Bay said that.

I do not know whether he used the words “big stick”. It is one thing to represent the Bill as being a big stick and another thing to represent it as it really is, viz. as a sensible precaution in view of the threat to defeat the purpose of the CRC. This legislation is therefore a precaution for a situation which these people threatened they would allow to develop. Therefore one cannot speak of a big stick to force people to carry out one’s policy; one is merely creating a precautionary measure with which one wishes to prevent those things which were threatened.

I want to state emphatically that what the hon. member for Edenvale said, i.e that we are destroying the confidence the Coloureds have in the CRC, is not true. This is not a destruction of confidence. We are in fact declaring our confidence in that body in that we are intimating that we want that body to function. Hon. members opposite did not, however, take the threats which were uttered seriously. They thought that what these people were saying was mere talk. I want to ask those hon. members what honour they are showing those people by implying that they can talk as much as they like, but that no notice will be taken of them. We said: “Very well, if you are being serious, we are prepared to listen to what you are saying. What you are saying is very dangerous. What you are saying is subversive of your own institutions. We are prepared to accept the responsibility of ensuring that you do not destroy your own institutions, which will function in the interests of your own people.” Sir, I think this is good guardianship which we are exercising in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the Minister could simply have picked up a telephone and spoken to Mr. Leon. One wonders at what stage the Minister should have telephoned the leader of the Labour Party.

But surely he said at what stage.

At what stage? At that stage when the leader of the Labour Party was still turning over in his mind whether he would accept the responsibility or whether he would carry out his threats? That is in fact the point I want to deal with now. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana reproached the Minister for having reacted to contradictory newspaper reports. I want to contend specifically that the hon. the Minister did not react to contradictory newspaper reports. He reacted to reports which indicated that a reorientation was taking place among the leaders of the Labour Party; that they were in the process of establishing: “But where do we stand now that we have received the mandate? Should we carry out the mandate and destroy this body, or should we react as responsible people and look after and promote the interests of our people by means of this Council?” When should the hon. the Minister have picked up the telephone to speak to these people? In any case, I think the hon. the Minister did a wonderful thing by saying to the Leader of the Labour Party, who advocates a certain policy and who states that he received a mandate for a policy which was in conflict with, the policy advocated by the National Party: “We should like you to act as chairman of the Executive; we should like you to take this responsibility. It makes no difference what demands you subsequently make. We can always debate those demands. We want you to accept this responsibility. At least you are then placing yourself in the position of accepting responsibility for your people and of acting as spokesman for your people.” What is wrong with that? Surely that is what we did.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Then why is the hon. member reproaching us? Sir, hon. members on that side are arguing against a blank background as if nothing happened, as if there were no threats, as if a situation had not been created over the years which this Government had to intercept. I hope you will allow me, Sir, for the sake of the argument, to quote a few extracts from the statements made by the leader of the Labour Party. I want to go back as far as 17 November 1974, when a report appeared in the Sunday Times of a verbatim interview which Mr. Hans Strydom had with Mr. Sonny Leon, and in which he asked Mr. Leon—

Is that the best evidence that you can produce?

The evidence the hon. member is referring to is very destructive to him; he should first listen for here is the verbatim reply of Mr. Sonny Leon. As a lawyer, the hon. member will surely know that oral evidence of a person himself is very important.

But do you believe the Sunday Times?

It is not the Sunday Times’ story; these are the words of Mr. Sonny Leon, but they were published in the Sunday Times. The emphasis does not fall on the Sunday Times. Sir. I do not have much reason to be very fond of it. But this is not comment, Sir; these are the actual words spoken by Mr. Sonny Leon. If the hon. member wishes to dispute this, he can dispute this with the newspaper. Mr. Leon replied as follows—

They want it destroyed. Then, later on in this paragraph—

The point I want to make here is that in November already, and in previous years, the leader of the Labour Party had intimated that they were completely dissatisfied with this council, that they regarded it as an apartheid institution, that they did not in fact recognize it and that they wanted to see it destroyed.

Is it not an apartheid institution?

Of course it is such an institution. [Interjections.] But the point I want to make is that those people want that body destroyed. They do not want to accept the body and they do not want to allow it to function. I am mentioning this as background to the legislation which was introduced here. On 20 March, the day after the polling took place, Mr. Sonny Leon is speaking again, this time in a report in The Cape Times. [Interjections.] I do not know what English-language newspaper I should quote to the Opposition which they would believe, for I do not think they have any left to support them. The reports states—

They wanted to close down and destroy it; they wanted to deprive it of its function. The same report then continued—

They are therefore even more determined to make this body quite defunct, and to rob it of its function; they want to close it down and do not want to allow it to function. Sir, I need not quote everything, but I must still make this point, for this is the point which the Opposition overlooks, as the immediate cause of the introduction of this legislation.

The same applies to the Rand Daily Mail. On the 22nd they published a report of an interview which they had conducted on the 21st with the leader of the Labour Party. This was two days after the elections had taken place, when it was clear that the majority had voted for the Labour Party. Here Mr. Leon had even more to say, namely—

In other words, they do not want any co-operation with the Government. They want to carry out the mandate, namely to destroy this body. He went on to say—

Now he is suddenly dismayed, but I do not think it is so much a dismay at intervention in the functioning of the CRC. I think his dismay arose from the fact that he realized that his plan to destroy this body would not succeed and that he was therefore obliged to reconsider how he could continue to remain in the picture. [Interjections.] I want to indicate what the climate is to which, we are reacting. He said—

The point is that it was their firm intention to destroy the body and at their first meeting when they convened they would move that the Council be destroyed and abolished. The same thing is said in a report in the Rand Daily Mail of that day, “Plan to close down the CRC”. Sir, this is not repetition on my part. They were dismayed at the speech made by the Prime Minister at Smithfield in which the Prime Minister warned that there was much goodwill between the Whites and the Coloureds in South, Africa, and in which the Labour Party were asked not to destroy or prejudice that goodwill and the degree of confidence which existed between these two groups.

We find the same position in an interview, to which I am simply referring, in The Cape Times of 22 March, once again an interview with the leader of the Labour Party. This time it is The Cape Times, and here, on the other hand, the following appears—

The issue here is not legislation, not to abandon this legislation, but—

It makes no difference now what he said about it—the point is that he wanted it destroyed. In one interview after another he stated that they were dissatisfied with the existence of this body. He went further—

Sir, I want the Opposition to take note of this. These are not contradictory reports to which the hon. the Minister reacted, he reacted to a fluctuating and changing standpoint of the Labour Party and of its leader. That is what we are dealing with. When he was asked what they would do at the next session of the CRC, he said—

Now there is another theme in the song he is singing. Now he is no longer so definite in his rejection of this body. Now he says that it depends on the Government, and there one has the turning point. But indicative of the uncertainty of those days, the following paragraphs reads—

Now he was reproaching us because we had allegedly dealt the CRC a destructive blow, after he was the one who had wanted to destroy the body. He said that we are not entitled to preserve it for otherwise we would be prejudicing the sovereignty of the CRC! What we want to do is to preserve the CRC so that it can fulfil its function, but now they are saying that when we want to do this it is we who want to prejudice its sovereignty. Sir, such is the confusion in those ranks! But then a change came about among those people and they declared themselves prepared to serve on it after all.

Here and there it was still being said that they would accept their duties after all and then destroy it from within. According to The Sunday Tribune of 23 March, they said: “… but we will stay put to destroy it from within, said Mr. Leon”.

According to Die Burger of 22 March he was telling a different story, namely (translation)—

Here he was claiming that as elected leader of the majority in the CRC he should become chairman, but he still did not tell us that he wanted to become chairman in order to destroy this body. Nevertheless, he wanted to be chairman; he wanted to occupy a very responsible position within the framework of this institution. He went further and stated that his party was going to request an interview with the Prime Minister, and was going to demand at that interview that as elected leader he be appointed chairman of the executive. Here we find that the people are in the process of thinking in terms of greater responsibility towards the people whose interests they have to serve. He says that they are the governing party in the CRC and he expects the office of the Prime Minister to be just as accessible to them as it has been in the past to nominated members. What else does this tell us but that a change had come about in the approach of the leader of the Labour Party in respect of the CRC as an instrument through which the interests of the Coloureds had to be served and that he was prepared to fulfil a key function in serving the interests of the Coloured people? That is what this report tells us.

Therefore this legislation is not necessary.

Wait, once again that hon. member is talking too much. He has spoken out of turn on more that one occasion. I want to furnish the hon. member with an immediate reply to the statement he made, and refer him to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times. I quote—

He went on to say—

Once again he wants it destroyed. This is precisely the reason for the introduction of this Bill, which caused the leader of that party to reflect on what he should do. He displayed two reactions. Firstly, he said that he stood by his mandate, and that he was going to request that the council be abolished. The other was that they were not going to request that it be abolished, but that they were going to preserve it in order to destroy it from within, as was stated.

Now one sees what is at stake. Here we have a contradictory reaction by the same leader. The one moment he wants to destroy this body and the next moment he states: “We shall serve on it and then destroy it from within.” The very next minute, he says: “I want to be chairman of the Executive, and I want to hold talks with the Prime Minister. I hope his door will be as open to me as it was to the representatives of the Federal Party.” What can we deduce from this except that there are contradictions in the statements of the leader of the Labour Party? I think we may infer from this that these people have come to their senses and have within the space of a few days displayed a greater sense of responsibility. The hon. member interrupted me and put a question. I want to quote as follows from Die Burger (translation)—

I would be pleased if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central would listen to this. I am quoting further—

What does this mean but that they have come to their senses? They did so precisely as a result of the legislation which was introduced here. If it had not been introduced, their intention was to carry out their mandate—if one can put it in that way—which was to destroy the CRC. I think I have made my point in this regard clear and I want to conclude with a few observations.

I think this Bill has already produced very good results. The Labour Party has come to realize a few things, and we give them credit for that. The first thing they realize is that we accept the decision of the Coloured voters. I think they realize that they cannot be left behind and that if the Whites, the National Party Government and the Opposition has accepted the result of the election of Coloured representatives, then the Labour Party which professes to be the representatives of those people themselves, surely cannot refuse to accept this decision as well. That decision does not only mean that they have a mandate to carry out the promises they made to the voters. The election also means that Coloureds, on an electoral roll for Coloureds have expressed an opinion and have elected Coloureds to look after their affairs in a Coloured Parliament. This is important.

The second thing the Labour Party realizes—and I appreciate their doing so—is that we have no intention of taking the work from their hands. This is diametrically opposed to the accusation from that side of the House purporting that we want to undermine the confidence in that Council and hold the Coloureds in contempt. On the contrary. What we do want is that these people should do their work themselves and face up to the problems of their own people. These people must experience the satisfaction of being of service to their own people, we do not want to deprive them of this, nor do we want to do this to them.

The third thing which the Labour Party realize very well after these events, and I think is realizing more thoroughly all the time, is that they have been designated to be the mouthpiece of their own people. It is true that they are agitating to come into this Parliament, but on whose behalf are they speaking? They are speaking on behalf of the Brown people, and if they are speaking on behalf of the Coloureds, they are doing precisely what we basically envisage with an institution such as the CRC, viz. that the representatives of the Coloured voters should speak on behalf of their own people. When they do that, they are complying with a fundamental requirement, or objective, which was instituted with the establishment of the CRC.

They can speak, but they cannot act.

We are acting. These people realize that the National Party believes in its policy of self-determination. When we speak of self-determination we distinguish this from joint determination over someone else.

Oooh!

The hon. member for Durban Central has almost had a fit now. He was probably thinking of the policy of his own party. That is enough to give him two fits. The Coloureds have grasped the standpoint of the Government, and this is what compelled the leader of the Labour Party to say that he sees that the Government is in earnest about implementing its policy and that the Government does not intend to allow itself to be put off by threats, but that this party is prepared to implement its policy of self-determination. Even though the Brown people have not yet reached the final stage —perhaps they are still far from the final stage of actual and full self-determination —they have at least been placed on a foundation now from which self-determination is possible for them without its constituting a joint determination over the affairs of other ethnic groups.

Spell out to us your future policy with regard to the Coloureds.

I shall do it better than the hon. member for Albany stated the policy of your party. [Interjections.] There is something else which is very clearly realized by the Labour Party, viz. that we sec their leaders as bearers of their own responsibilities, for how else does one interpret the leader of the Labour Party—his caucus supported him in this —asking to become chairman of the Executive? He therefore wants to be the mouthpiece when they meet the Prime Minister. If it had still been the intention of the Labour Party to destroy the CRC then I do not think he would have appreciated an opportunity to hold talks with the Prime Minister. He would not have appreciated an opportunity of becoming chairman of the Executive. The leaders of the Labour Party realized that we see them as the bearers of responsibilities towards their own people. An English writer, Henry Drummond once said: “To be trusted, is to be liberated.” I think the confidence which the Coloured voters placed in the Labour Party, as well as the confidence the Government places in the Labour Party by inviting its leader to become chairman of the Executive, has to an important degree had a liberating effect on the desperation which there was in the approach of these people prior to the election. It has had a liberating effect on their threats and has liberated them so that they have really been able to become of service to their own people.

I think we have indirectly achieved something else with this legislation as well, viz. that the Coloureds realize that they are faced with an entirely new dispensation. This is that the CRC is no longer controlled by nominated persons. This was one of their major objections, and this now falls away.

But why were there nominated members to begin with?

Surely this was the idea from the start, and consequently it was agreed that there would be nominated members. What is the hon. member’s difficulty in that regard?

Who asked for that?

It was the same in the Transkei too where the hon. member lives. Should we have nominated him in the Transkei?

They asked for it on the commission. [Interjections.]

Order!

What was done in Griqualand East was also done in regard to the CRC.

The hon. members opposite really have nothing to say. The CRC is no longer controlled by nominated persons, and this is progress. The next step will be to have elected members only. It was the intention that the CRC would eventually consist of elected members only.

The next step, which ushers in a new dispensation, is that the Labour Party is prepared to talk to the Prime Minister. In other words, it is prepared to do more than merely sit in peevish refusal to accept responsibility, or merely to sabotage, it is prepared, to hold talks now. It is a step in the direction of a relaxation of tension— if there has been any tension—in White/ Coloured relationships in South Africa, that the people are now prepared to sit down around a conference table and talk to the Prime Minister, to voice any grievance or objection in full and at the same time be informed of the claims to which the White man in South Africa is also entitled, and to be confronted with the wisdom of national government as it is advocated by the National Party Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have had two replies from the other side of the House during this Third Reading debate on the Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill. The one quarrel they have had with this side of the House is that we have constantly repeated certain basic arguments and that nothing new has come up. It is quite clear that nothing new is going to come from that side either. Once again we have had a long list of questions, this time from the hon. member for Waterberg. The anthology of newspaper-cuttings was interesting, but I am sure that most of us have read them before.

Tell us about the letter.

I will do just that. This is an obvious reference to the comments made by the hon. member for Green Point yesterday who read the letter I wrote to the municipality of Pinelands. The hon. member for Green Point as well as hon. members on my left who should know this better than I do because they have had to listen to him longer than I have, should know that, if you cannot answer the argument of an opponent, what you do is that you resort to personal tactics. The fact of the matter is that I wrote the letter. I do not apologize for having done so. Anyone who suggests that there is any indication in the letter that the residents of Langa should not walk through the residential areas of Pinelands is talking absolute nonsense. That is not what the letter says. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the municipality acted on the advice contained in the letter they would have gone right through the very heart of Pinelands. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the principle of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I hope I shall have another opportunity soon to reply to this spurious kind of criticism.

The member for Waterberg surprised me by one omission. I would have thought that, having discussed the attitude of the leader of the Labour Party towards this Bill and towards the council itself, and having discussed the attitude of his own Government towards this Bill and towards the Council, he would also have told us a little more about his own attitude towards the council. Indeed, I am amazed that he did not suggest that the council should be closed down. We all know that he is in favour of a Colouredstan. We also know that you cannot have a representative council and a Colouredstan. We were wondering why this part of his argument was omitted. Perhaps he will tell us a little more about it later on.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay talked about the suspicion of members on this side of the House and on these benches in particular towards this Bill and towards other Bills. He is, of course, quite right. Whenever one looks at a Bill brought before this House by that Government in regard to Coloured affairs and in regard to the relationships between one group and another, one must, of course, look at it very carefully. The whole history of this Government suggests that one should look at it with a great deal of suspicion. The hon. member could not understand why we were so critical of the Government’s motivation in bringing forward this Bill. He then, however, went on to question our motives in challenging the introduction and the passing of this Bill. This means that we have a quid pro quo here. Once again, of course we have had the charges of being unpatriotic because we have dared to criticize the hon. the Minister publicly in this way in this House which has been reported throughout the country. When the hon. member was asked a question about consultation with Coloured voters, his immediate reply was: You imagine that you are here on the basis of the Coloured voters rather than the White voters. It is the White voters who ought to be consulted in this matter. The fact is that here we have the very heart of the dilemma and the very heart of the criticism which we have against this Bill. That Government has a mandate from its White voters. [Interjections.] Yes, that Government, your Government, call it what you will. That party has a mandate from its voters to follow the policy of separate development. The dilemma is that the Coloured voters who supported the Labour Party gave them a very different mandate. That mandate is to oppose apartheid with everything that they have. That is why you have that dilemma. The essential question is: What do you do when on the one hand you have a mandate from one group and a different mandate from another? When I listened to the hon. member for Waterberg it seemed clear that the Coloured people through their council have every right and every opportunity to discuss and to debate the matters that concern themselves and their wellbeing. There comes a time when it may well be—and it is highly probable—that the Coloured people through their representatives will come into direct conflict with this Government’s policy. As a result of that one has to ask the question: What then? That is the crux of the matter. Here we have seen the introduction of a Bill at the very time when the Coloured people were giving a mandate to a party which had made it transparently clear that it was in direct opposition to apartheid or separate development, call it what you will. I notice that no one has referred to those newspaper cuttings. Although we have looked at the matter again and again and have heard all the various comments, no one on that side of the House has quoted Mr. Sonny Leon’s or anyone else’s utterances before the election. Nobody quoted their platform on which they said: Vote for us because we stand against something and we stand for something. Nobody quoted that. [Interjections.] Of course he is saying it. Now the hon. member for Waterberg says that with the introduction of this Bill, the leader of the Labour Party and his immediate council have changed their minds and have decided to co-operate. What is the implication of this? [Interjections.] Let us assume for a moment that the argument that they have changed their minds is correct. According to the hon. member for Waterberg they have changed their minds as a direct result of the introduction of this Bill. This means that every time the Coloured people have a difference of opinion with the Government through their elected representatives, all you have to do is to confront them with further legislation. I suggest that this is the way of bankruptcy, this is the cul de sac and this is the way that you are going to have the end of the road brought far closer than it has ever been before. [Interjections.] The motivation that we have in opposing this Bill is that it is not in the best interests of the Coloured people and it is not in the best interests of South Africa. Surely that is good enough reason for opposing this Bill as strongly as we can? We on these benches began by opposing the Bill at its First Reading and we gave our reasons then. At the Second Reading we tried to develop them a little more because there was more time and we tried to give further reasons. We have now come to the Third Reading and are approaching the end of a very long and rather tedious but nevertheless important discussion and debate on the whole question of this Bill and the future relationships between the Coloured people and this Parliament, the Coloured people and the Government, and the policy of this whole country in relation to the Coloured people. At the Committee Stage of this Bill various arguments were advanced but, with the exception of the amendment which was introduced by the hon. the Minister himself, all this was to no avail. When I referred to section 20 of the principal Act, the hon. the Minister said in his reply that this was splitting hairs and that it was really an argument of no consequence. The Bill itself is at fault and not the arguments which were presented, because the Bill itself makes it clear in the second clause that if the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the chairman of the executive, the executive or the council, fails, for whatever reason, to exercise or to perform in terms of the Bill any power, function or duty confirmed or imposed by the Bill, he may take certain action. I suggested in my argument that if one looked at section 20 of the principal Act, one realized that there was a great number of powers conferred on the council such as obligations and responsibilities, and that if the hon. the Minister should take them upon himself, for whatever reason, then what one was actually saying was that the policy had collapsed and that the council itself no longer existed, because it is a contradiction in terms to talk about delegating powers and then to take them back again for whatever reason. The fault lies then in the wording of the Bill. If this was not intended, then the wording ought to have been altered accordingly. We have heard that it took months for this Bill to be drawn up, and if it took such a long time, surely it could have been framed with greater care so as to make it perfectly clear what was intended. Mr. Speaker, the argument of hon. members on that side during the Second Reading debate and at the Committee Stage was an absolute contradiction, for one speaker after another on that side rose and said: “On the one hand we must have this Bill; on the other hand, we have full confidence in the Labour Party.” If there was full confidence in the Labour Party, then what on earth was the reason for this Bill?

You are splitting hairs.

The hon. member for Waterberg made much of the fact that the hon. the Minister has now offered the chairmanship of the executive to Mr. Sonny Leon. Everyone is very thrilled about this, very glad and very grateful. It is the obvious and the right thing to have done. Sir, if only that had happened without this Bill, what a greater degree of trust there would have been; what a much better start there would have been in the consultations between the hon. the Minister himself and the chairman of the executive and between the chairman of the executive and the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Sir, there is very little climate of trust, and the hon. the Minister’s comments during the Second Reading debate did not exactly help that along either. Among other things, he said (Hansard col. 3499)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

That is, one of the major reasons for this Bill to restrain the Labour Party—

Mr. Speaker, the whole attitude of the Government towards the leadership of the Labour Party is not conducive to the introduction of a climate of trust that will enable the best things to happen for the Coloured people of this land and for all of us in this land. Mr. Speaker, the effects of this Bill have been and will be very far-reaching indeed. The Bill affects the Coloured people themselves. It directly affects all the people of South Africa because we all need to work together. It affects the whole climate in Southern Africa and in the wider world. We must work with people and not against people, not by threats and not by offering some sort of confrontation situation by introducing this legislation, just in case they refuse to play the game we want them to play, in the hope that this legislation will bring them to their senses.

Finally, Sir, there is one question which all of us must surely be asking if one looks at the very heart of this legislation and what it tries to do, and that is: Where do we go from here? Here one has to consider the attitude of the Coloured people, brown South Africans. Whatever change of mind has taken place—and I am not at all sure that any of us really knows exactly how it is going to go—one thing is very clear. There has been no change of mind on the part of the leader of the Labour Party and indeed I see no evidence of a change of mind on the part of the large body of Coloured people in its attitude towards the policy of separate development. It is quite clear that their aim and objective is still full citizenship, sovereignty and direct representation in this Parliament. Now, in regard to this Bill, in its wording and attitude, and in regard to the speeches, we must also ask about the attitude of the Government. The ex-Chief Whip asked us to use the concept of guardianship. This means that we must talk about the Coloured people, including Mr. Leon, as political minors. One wonders just how long this must continue. [Interjections.] If the guardianship term applies then it is logical to conclude that the people who are under the guardianship of the White Parliament must be seen as political minors, and I say that that is an insult. [Interjections.] I am addressing you and others but you will not listen of course.

In conclusion I want to refer again to the dilemma to which I referred earlier, viz. of two mandates. Some have asked: What is your alternative, what is your solution? Sir, some members on that side may be surprised when I say that my advice, if it is worth anything at all is to say to the members of that Government that they must return to their political forefathers, to their spiritual ancestors, if you like. For example, one thinks of the words of one who said that Nationalists in Parliament have held the view that the Cape Coloured people must be treated on the basis of equality with Europeans economically, industrially and politically. That was said by Gen. Hertzog. Dr. D. F. Malan stated: “Segregation of the Coloureds is not only impossible but also unnecessary.” I suggest that that is our attitude and therefore we support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just resumed his seat, said that this particular Bill is not in the interests of the Coloureds —that it is not in the interests of South Africa. The standpoint of this side of the House in that regard is, and it has been proved by the debate, and I am going to dwell on this, that this entire Bill is in fact in the interests of the Coloureds, is in fact in the interests of colour relationships in this country, and is therefore in the interests of South Africa as such. This statement the hon. member for Pinelands has made, he has based on two things. In the first place he says that he foresees the day when there will be direct conflict between the Coloureds and the Government. He says that when that day of conflict arrives, this Bill, which will by then be law, will be a contributory factor to making that conflict all the greater. But the opposite is true. If this legislation is not introduced, if these loopholes exist, if the Coloured leaders keep the promises they made to their electorate and the CRC is paralysed and chaos arises—I will come to this again in my speech—then surely it is going to result in a far greater conflict than there could ever have been before. The hon. member for Pinelands asked why this Bill is necessary. Surely he heard explicitly, in the quotation which the hon. member for Waterberg referred to, of the threats that were made that the CRC would be paralysed and boycotted. He asked this side of the House what purpose the Bill serves. I shall tell him not only what purpose it is going to serve, but also what major purpose the Bill has already served, even before it was placed on the Statute Book. I want to quote from an interview which Die Burger had with Mr. Sonny Leon on 25 March 1975. Just listen to what was said here [translation]—

Here the Bill has therefore already served a purpose, even before it has become law. Then the hon. member for Pinelands is so ignorant as to say that he is unable to understand what purpose this Bill could serve. Surely the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Sonny Leon, is definitely a far greater realist than the hon. member for Pinelands. Immediately Mr. Sonny Leon was faced with the responsibility, he accepted the challenge. We have respect and appreciation for this. He immediately realized that there is a Coloured nation which he has to look after and in whose interests he must act. Therefore he tried to correct his mistakes. The hon. member for Pinelands, however, is not a realist; he must still be taught how to learn. He does not realize what it is all about. What he said in this part of his speech about this specific Bill is therefore mere words.

He swims in Sea Point and writes letters about Pinelands.

Yes, and in addition he opens the gates to Langa.

Order!

Let us now deal with the Bill as such. If we deal with the main object, the crux of the Bill, we see that this is a preventive measures which has a fourfold purpose. In the first place the object of the Bill is to prevent a negative situation which may arise. It is as clear as daylight that this situation could arise, and we must prevent such negative, wilful behaviour. To prevent that statutory body, its chairman, the council and the Executive refusing to perform their duties, it is necessary in the second place that the necessary powers to do this are assumed by the hon. the Minister, not to the benefit of this Parliament, but to the benefit of the Coloureds in the first place, and, secondly, to the benefit of the Coloureds and the Whites jointly—in contrast therefore to what the hon. member for Pinelands said, to the benefit of South Africa. The third aspect of this Bill is that the Minister may only make use of his powers when, in his discretion, he finds it necessary. The Bill states very clearly that the Minister can do this “if the Minister is convinced …” that it is necessary. These are the words of the new section 22A(1) as inserted by clause 2 of the Bill. Furthermore, the same subsection provides that the Minister “may” make use of this. What Minister, who has to account to this House, who has to account to the people of South Africa and who has, through this House, to account to the outside world, would dare to exercise his discretion and make use of these powers unless it were absolutely necessary? Can hon. members name me one example where a Minister has ever abused his discretionary powers? In the fourth place, and this is important, because the whole Bill revolves around this, it is a fact that it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to make use of these powers in this Bill unless one specific situation arises, namely if the CRC, the executive or the chairman deliberately find a way of bringing the entire organization and administration for Coloureds in this country to a standstill. Only then will the Minister make use of these powers. How, then, can the hon. member for Pinelands say that the powers given by this Parliament to the CRC are now being withdrawn? Surely that is absolute nonsense. Surely it is not true that powers which were delegated are now being revoked. The powers which were delegated, were placed in the hands of responsible people because it was believed that they would use and apply the powers with responsibility. But when threats are made, and this has already been done, that this Government is to be boycotted, that the powers are not going to be used, and that conflict will take place, as the hon. member for Pinelands foresees, then this House places additional powers in the hands of the Minister who will apply them for the meaningful continued existence of the CRC. I think the Opposition and the party of the hon. member for Pinelands are very sorry that the leader of the Labour Party publicly declared that he would accept leadership and his appointment as chairman and that he is going to account to his people for having done so. Hon. members on the other side are like typical political finches, but unfortunately what could have become a “happening” and could have been blown up by them, has now fallen flat. With that their entire argument collapses. What was the negative background which made it necessary for such a Bill to be brought to this House, apart from what has already been said here repeatedly? There were the threats of boycott, of bringing it to a standstill, and of an absolute, direct confrontation. But further there is also the existence of negative, self-appointed, advisory agitators who make propaganda behind the scenes amongst the Coloureds of this country and who plant the idea and sow the seed among well intended people to revolt against their own institution, which has thus far functioned well and gradually received, and will still receive, more powers.

Order! The hon. members must not converse so loudly among themselves.

What is the further negative background? It is the consciousness of the existence of anti-White antagonism which was used as election propaganda by a party which simply wanted to use it to get into office. I cannot put it more clearly than to quote from a letter of W. D. Pieterse, an ex-member of the Council, when he said the following in Die Burger (translation)—

And the Boraines.

I will still come to the Boraines. I read further—

Listen how beautifully it is put—

Take note, Sir, that there has been progress as a result of the powers and as a result of the facilities established by this Government. I read further—

This is quite typical of the behaviour of all the Opposition parties during all the stages of this Bill—

Surely this is what this entire matter is all about. Would this Government not have been neglecting its duty shamefully if it had not come forward with this Bill and an explosion had taken place, because there happened to be a loophole which could have been used, and according to all promises would have been used, to make a “scene” here, as the Englishman says? Would this Government not have been untrue to itself and to this House if it had not acted in time to prevent such a situation? How would the Opposition not have carried on if such a chaotic situation had in fact arisen! Do you know, Sir, what they would then have done? They would have said: “This Government created bad legislation; it did not foresee such a situation, therefore it is because of this that the CRC, its whole functioning and administration, has been paralysed.”

During the debate many scare-mongering stories were noised abroad and accusations were made by the members on this side of the House, stories and accusations which are unbelievable if one subjects them to close scrutiny.

Name them.

Name them? It was said that the Minister wants to take over the powers of the chairman, of the Council and of the Executive.

The legislative powers.

No, the administrative duties. As far as the legislative powers are concerned, the hon. member knows that the Minister on his own initiative came forward and said that he did not want to encroach upon the legislative powers of this Council. The accusation was made that the Minister wanted to obtain complete control over pensions, schools, the colleges, education—everything. Surely it is incredible to think that all the powers the CRC has will now suddenly be taken over by the Minister.

He will have those powers under certain circumstances.

They also said that the Minister would to all intents and purposes be the chairman of the CRC, and also that he begrudged the Coloureds self-government and that this was another “baas-skap” step. This again is the terminology they always use when they are in trouble. Furthermore it was said that this is discriminatory legislation. It is unbelievable! Where is there possibility of discrimination in this? It is after all legislation which is being created to assist. It was even said that this Bill would be injurious to the whole détente effort and might even wreck it completely. Is it not unbelievable! The leader of the hon. member for Pinelands said the Government is engaged in political fraud in regard to the Coloured electorate in changing the constitution of the CRC behind the backs of the Coloureds. Why is appreciation not expressed, instead for the fact that we are introducing this Bill just at this delicate moment without it harming the course of the election of Coloured Council members in any way? Furthermore, it was said that this Bill is dictatorial, but surely it remains subject at all times to the fact that it will only be implemented if the CRC should fail to perform its duties. There were other scare-mongering stories as well. It was for instance said that the Government is insensitive to the attitude of the Coloured electorate. You do, after all, know, Sir, that the Government is always prepared, and has declared repeatedly, that it will also be prepared in the future, to have consultations with the newly elected Labour Party as often as possible in the interests of the Coloureds.

Hon. members on the opposite side even said that the Government introduced this Bill, because this Government’s policy on the Coloureds had collapsed. It is unbelievable! I maintain that the Opposition parties launched this attack with only one object in mind, and that was not to serve a good purpose or to act in the interests of the Coloureds and in the interests of South Africa, but out of frustration, because the Coloureds cannot sit with them in this Parliament.