Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Second Reading debate on this Appropriation Bill. Although the contributions of individual members differed appreciably, I found the debate quite interesting. It is my intention to react to what has been said here.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement immediately about the allegation that there has been an irregular leakage with regard to the recent Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I was on the point of coming to that. I shall react to that now, but I must say that I will have to deviate a little from the speech I wanted to make this afternoon precisely to say something about that matter.

†Mr. Speaker, I have before me a copy of The Sunday Tribune of yesterday’s date which carries a banner headline on the front page: “Was Horwood’s Budget leaked?” Just above that banner headline we find the following—

I want to draw the attention of the House to this report. It states—

They go on to say—

A purely anonymous source—

The report continues—

I do not want to quote the entire report. However, a little further on, the report states—

The report continues—

The allegation here is a very grave one and a very crisp and narrow one. It is stated here that there was a Budget leak in the sense that one newspaper, Die Burger, was given a copy of the Budget speech at least a day before the Budget was presented to this House. That is the issue. The report goes on to say—

I shall deal with this allegation but, really, if ever there was a ridiculous statement it must be this one, because in December of last year when I announced the Government’s decision to build Sasol 2, this is what I said. I have before me a copy of The Natal Mercury of 6 December 1974 which reported the speech I made in Durban on the occasion of this announcement. This is what The Natal Mercury has to say—

Therefore, there was nothing secret about that. If it was to be done in the form of an excise duty which we thought was the right way to do it then obviously it had to be done in the Budget. Therefore, there was absolutely nothing new in this. One would really like to know who these Opposition financial experts are who had no idea that there was going to be an increase in the price of petrol. This is almost by the way when weighed against the allegation about the leakage of the Budget to the Press.

Incidentally, while I am dealing with this matter, may I just draw the attention of the House to The Daily News which is the stable companion of The Tribune. They occupy the same offices in Durban. What did The Daily News have to say on 25 March, the same day when it is alleged Die Burger printed its report? This was the day before the Budget. Their banner headline is—

This is pre-Budget information that The Daily News is giving. The report states—

Not only do they say that the petrol price is going to increase, but they almost give the exact figure! This paper goes further than Die Burger did. Die Burger mentioned three points. Firstly, the likelihood of the price of petrol being increased; secondly, a better deal for working wives; and thirdly, a better deal for pensioners. That was what Die Burger stated before the Budget, as did many other newspapers. However, this paper goes further. In addition to those three points which it says it expects in the Budget it also says that it expects a further rise in the petrol price because the National Road Fund has to have more money. This also happened in the Budget. This newspaper went even further than Die Burger did. However, there is no reference anywhere to The Daily News in this extremely scandalous allegation that I am dealing with now. That is the actual charge, namely that Die Burger was given a copy of the Budget speech at least a day before the speech was delivered. I say that this is an extremely grave allegation. The hon. member for Sea Point nods his head. He needs to, because he was the man who made an equally serious allegation against Iscor last year which we are still waiting to have substantiated today. As I said, this report has above it—

Sir, what is the implication of that to any ordinary person who has some knowledge of language? I say that the implication of that is perfectly clear; it is that there has been a Budget leak and there is now going to be a probe to establish how Die Burger could have had that information. The clear implication therefore is that Die Burger had pre-knowledge of the Budget, otherwise I do not understand English. That is my interpretation of that headline. I think that is a very serious aspect, too. But I am very interested in the timing of this sensational report. You see, Sir, the Budget Speech was delivered on 26 March. Thereafter we adjourned for the recess. This report appeared yesterday, 13 April, two and a half weeks after the Budget Speech was delivered. On 13 April, on the very eve of my reply to this debate, this sensational report hits the headlines and is read throughout the country and abroad. You may be quite sure, Sir, that this is common property in all the financial capitals of the world today. I would like to know why this was timed in this way. It is also interesting, Sir, because my distinguished predecessor, Dr. Diederichs, will be installed as State President in a few days’ time, and already there are arriving in this country, as there were during the weekend, a numger of distinguished financiers and bankers from throughout the free world who have come to pay homage to him on this occasion. It is interesting that just as they arrive, these sensational reports are distributed throughout the country. Sir, I am not so obtuse as not to know that this report is aimed at me personally. What does it say? It says that it was “Horwood’s Budget leak”. It does not say that there was a Budget leak; no, it says: “Horwood’s Budget leak.” The whole report is about me. There is a big picture of me with the caption: “Owen Horwood: Will he have to resign?” That is the issue. But it goes further. It says that in fact the fear is that this thing has been going on for at least five years. So Dr. Diederichs is involved. This is a very grave reflection on Dr. Diederichs as he is about to be installed in the highest office that this country can give him. But it goes further than that, Sir, and this is what I take the strongest exception to: It is the gravest possible reflection on the Secretary for Finance and his small handful of senior staff who in the very nature of things worked on this Budget with the Minister of Finance. Sir, these are top officials whose ability and whose absolute integrity are respected throughout the financial world; I can vouch for that. They are not able to get up here and to reply and to defend themselves. We are told that somebody leaked this Budget. Who could have leaked it? Not more than four or five people—that is what it amounts to—and these are amongst the most respected and senior officials in this country. Sir, I say that this is an exceptionally scurrilous and sordid matter that we are dealing with. I want to go further and say that obviously this was done with the greatest deliberation. There is nothing casual or accidental about this. This report was held back until the last minute. If you read this report, Sir, you will see why I regard it as sordid. It is scurrilous in the extreme. It is indeed not only a reflection on the Minister of Finance and his immediate predecessor and the top officials; I say this is a reflection on our whole parliamentary system. This is a reflection on Parliament. After all, what business is handled in Parliament that is more important than the Budget? This is an attack upon and a deliberate attempt to discredit the financial system of this country. By whom? By The Sunday Tribune, a newspaper which has so much to answer for in this country in my humble opinion that one marvels that it can still appear on our streets. I am talking, Sir, about personal information that I have and from personal experience. But, Sir, that is not all. Sir, I say that this is an infamous calumny which has been committed with the greatest possible deliberation.

Now, what does Die Burger say about this? Die Burger is the only newspaper that is involved. It is specifically named. Die Burger today said this, and I want to say that this is what has been specifically said to me and it has been said to the Secretary for Finance, who for the last three days has been working full-time to see whether there is the slightest title or jot of even a vague prima facie case that can be made out here, but who could find absolutely nothing. I was away during the weekend in the Free State. I happened to have the privilege of opening the Central Show there. I got back yesterday to be shown these sensational reports and ever since then I have been making inquiries and there is absolutely nothing that we can find whatsoever that can justify this. Die Burger, which is involved, says this—

It says there were two papers which mentioned this—

Then Die Burger says this—

This is the only accusation and Die Burger says that it is not true that this is the case. Then they say—

They go further and say—

They refer to the invalidity of the allegation and says further—

So it goes on.

So, Sir, I have to inform the House that there is no truth whatsoever in this scurrilous allegation. We have done everything possible, and the Secretary for Finance has personally made it his business to talk to the newspapermen who have anything to do with the Budget so far as Parliament and we ourselves are concerned, and the department is concerned, and he can find absolutely nothing anywhere to substantiate this grave allegation.

But unfortunately, Sir, that is not the end of the matter. You see, Sir, this report in The Sunday Tribune to my very great regret goes further and quotes what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is alleged to have said about this matter. It quotes what the hon. the leader of the Reform Party, Mr. Harry Schwarz, said and it also quotes what the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party, Mr. Eglin, said. If, Sir, you will bear with me for not more than a few minutes, I am going to read this—

Did you say “accusation” or “admission”?

“Accusation”.

The word was “admission”.

The word here is “accusation”. I am merely reading the report from The Sunday Tribune.

Someone must have changed your statement. [Interjections.]

The word appears again, because it says: “In both these cases the accusations were substantiated and the responsible Ministers resigned immediately.” Sir, I just want to read what the hon. member for Yeoville said—

Before I continue I would like to interpolate—it is interesting that this should be said—that, if Die Burger had got this Budget Speech at least a day before it was delivered, how is it that they made no reference to the big part that would interest the public, that is the increase in cigarette and liquor prices? How is it that that aspect, which hit the headlines, was never even mentioned? Let me quote the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party, Mr. Eglin—

They have all said that. He continued—

The question I would like to ask these hon. gentlemen is: How did they obtain this information? Here is a report said to be written by a man called Eugene Hugo, Did this gentleman who wrote this report and who quotes the hon. members whom I have mentioned, the leaders of the three opposition parties, tell them exactly that he had before him a rumour—that is all it was—from an unnamed informant to the effect that Die Burger had obtained a copy of the Budget Speech at least a day before it was delivered? Is that what he said to them? If this is so, how could they have reacted to an anonymous rumour? This is what they did. With all respect, I am not so much concerned about the other two hon. gentlemen, but I would like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he took care to ascertain precisely what he was dealing with. Did he ask this reporter what exactly the source of this very grave allegation was? In his own report, in his own writing, the reporter said that it was an unnamed informant. Presumably, therefore, he did not know. If he did not tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he was dealing with an entirely alleged anonymous informant, did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ask him where he had got his information? [Interjections.] I would like to go further and I would like to say that, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. gentlemen saw fit to make these comments from a high moral pedestal— here they speak about the sanctity of the public interest and of Parliament—and they spoke in these terms—I think the hon. member for Yeoville should sit down and be quiet for a moment…

Will the hon. Minister answer my question?

No, I will not.

You are afraid.

I want to say this …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the word “afraid”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “afraid”.

When these gentlemen told the public what the great standards of public morality in this country are, on the basis of an unnamed anonymous rumour, did it occur to them to say: “If this report is false and groundless, what a shocking position it would be for the newspaper and the Press of South Africa and therefore for public standards as well”? If I, who know nothing about this matter after non-stop and comprehensive inquiries have been made, and who cannot give a tittle or jot of an indication that there has been any leakage of any kind—and may I say, the specific charge is that Die Burger got the Budget Speech at least 24 hours before it was made and there is nothing to substantiate it—did it occur to these hon. gentlemen to say to this newspaper: “But are you not dealing with a very grave matter from your side as well?” Did they trouble to tell the public that, if the Minister, even in his complete innocence, must resign if anything like this had happened, then if this was in fact a false piece of mischief-making of the worst kind, the editor of this newspaper, and more so still in my humble opinion, the chairman of the Argus Company, should resign? I mean it. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Minister—I am not talking about myself personally in that capacity, but of the Minister of Finance—is told by all three of these gentlemen from this high moral plane, without a jot of evidence before them, that he must resign, what is then the position of the head of the company that owns this newspaper?

And what about Graaff himself?

With all respect, I just want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how he sees his own position at this moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply will he undertake, in view of these allegations, to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry … [Interjections.] … to investigate them impartially and without delay?

I was, naturally, coming to that aspect anyhow, but I will deal with it immediately. The first point is that there are not allegations, but exactly one allegation. The hon. member must not shake his head. The hon. member must surely now be completely responsible in this House. This allegation is repeated, in the Sunday Times, but they do not mention the newspaper. Nevertheless, the same allegation and is a single one. The Tribune is specific and the allegation is that Die Burger got a copy of the Budget speech at least a day before the speech was delivered. There is no other allegation of any kind. I have read the reports many times and I also have the Sunday Times here. Now the hon. member asks me whether I will, in view of the allegations—which is in fact only one allegation and which has no semblance of proof from beginning to end in it—go to a judge of the Supreme Court and say: “I have nothing to put in front of you. I do not have the semblance of a prima facie case, but will you please investigate it nevertheless?”

That was exactly the position, in the case of Jim Thomas … [Interjections.]

But you are going to gossip … [Interjections.]

You are merely gossiping, man!

You are director of Die Burger.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refers to me and says that I am a director of Die Burger. What does he mean by that? I challenge him. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

An absolute disgrace!

You are behaving like a child, man.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

You are too spineless to say what you mean by it. [Interjections.]

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

I shall withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and then I ask, on a point of personal explanation, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicate what he meant by his insinuation.

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

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I put the point to you that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very ugly insinuation against the hon. the Leader of the House. I suggest that it cannot be left at that and that it requires you to act in this regard.

The practice is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may give a personal explanation in this regard at the end of the speech and not at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was driven into a corner because he spoke as he did on an issue for which there was not a semblance of proof, a semblance of ground. This is the same thing as the scurrilous allegation of corruption against Iscor last year. From all sides I was told, for three months on end, that I must appoint a judicial commission of inquiry. Let us be fair here. For three months on end virtually every English language newspaper in this country told me in leaders and sub-leaders: “How dare you not appoint a judicial commission to investigate those scurrilous assertions that were made by the hon. member for Sea point?” We went into the matter; the Police investigated it; senior Police officers made the most thorough inquiry and we have it in writing that they could find nothing.

What about the Faros case?

I also want to state that this allegation has been gone into. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition telling this House that we cannot, after we have discussed this matter at length with them and after their top men have gone into this matter thoroughly, accept this unconditional denial by Die Burger that there was any possible irregularity?

Why not have the inquiry?

[Interjections.] What must I put before a judge? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, any hon. member in this House or anyone outside, can give me or this Government anything which remotely indicates that this Press statement is correct, there will be an immediate inquiry. There is only one allegation, however, and that is that Die Burger received the Budget at least a day beforehand. There is no other. However, what must I put before a judge of the Supreme Court?

Just what they did in the Thomas case.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be less concerned with the British and more concerned with his own people, it would be a very good thing. [Interjections].

But he is a British Sir; he cannot help being concerned with the British.

I shall now say what I would have said in any case, i.e. that the most thorough inquiries up to the present moment give no indication whatsoever of not only this specific leak but of any kind of leak whatsoever. What must I therefore put before a judicial commission? As far as this is concerned I think the stage has been reached, if this kind of report can go scot-free, that no public man in this country is safe.

Hear, hear!

Nobody’s reputation will be safe in this great country of ours. After all, we are not a communist State; we are a decent Christian state, a capitalist society based on private enterprise. These things do mean something. Does any hon. member opposite think that this does not mean as much to me as it does to him? How can such a thought possibly be entertained? Is this Government not concerned with the good name of this country and with its financial integrity? What is there in this? Nothing! Absolutely nothing, except absolute defamation and scurrilous calumny. That is what is involved here.

I had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition when he got up would have said that he had perhaps spoken a little too soon; that perhaps he had been misled by this reporter, I do not know. I cannot say whether that is so. I say that if he had been he might perhaps have stood up and said that he had spoken too soon. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must greatly regret that he said here what he did …

He made no accusations.

He made no accusations, but he made the clearest implications that this was the case. If this was not the case, why did he say that if this happened the Minister must resign? The issue did not arise.

He never said that.

He did. The hon. member says that the hon. Leader did not say that, but he says here that he relies on British precedent in two cases and that in both these cases where the accusations were substantiated, the responsible Ministers resigned immediately. What is the implication of this statement in the context of this? That is the position. I feel that this is something which is foreign to our way of thinking and to our way of conducting ourselves in this country. I say that this issue is a public scandal and I say that this Government cannot allow this sort of situation to continue.

Hear, hear!

I want to say, and I think that I speak for my colleagues as well, that this Government will not allow this situation to continue.

I had no idea that this unhappy incident was on the cards until I arrived here yesterday. It has now held us up for perhaps half an hour, but I could do no other than to say what I have said. I shall be very interested to hear not only what the editor of this perfectly dreadful newspaper has to say, but I also want to know what the chairman of the board of the Argus company has to say on this issue. He and his board are the people who appointed this man.

Are you going to sue them for defamation?

I want to come to the Budget and say that what was to me a remarkable feature of the Second Reading debate on this Budget, was the constructive and useful contributions which were made by hon. members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] If my hon. friends will just be a little more reasonable and a little more judicious, they will give me the opportunity to finish what I wanted to say. I also wanted to say that with certain exceptions I unfortunately cannot say the same of the speeches from the opposite side of this House. I must say, however, that there are exceptions, and that I have appreciation for those particular contributions. I want to say at once that the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River in this House was a good speech, in my opinion, although I do not agree with everything he said. I also think that the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo was an objective and constructive one. I want to proceed by saying that the hon. member for Maitland put his case very strongly and positively, that he is a fighter. I have appreciation for his ability to put up a good fight for that which his side of the House stands for. I must say that I enjoyed his speech. It does not mean that I agree with everything he said, but he nevertheless stated his case well. There are others …

He also attended Boys’ High.

There are at least another two hon. members on the opposite side of this House who received their education at the very best school in the country, but it seems to me as though they are being misled by the influences on the opposite side of this House. I do not want to hit them too hard, because they at least attended the same alma mater as I did. I do not want to speak for too long, because we have already lost virtually half an hour which could have been devoted to the Budget. I want to say, that if I were to have had more time, I should very much, have liked to have gone into the merits of the valuable proposals made by hon. members on this side of the House. We had, for example, the proposal from the hon. member for Paarl concerning donations to universities and other institutions. The hon. member for Johannesburg West quite rightly drew our attention to the fact that there was no capitalistic economy in the world today which was a purely capitalistic system. It is in fact a mixed kind of system. In our country the private sector occupies the greater part of the system, although the State also plays a very important role. I think this is something we may bear in mind. The hon. member for Sunnyside—I am only mentioning a few hon. members as they come to mind—came forward with the proposal that we should organize a “Buy South African Year”. I think this is something we should give very thorough consideration. He made other proposals as well. The hon. member for Algoa was what I shall call, somewhat more radical. He discussed rates and what we could do in this regard. He said the municipalities could possibly be financed by means of State subsidies. The point I want to make is that these are all constructive proposals to which, we shall in fact give thorough consideration. Consequently I want to give the assurance that they will be considered. I cannot mention all my hon. colleagues by name, because that is impossible, but there are many others I would have liked to mention by name. However, I want to refer to the two fine maiden speeches we had in this debate, i.e. those of the hon. members for Winburg and Pietersburg. I want to congratulate them very sincerely on their speeches and say to them that I am convinced that they are an asset not only to the party, but also to this Parliament. I want to wish them everything of the best for the future.

†Obviously one cannot deal with a Budget debate without giving very careful thought and attention to the arguments and points raised by the Opposition. As I say, although I disagree with a good deal of what has been said, I found the debate interesting and I would like to thank all members who took part for the trouble they have taken to put their views. One of the interesting points that was made here, was the impression given by hon. members opposite that the Budget was really an instrument that could cure all our ills or at least should set out to do so. I think we must be very careful here. A Budget is a fiscal instrument and, as such, it can deal only with public finance. Obviously its implications are wide, but as a policy instrument it is a fiscal measure and that, naturally, sets limits on the effectiveness of the Budget as a measure to cure all our problems. It simply cannot do that. In this regard I would like to return to the point made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Ours is a private enterprise economy in which I think the Government plays a very important part. But the fact that it is essentially a private enterprise economy surely means that the Government cannot simply intervene where-ever it likes. It has to leave judgment, initiative and decision-making to the private sector, too, on a very big scale. There is therefore a very distinct limit to what budgetary policy can achieve in relation to the sum total of our problems.

The subjects of inflation and economic growth of course loomed large in this debate. Certain members gave the impression and, in fact, said that we were doing very little, if anything, about inflation. They quoted rather critically my statement that inflation was an unsatisfactory feature in the South. African economy, but it is exactly that. I, of course, went further than that. I also dealt with the situation in the economy, how the growth rate had eased off and how we were now in the sphere of consolidation rather than of excessively rapid growth such as we experienced last year. I dealt with this and said how important it was but I said that inflation was more important. It is on page 5 of the copy of my speech which I have here and I do not think I need read it again to hon. members. In fact, I said that inflation was more important. What more could I have said to stress the importance of inflation? If you look at my Budget speech, Sir, you will see the large number of references to inflation and each time I spoke of this as a very serious problem. If hon. members think that this Budget has not borne that in mind, then they have surely missed the whole point of the Budget.

What are we really trying to do about inflation? Quite apart from trying to draw everybody in—the private sector, the Government, employers, employees, trade unions and consumers—to help us solve this problem in a senior joint committee and on other levels, we have a positive approach. First of all we say that in order to have sound long-term economic growth, we have got to have the capital facilities, we have to have the infrastructure. This Budget sets out in no uncertain terms how to provide that infrastructure of every kind—in transport, in health services, in education and in manufacturing, all these spheres where the Government can help to provide the basic facilities to keep the economy at full production. This is one of the great priorities of the Budget and if it succeeds, surely it is going to help us to step up production overall, and if we can constantly step up production, we are taking the first important step towards countering inflation. The surest way to fan the fires of inflation would be to do the opposite, i.e. not to create the climate and facilities for substantial growth. That then is a very deliberate thing which this Budget does. Secondly, we have taken certain important measures to stimulate investment in a country where investment and initial allowances granted to companies of different kinds are among the highest in the world. Yet we have given still further advantages in this respect, still further investment allowances. We have made many far-reaching concessions for the exploitation and beneficiation of minerals, which is going to be one of the features of the future economic development in this country. Surely that is aimed at stepping up production on a big scale and in that way at countering inflation.

There is education and there is training of different kinds. There has been a tendency on the part of a number of hon. members to ask why we do not do more for education. If one looks at this Budget and all the supporting documents, Sir, one will see that we have never done more for education, both academic, school and technical, than we have done this year. If you look at the order of the figures, they are enormous. Yet we have been told that we are not doing enough for the industrial training of Bantu workers. But hon. members will know that we have industrial training centres for Bantu workers. If you look under Loan Vote B, Sir, you will see that just on that score alone, provision is made for expenditure of R1 350 000 during 1975-’76 on these centres. It was R800 000 last year. The estimated total cost of the centres for which provision is made, these industrial training centres for Bantu alone, is now R7 500 000. There is no doubt that this is going to be increased. I want to suggest that that is a very substantial figure by any standards. If is but one example. If you look at the universities, the technical colleges and schools, Sir, you will see the extent to which spending has increased and is increasing all the time.

There is another important factor which has been overlooked in this debate and that is that we have endeavoured to lower the cost of financing to the private sector generally by making a substantial alleviation in the burden of undistributed profits tax. You see, Mr. Speaker, today in this period of inflation companies are increasingly having to look to their own earnings to obtain capital for expansion and for the replacement of machinery or the purchase of expensive new assets. More and more they have to look to their own earnings for their capital requirements, and we have given them further encouragement by increasing the plough-back portion of the undistributed profits tax from 45% to 55%. Sir, that is a very substantial concession and one which has been commented upon in letters to me from some of our top industrialists, all of whom have found this an extremely constructive and valuable concession. Sir, in that context may I come to the hon. member for Constantia. The fact that I have not referred to him earlier must not be construed as an attempt on my part to suggest that he was not wishing to make a constructive contribution to this debate. We know him as a man who puts forward thoughtful contributions. He did mention a few points in respect of which I would differ very substantially from him, as I think he knows, particularly on this question of the financing of enterprise. The hon. member says that we must not transfer money from Revenue to Loan Account; he said that on the first day of the Budget debate. But, Sir, why not? In times of heavy inflation when capital is so costly and when revenue is buoyant, surely that is the time, particularly if you can show a surplus, to take money from revenue and to put it into Loan Account to reduce the heavy burden of borrowing, which is in fact becoming excessive in many countries. The rates of interest are so high that one should try to keep down borrowing, just as is done in company finance. The principle is exactly the same. The companies today which do not come to us to complain about cash flow problems are the companies which are able to divert funds from profits to capital, and we are helping those companies by means of this improvement in the plough-back portion of the undistributed profits tax, among other things. Sir, those are the ways in which we are positively trying to step up production to make it more efficient to counter inflation and, of course, at the same time, while fighting inflation in this way—I think this is important—to ensure that we have substantial economic growth. I would like to point out, Sir, that without the very substantial economic growth that we have, with this very rapidly increasing population that we have, we cannot possibly ensure rising living standards. Hon. members on the other side have been saying that our growth rate is low. At times, listening to the debate, one would think that we were almost standing still. The fact remains that at this very moment our real growth rate, after making adjustments for the high rate of inflation, is one of the very highest in the world. There is no justification therefore for the allegation that we have not got a sustained growth rate. Sir, that is a myth, if ever there was one. Let us look at the position in terms of per capita earnings, because that is an indication as to what is happening to the standards of living of our people. For two years in succession, in 1973 and 1974, the gross national product per head of the population—man, woman and child—increased in real terms by 7% per annum. That is the generally accepted measure of the rise in the living standards for all races —7% per annum in two successive years. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite who talk about the hardships being suffered by our population—and inflation ís a hardship —that they cannot look at inflation from the cost point of view and not from the income side. What country in the world can give that performance, of an increasing gross national product per head, particularly a country with one of the fastest growing populations in the world? Because that is what ours is, 7% per year for two years in succession per head of the population, man, woman and child, and this for the whole population and not only the economically active population. Sir, that is an achievement that you cannot simply sweep under the carpet. When hon. members talk about these hardships, they must bear incomes in mind.

And the fixed-income people?

Yes, the fixed-income people too. Look at what this Government has done for the pensioners and the aged.

Those are social pensions.

Yes, those are social pensions, but for other pensioners as well. If I have the time, I will try to come to that specific point because I have some figures here. The hon. member for Umbilo also raised that point.

Sir, to proceed, and to be as brief as possible, I must refer to a comment and a criticism which was made amongst others by the hon. members for Constantia and Von Brandis. That referred to the position of the rand, i.e. our policy in regard to our currency, which is quite basic to the welfare of our country. The hon. member for Von Brandis made a remarkable statement. He said that this independent, managed float of the rand which was instituted on 21 June 1974 was something like a lottery run in Pretoria. Now, I think that was a very uncalled for statement to make. I do not think the hon. member could have been serious. Perhaps he was just being jocular at the time. But this is a serious matter. What has happened, of course, is that on 21 June 1974 the Reserve Bank decided on a policy of independent, managed floating of the rand. In other words, the rand from then would no longer remain at fixed parity with the dollar. That had been the position before. We want to be more independent and to be more flexible in a word of changing exchange rates and great uncertainty in the whole currency and payments systems. Under this policy the Reserve Bank still quotes fixed buying and selling rates for the U.S. dollar, but it effects any changes in the rates vis-à-vis the rand more frequently and by a much smaller mangitude. That is the position. In other words, you can say, if you like, the other way around, that we quote the rand in terms of the dollar. We have to quote it in terms of something; so we quote it in terms of a very widely used currency such as the dollar, but in fact we say that that does not mean that we are simply going to follow the dollar as we would do if we were tied to the dollar.

Did you recommend that?

No, I did not recommend that we should be tied to the dollar.

It was we who recommended that you should move away from it.

Yes, but I think we have done it in a very judicious way, because after all we have got the benefits of flexibility. We still quote the rand in terms of the dollar, or if you like, the other way round. But we change the value of the rand now and we do it more frequently and in smaller amounts. We look at the exchange value of the rand vis-à-vis a whole basket of currencies. You might say all currencies, if you like, but we look particularly at the currencies of the countries with which we do most of our dealings. So there is no problem, I take it, as far as that is concerned. And, as I say, we do not necessarily or slavishly follow the dollar—not at all. We are doing this in an independent manner. In fact since June 1974—I feel I must deal with this because it came up in the Part Appropriation debate and it was brought up by several speakers in this debate, and I think the hon. member for Von Brandis specifically asked me to deal with it—Sir, since June 1974 the Reserve Bank’s middle rate for the U.S. dollar was adjusted upwards seven times and downwards four times, each time by just a small amount, sometimes ,67% and sometimes it was just over 1%. The rand has fluctuated between U.S. dollars 1-50 and 1-42. In other words, this was altogether a fluctuation of just over 5%. I think that this shows the stability of the rand under these circumstances. The net outcome of all the rand adjustments—these 11, since June 1974—as measured on 10 April 1975, has been an almost negligible effective depreciation of the rand in terms of what might be called all foreign currencies. It has, in fact, been 2,7% altogether. Over a period of 10 months the net depreciation of the rand has been perhaps 2,7%. But I think of greater significance is the fact that the effective average rate of the rand, after having been adjusted upwards and downwards over a period of eight years, i.e. since 1967, is now back to almost exactly what it was at the time of the devaluation of sterling in 1967. I mention this date because it was after that date that the greater flexibility in currencies began to take effect. We are no worse off than we were in 1967. If you look back at that time you will find that—it is generally agreed—the exchange rate was pretty realistic at that stage.

The hon. member for Constantia said that we should put up the value of the rand, that we should appreciate the rand. I asked him: By how much? Eventually he answered that it should be put up by 7½ to 10% over a period. Surely I am entitled to ask over what period. Will this period be a month, six months or five years? What the Reserve Bank is surely doing, is that it is looking every day at the value of this basket of currencies, vis-à-vis the rand, before it decides what to do. It does not follow that, if the dollar or any other group of currencies change their value, we will necessarily change the rand at all. Many times we have made no change to the rand even though other currencies have changed in value. We do, however, keep those options open. Simply to say that we should appreciate the rand by 10% over a period does not really bring us any further. If the rand is appreciated our export trade will obviously be given a very severe jolt. Imports will be relatively cheaper so that you will find that still more imports will flood the country. Our industrialists will then have still bigger competition and these imports, although they will be induced to come here because they will be cheaper than they are now, will still be pretty expensive because they are already very expensive. There is, therefore, the danger that we will give the exporters to South Africa the further incentive to push goods into South Africa on a bigger and bigger scale. We will certainly give our gold-mines a severe knock because, if we appreciate the rand, we will obviously reduce the rand earnings of gold outside. We have to look at this matter very carefully indeed. The Reserve Bank has done this extremely carefully and with great responsibility.

It is interesting to see what a journal such as Euro Money has to say. I do not know if hon. members opposite have had the opportunity to see this very interesting journal; it deals with monetary affairs and it concentrates more particularly on Europe, although it does deal with these matters on a world-wide basis. I have here the copy of August 1974 which contains a comment on this move of the Reserve Bank to move us over to an independent managed floating of the rand. They find this an extremely sensible thing to do. The hon. member for Von Brandis might like to read this summary, this appraisal of how they see the matter. They say that we obviously do not want to be tied directly to the dollar any more; our future depends far more on gold and on the sum total of the currencies of the countries with which we deal. They go on to say—

As I say, if you look at the record, I think we have succeeded in doing just that. The last point I want to make in this connection is that I asked the Reserve Bank if they would like to sum up the position and what they thought was important. A day or two ago I received a memorandum from the Reserve Bank in which they point out that there is still speculation going on against the rand. They suggest that we keep two points in mind, and I shall deal with them very quickly. They say the following—

It is a purely realistic, pragmatic approach. Secondly, they state—

I thought I would just put these points, because I regard this as a very important aspect of policy. I do believe that the Reserve Bank and the authorities have acted in a very responsible manner here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether I have understood him correctly in saying that the rand is a stable currency because its value expressed in dollars has remained constant, when in fact we know that the dollar has been fluctuating fairly extensively?

No, I think I must make it quite clear. The exchange rate of the rand is expressed for convenience in dollars. We say that the rand is $1,47 or $1,50, as the case may be. But in dertermining the value of the rand we do not say that it is simply based on the dollar. We are looking at the exchange rate of the rand in relation to a whole basket of currencies. It may be that the rand is moving in one direction and the dollar in another. Or, let us say, the dollar might move in one direction and we might move the rand in another. Depending on how the value of that group of currencies stands, we might even more the rand with the dollar. But the value of the rand is taken from that group of currencies and expressed in terms of the dollar.

I follow exactly what the hon. the Minister has said, but I took him to say that the rand, whose value internationally is expressed in terms of the dollar, has in fact been stable in those terms. I then asked whether this could justify the argument that the rand was stable, when in fact the dollar, to which it was related as to its expressed value, was in fact known to have fluctuated. If I may just follow up: I asked during my speech whether the hon. the Minister would indicate to us how the basket is made up. What is the proportion of currencies which go into the adjusted value?

As far as that point is concerned, I shall have to get the information for the hon. member, I do not have it with me. As far as the other point is concerned, I have indicated that because the rand can now be adjusted more quickly and, therefore, more easily in relation to a representative group of currencies, it is possible to keep the rand more stable than it would otherwise be if it were, for example, tied to the dollar.

How can it be stable if it remains close to a vacillating currency?

No, we do not simply look at it in relation to a single vacillating currency. The main weights are of the currencies with which we do most of our trading. We keep it more stable that way than if we were simply to tie it to, for example, the dollar or to sterling or to the Deutsche Mark, unless it so happens that over that period one of those currencies happens to be very stable. However, that is only incidental. That is the position. I now want to go a little further.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned gold, indicating that he expects me to say something more about gold and to declare my position. All I can say is that if there is anybody in this country who has tried to declare his position on gold in the past few years, it is I. It was more than three years ago that I said, in the face of a contrary opinion that was being expressed virtually throughout the world, that not only would the free market price of gold go up, but that I foresaw that before the end of this decade the official price of gold would be more than doubled. Since that time the official price has risen from 35 dollars to 42,2 dollars. I stand by that and still say that I believe that this tremendous increase in the free market price of gold to about 170 dollars a fine oz. at the moment, is going to pull up the official price, whether the Americans or anyone else likes it or not. On many subsequent occasions I have expressed my conviction that the deliberate attempts on the part of certain countries to demonetize gold, to take gold out of the world’s monetary system, are going to fail. Those countries are reckoning without the remarkable, time-honoured qualities of gold and the mystery and mystique it has for the world. It has this mystery and mystique for everybody, for the Chinese and the Americans. I think even the Eskimos would grab gold if they could. It is therefore not necessary for me, I think, to have to stand here today and declare my faith in gold. My faith in gold is, I think, an absolute fact.

There are certain very constructive and positive factors to be borne in mind when looking to the immediate future. I believe that the Americans are going to develop a very important gold market. They tried at the beginning of January to sell gold, for what I think were the wrong reasons. They were going to sell gold in order to depress the price. No one, however, would accept less than 153 dollars and in fact most of them were paying 180 dollars. That effort consequently failed, and they have not tried it again. I think that within the very near future the American gold market might well be dealing in something like 200 tons of gold. Two hundred tons is a lot of gold if one considers that last years’s production was 1 000 tons. The amount of gold produced has dropped because we are mining lower-grade ores, as the hon. member knows, since the price has risen. In that way we are lengthening the lives of our goldmines, which is also a good thing. I am quite convinced, however, that as far as gold is concerned, we are on a wonderful wicket. Although the price may fluctuate, though it might be down to 173 dollars an ounce at the moment—I say “down”, but some would say “up”—the fact of the matter is that if one looks at the price over the last few months, especially since the Americans deliberately tried really to depress it, one finds that gold has in fact maintained a remarkable stability, a fact which is even being commented on in America. I think that is a very good sign and I am sure that since our main export item is gold, we are very greatly blessed in this country. We are going to see very great benefits as a result of the powerful position this metal holds, not only in the industrial world, in relation to the industrial demand for gold, the so-called fabrication demand, but also in respect of the monetary demand and the investment demand. These are very important aspects today. The investment demand for gold today is more important even than the industrial demand. That has not been the case for a very long time. I believe that is a very strong factor in gold’s favour. I hope I have dispelled any doubts the hon. member may have had about where I stand as far as gold is concerned. I thought my stand was self-evident.

*Although I have to hurry, there are still one or two points to which I want to refer. Perhaps I can just refer to an accusation which was made by various speakers on the other side of this House, viz. that this Budget was not planned.

†The hon. member for Constantia talked of an ad hoc Budget and the hon. member for Wynberg spoke at length about the lack of planning in this Budget. He said that this Budget was being dealt with entirely in isolation. This is a very remarkable statement. One only has to read my Budget statement to see that that is not the case because I referred throughout my speech to the past and the future. The hon. member can just look at one short paragraph where I said that in considering budgetary policy we should take account not only of the changing cyclical trends, but also of the adjustments in monetary policy which have already taken place. We do this very carefully and very fully; I said that it was clear that we also had to look ahead to the year 1976 when the next economic upswing would most probably be on the way. After saying that, my conclusion from this whole analysis of our present position was that the Budget should be moderately expansionary. I said that the qualification “moderately” was important, as otherwise we might be finding ourselves in 1976—here I was looking ahead—in a situation of demand inflation, balance of payments disequilibrium, etc. I can also refer to other paragraphs where I dealt with the past and the future in relation to this specific Budget. The hon. member went on and asked me why I had not used the economic development programme. The economic development programme is something quite different. He was talking on a Wednesday evening and he was quite eloquent when he said that if I had not seen the Economic Development Plan, I should have a look at it because I could use it. I happen to be one of the few people in this House who saw this programme in draft form and who had the responsibility, among a few colleagues, of approving of this plan. I discussed it at great length, both formally and informally, with the economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister, so I think I know what is in that programme.

Why did you not relate your Budget speech to it?

What does the hon. member mean by “relate”? One cannot relate everything specifically. The hon. member then went on to refer to the infrastructure. He asked me why I did not tell the House what the infrastructure was and why I did not give the House any details. If one looks at the detailed documents dealing with expenditure and investment which go with this Budget, namely the Loan Account and the Revenue Account expenditures, one sees a mass of detail on infrastructure. If one looks at the reports of the public corporations one sees in great detail what the infrastructure is. If one look at the accounts of the South African Railways and Harbours one sees in great detail precisely what they are doing with the money they are receiving.

Yes, but you did not say why you were doing it.

The hon. member first asked me why I did not say what it was, when I tell him where it can be found in greater detail than even he can imagine, he asks me why I am doing it. We are doing it because it is absolutely essential for the future welfare of this country.

Why did you not relate it to your Budget speech. That is all I am asking you.

I also want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Hill-brow. To my mind he made another remarkable speech. Among other things the hon. member said that he wanted to stress the importance which even a single percentage had on the calculation of the national income. He said that if the Government decided that we must aim at a growth rate of 5% instead of 6%, it made a difference of millions and millions. That is correct. Then, however, he went on to say, and I quote—

It has not been 4½%, but 5,2%. If one looks at the Bulletin of Statistics of the Reserve Bank, one finds that it works out to an average of 5,2% in real terms. Surely, if it makes a difference of millions and millions if you make the percentage five instead of six, it will make a difference of millions of rand if one makes the growth rate 4½% when it is 5,2%. The hon. member is under-stating the growth rate despite the fact that he has warned us beforehand not to do so. The hon. member also talked about total productivity and output. He said that total productivity, total output in South Africa, at the moment is declining. I was so surprised to hear that that I specifically asked him: “Did you say that the total output was on the decline?” He then replied: “Yes, I said so. You have a declining output”. If one has a declining total output one must have a negative rate of growth. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would he please tell us what it means when the Quarterly Bulletin of the Reserve Bank indicates that the total output, seasonally adjusted, has in fact declined for the last quarter of last year notwithstanding our higher growth rate? The hon. the Minister does not seem to know what his own report says.

Now the hon. member switches back to one quarter. One cannot look at a growth rate in terms of three months.

I said it was declining at the moment; that is quite correct.

No, it is not.

Your own quarterly bulletin says so.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the total output of the country is not declining at the moment. In fact, to the best of our knowledge it is increasing at a rate of between 4% and 5% in real terms. I gave the hon. member an opportunity to correct himself but he decided he was going to remain in this trap.

Well, go and look at your own report.

The hon. member for Welkom referred to a matter to which I also want to refer because of its importance. He pointed out what the hon. member for Hillbrow had said with regard to defence. I have his speech before me. I think he made a very disparaging reference to defence here which is very unfortunate. He speaks of “the biggest hike in defence expenditure in our history”, and says he thinks it very unfortunate that it should come at this time of détente. He goes on to say (Hansard, col. 3725)—

The hon. member said that on 9 April. I would like to know how he obtaineed that information. Who used those words and who were the speakers who got up one after the other? Does he have information that I do not have?

He got it from the Sunday Tribune. [Interjections.]

He went on to say (col. 3278)—

He went on to refer to Australia, saying that we could take a lesson from Australia in this respect. I want to ask him whether he really thinks Australia can teach us anything at all in regard to our relations with Africa? Where he referred to technical and financial aid, I can say that he would be interested if he knew how many people from African countries—not just Southern African countries but African countries—have been coming to South Africa in recent months to see me and my hon. colleagues on this side.

That is the whole idea.

If these people say to us for various reasons we do not have to go into: “We are not too keen that you should publicize our visit to the world”, we do not do so. We honour that. However, the hon. member must not give the impression, as he does here, that we are not in fact talking with Africa. We are talking with them in hard financial and economic terms on a scale which is probably unequalled in our history. [Interjections.] The hon. member wants to know why we do not announce it. The reasons for that are quite patent. These people usually say to us that they are not keen that we should broadcast this.

So you are doing it under the counter?

No, we are doing nothing under the counter. The hon. member, his colleagues or anybody else, can come and talk to me about this at any time. I will talk to him quite openly about it. That is the position. It was not a very nice thing to say that this was done under the counter. We are doing things in Africa and we are giving technical and financial aid to Africa on a scale which has probably not been experienced before and particularly as a direct result of the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister in recent months. I think that matter should be put straight.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also said—

Perhaps I can let The London Economist answer the hon. member. The Economist Intelligence Unit which is a vast research unit of great standing in the business world made a very thoroughgoing survey of the South African economy at the end of last year. What did it find? It said—

For an Englishman to use the word “brilliant” says a lot. They are usually conservative people and tend to play things down. Here they say that South Africa has a brilliant economic future. However, they make one proviso. They say that this will be so provided there is no violence to disturb the social scene. They answered themselves straightaway because they commented very favourably on precisely what the hon. member has missed, viz. the remarkable political and economic stability in South Africa. That is in print. Now the hon. member comes along with this statement. Surely we could expect the hon. member who lives in South Africa to know at least as much as The Economist about the true state of affairs in South Africa? If that is so, then why did he say the opposite?

I said you did not have the strategy for change.

There are many other points I should like to have dealt with. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, the hon. member for Pinelands and others looked at the Budget in relation to what it is doing in respect of the non-White people. They constantly come back to this. The hon. member for Johannesburg North might be interested to see certain figures that I have here because he talked about defence expenditure in relation to health matters, social services and so forth. He made a very poor comparison between these other matters and defence spending. He left out altogether what is being spent by the provinces. The provinces are spending the bulk of their finances on hospitals and schooling. [Interjection.] No, Sir. It is so. The subsidy to the provinces in this Budget alone was increased by R170 million over that of the previous year.

That education is only in respect of the Whites.

No. The hon. member mentioned the question of health. We also have to look at the amount spent on medical services. If he does that he will find a very big difference in relation to the comparison that he has made.

Unfortunately, I cannot deal in detail with the matters raised by the hon. member for Umbilo. He raised some very important points. I shall be very happy to give him the information I have and if it is possible to do so, we may be able to discuss these matters a little further during the Third Reading debate. There is a good deal of detail involved and it will take some time. However, I want to give the House an assurance in relation to the figures I have here that when the Government says it is extremely concerned about maintaining the economic position of the older members of our society as far as possible, it is doing its level best to do so in practice. I can show the hon. member the figures. It is not just in respect of social pensioners. We are supplementing other pensions all the time to a degree which I think will be surprising to the general public. Perhaps we should say more about these things. I shall certainly discuss this matter again as soon as the first opportunity to do so presents itself.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. A great deal has been said here in relation to the Budget, and in regard to our economy and our financial position, but the fact remains that the South African economy is one of the strongest economies in the world at present. It is one of the most stable economies. Our real growth rate at this moment is one of the highest in the world. The increase in the standards of living of all population groups is impressive and our currency, the rand, remains one of the strongest in the world. We have no balance of payments problems as other countries with large deficits have; we have no unemployment worth mentioning. I am stating this fact again because this is usually strongly disputed by hon. members opposite. Sir, I believe that in all these respects we have much to be grateful for in this fine country, it is in that spirit that I move the Second Reading with great confidence.

Before I put the question, I just want to refer to the altercation between the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of which certain accusations were made. I said at the time that I could not allow personal explanations to be made at that stage, but that these should be made at the end of the speech. The relevant rule reads—

This reference is contained in May, page 409, and also in the debates of the House of Assembly, 1937 and 1972. There can therefore be no dispute about this. I have also asked for a copy of Hansard which, unfortunately, I have not yet received, to ascertain exactly what the words were that had been used. As I can recall the words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the House was a member of the board of directors of Die Burger, and the whole question that was being discussed was in respect of certain alleged i leaks to Die Burger. Therefore. I regard this matter in a very serious light as it may contain a very serious insinuation and for that reason I am now affording the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of explaining the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for this opportunity, because it appears that there has been a serious misunderstanding,

Ah!

Order!

The hon. the Leader of the House shouted at me across the floor, “Jy is kinderagtig” I resented that most strongly and said, “Jy is mos ’n direkteur van Die Burger”, meaning that because he was a director of Die Burger he would think that I was childish in the allegations that I was making. That, Sir, is the total extent of any insinuation in so far as I am concerned. If any other meaning is read into my words, I can only say that it was not my intention. It was certainly not my intention to reflect on the hon. gentleman. As he will have seen, I smiled at him afterwards and said, “You are being ridiculous”. I had no other intention. Sir, I do not think any further explanation is necessary.

I have considered the matter, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that insinuation.

What insinuation?

Which one, Sir?

The one which could be regarded as an insinuation.

It was never my intention to make such an insinuation. Nothing was further from my mind. But if it would help in any way, I withdraw what I never meant.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, and C. V. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher, and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage Schedules 1 to 3:

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice pursuant to Standing Order No. 25, that I shall move tomorrow, Tuesday, 15 April 1975:

I have given very careful consideration to this notice of motion and I want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the provisions of Standing Order No. 25(7). Under this subsection of the Standing Order matters which, amongst others, have been debated by this House during the same session may not be discussed.

Pursuant to my ruling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised this question right at the beginning of this debate and the hon. the Minister of Finance replied to him extensively. The crux of the rule I have referred to is whether a matter has been debated. My ruling, therefore, is that this matter has been debated and for this reason I cannot accept the motion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I address you on your ruling in the hope that I may persuade you that your ruling is not correct? In terms of Standing Order No. 25(7Xa) one may not, as you have rightly pointed out, discuss a matter “already debated by this House during the same session”. I would now like to draw to your attention the fact that this matter was never debated in the sense that “debated” means not just in any debate, but in a debate as such by the House—in other words, by members of the House. All that happened so far was that a question was asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to which the hon. the Minister of Finance replied. Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 113 which says: “A reply in terms of Standing Order No. 112 closes the debate.” In other words, once the Minister replies the debate is closed. Therefore, this matter could never have been debated in terms of Standing Order No. 25 (7)(a). It could never have been debated because once a question is replied to, that closes the debate. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the matter was never raised during the debate to which the hon. the Minister had to reply, so that, in my submission, there has never been a debate on the matter at all. I want to submit further that the second part of the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in relation to the source of the report, has never even been mentioned in the reply of the hon. the Minister to the debate. In the circumstances, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling and to rule that my hon. Leader may in fact move the adjournment of the House tomorrow under S.O. No. 25.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the almost identical point. I would like to support the hon. member for Durban North and merely add that as far as the minorities in this House are concerned, they certainly have not even been given the opportunity of debating this matter in terms of the Standing Order to which you referred. As far as we are concerned, we have had no opportunity of putting a case. On the contrary, when I directed a question, and did so repeatedly, to the hon. the Minister he declined to answer it. So, even the argument that a question has been put and that this constitutes a debate, does not apply because we were not even afforded an opportunity of participating. With respect, if you stand by your ruling, it will mean, Sir, that the minorities will have no opportunity of expressing a point of view or of putting a case and that we will have been ruled out without any opportunity of being heard.

As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I must point out that there is no reference whatsoever in the Standing Rules to any minority in this House. It is only a question of whether a matter has been debated. I have given my ruling, but wish to point out there will be an opportunity of discussing this matter again under the Prime Minister’s Vote on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech on Friday I dwelt on a number of irresponsible statements made by Opposition speakers in regard to this important Bill. I dwelt on the frustrations on that side during the debates that were being conducted here because what was at issue here was the pitiful collapse or failure of their Coloured policy or non-acceptability of their Coloured policy to both Coloureds and Whites. The inference is logical. The absolute emotional opposition to this Bill signifies only one thing, and that brings us to the essence of this Bill. The Government spotted a situation and took precautionary measures in time to prevent this situation. What happened then? Then the Opposition parties sustained a telling blow. In the first place, the hope that there would be boycott and collapse of the CRC came to nothing. In the second place, the hope that a chaotic situation would arise and that the National Party’s policy would be drastically affected thereby, also came to nothing. What else happened? On Friday, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is not present at the moment, accused the hon. the Minister of having been panicky in his negotiations and correspondence with Mr. Sonny Leon and that he no longer knew what to do. Here he was supposedly faced by a situation where he had to recognize a leader, and what was he to do? However, what happened immediately afterwards? Representatives of all those Opposition parties leapt forward and ran like athletes to be the first to conduct an interview with Mr. Sonny Leon, to try and work out a plan of action. They wanted to know how they could conduct this debate and consequently they immediately went to hold discussions in order to acquire information, I cannot illustrate the matter better than by referring to a cartoon that appeared in Die Burger of 27 March 1975 and which I have before me here. The Leader of the official Opposition, the leader of the Reformist Party, the leader of the Progressive Party and that other leader, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, are going to Mr. Sonny Leon for an interview. Mr. Sonny Leon is sitting and looking at them and there is a notice saying “Think”. The caption reads: “We wondered whether you did not want to become the leader of a united opposition. You are the only one of us who can win an election.” However, there is grave doubt on Mr. Sonny Leon’s face as he looks at these leaders. Who, then, are the panicky people now? Is it the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, or is it the Opposition parties opposite with their statements?

In the course of this debate, four questions cropped up which the Opposition party either did not answer, or failed to answer properly. In the first place, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said here in a most irresponsible way that this Bill created a situation of confrontation. I now want to ask: “In what way? Where is the confrontation?” This Bill does not alter one iota of the Act as such. It takes nothing from the Act nor does it effect any reduction in powers. The status quo of this Act is retained throughout except where there may be interference in the interests of the rights and the powers of the 2½ million Coloured persons if there should be mala fides on the part of the Coloured leaders in the CRC. Where could one find a more high-minded deed, more honest action than the steps taken by the Government in this instance with the specific object of protecting and entrenching the continued existence and the effective operation of this highest Coloured Council. I can illustrate this no better than by just referring to what has been done by this Government during the past few months in the interests of the Coloureds and in the interests of good relations between the Coloureds and the Whites. I do not have the time to mention everything, but we could just look at the sharing of cultural occasions, the invitation sports teams, the representation on statutory bodies, the tremendous narrowing of the wage gap that has taken place over the past 12 months, the record number of Coloured employees employed in Government Departments and local authorities, and the open and open-hearted invitation addressed to the leaders of the Coloureds by the hon. the Prime Minister to conduct further discussions as often as they wished. We could also consider the record number of students enrolled at the Coloured university and at the planning and the expansion of faculties and student facilities. This is truly an institution where men and women may be taught to hold their own in this country and in the world in academic and professional fields. There is another question, too. Do the 2½ million Coloureds not have the right to insist on protection and entrenchment of their rights? Do they not have the right to demand the continued functioning of their highest statutory body? It is that very body that is a guarantee of the upliftment from conditions of poverty in which such a large number of Coloureds live, a body that is a guarantee of the improvement of the social and housing problems they are experiencing, and a guarantee of the expansion of educational opportunities and other opportunities, in that discussions may be conducted with Whites and the common interests of the White and Coloured populations may be discussed.

Then (here is the other important question that has not been replied to, namely whether the United Party had not foreseen that tremendous unrest would break out among the Coloureds and that serious damage would be caused to the image of this Government abroad if this Bill were not introduced and the CRC were to be paralysed—as promised—and the important services that must be rendered such as those in regard to the university, schools, pension services, local authorities and so on were to come to a standstill? It is understandable that, politically speaking, they perceived this and hoped that it would happen, so that the Government could be pulled up short and they would then be able to say that the Government’s Coloured policy had failed. It is irresponsible of hon. members to adopt an attitude like that while they know that South Africa’s name is at stake, and that in this situation it could mean an unnecessary slur on the good image of South Africa abroad. Finally, it is of the greatest importance to note that it is the Coloureds who will suffer most in such a situation. The Coloured is here being misused by hon. Opposition members in their efforts to seek a loophole through which they can extend feelers to attack the policy of this party, which is so successful, and damage it in the eyes of the outside world. The fourth question is whether there ought not to be greater appreciation by hon. members opposite, not only of the changed attitude and greater sense of responsibility on the part of the Labour Party—perhaps this has been a little watered down by their decision this weekend—but also for the fact that their leader acknowledges that in view of the Bill they are not prepared to continue with the absolute boycott of the CRC but that they are going to accept their responsibility in part. We must accept that this process will always involve wrangling and that it will always be necessary to negotiate in regard to a say, a joint say, and consultation in the political dispensation of this country. All these things, taken as a whole, the Government is offering the Coloureds through the CRC. The opposition parties are only opposing this because it does not satisfy them and because they are unable to use it to further their policy which amounts to sharing of power.

In conclusion, in view of this background, I want to dwell on the motivation for this Bill. It is clear that the motivation for the Bill is that the Government has the welfare and the progress of the Coloureds at heart, that it wants to protect and entrench the interests of the Coloureds, that it wants to raise the standard of living of the Coloureds in that way, that it wants to develop the CRC further in a positive way and thereby prevent crises, that it wants to ensure progress and that it wants to ensure administrative continuity and stability. Therefore this Government has not hesitated to acknowledge the outcome of the Coloured election and express its confidence in the Labour Party’s acceptance of their duty. That party has also showed that it wants to accept its responsibility by intimating that it accepts the chairmanship of the CRC. Consequently the hon. the Prime Minister, as he has stated, and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, will continue to hold discussions with the Coloured leaders as often as necessary and to discuss with them the joint future of White and Brown in this country. Consequently it may be expected that this Government will act with the greatest responsibility at all times, but therefore it may also be expected of the Coloureds and the Coloured leaders, too, to act with responsibility as well, because the path of the White man and the path of the Brown man in this country are the same. This legislation, an administrative and consolidating piece of legislation, is necessary to avoid a negative situation and is of positive importance to the further extension, protection and entrenchment of the rights of the Coloureds in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville in the latter part of his speech posed four questions and I shall try to answer those questions specifically. The first question he posed dealt with confrontation. What the hon. member has forgotten is that this Bill before us in fact enables the Minister to perform all the functions of the council, the executive and the chairman, with the exception of the limited legislative functions which the CRC has. The Minister can, in fact, do anything he chooses of an administrative nature in respect of the functions of this body. The result is that no member of the council or of the executive nor the chairman will know whether his conduct is going to be regarded as being adequate in the eyes of the Minister and whether or not the Minister is going to interfere at any one moment of time. The result is that this piece of legislation has created a sword of Damocles which hangs over the heads of the chairman of the CRC, the executive and the council as a whole. If that is not creating confrontation on the part of the Minister, if that is not creating a situation of the utmost uncertainty among the members of that council, one does not know what could create it. So, if confrontation is being created, it is the result of the creation of a sword of Damocles which is being kept by the Minister over the heads of these bodies.

I now come to the second question put by the hon. member. We have had many newspaper reports quoted and references made to letters and telegrams, but the question which needs to be asked is whether the hon. the Minister since the introduction of this Bill has had any discussion with any Coloured leaders on this Bill, e.g. on the desirability of proceeding with it. Or is he intransigent in that he will not consult in regard to this piece of legislation, that he intends to go through with it and does not care what the Coloured people think about it or what harm may be done by proceeding with it? Speeches have been made by one Nationalist member after another in which they mentioned the confidence they have in the Labour party, the confidence which they suddenly have in the people who have been elected to majority control of the CRC. If this is so, if in fact this confidence exists and if in fact the hon. the Minister has this confidence, why does he not then make the gesture to the Coloured people, even at this eleventh hour, and withdraw this Bill? If he withdrew this Bill the effect on race relations in South Africa would be dramatic and would demonstrate his bona fides towards the Coloured people themselves. If the hon. the Minister were to stand up in this House today and say that he was prepared as a gesture of goodwill, of understanding and friendship towards the Coloured people not to proceed with this Bill, he would be a hero in South Africa tomorrow because he would have done the correct thing by improving race relationships in South Africa.

I come now to the third point, viz. what this Bill actually demonstrates. This Bill demonstrates that the true sovereignty in respect of the Coloured people does not rest with the Coloured people or with the CRC. It also demonstrates that irrespective of any expansion of powers the sovereignty in respect of the Coloured people will never be with them or with their legislative body under this Government. It does not matter whether hon. members opposite talk about Cabinet councils or the giving of greater powers. This Bill has demonstrated that this Parliament is sovereign in respect of the Coloured people and will always remain sovereign. It can interfere at any time and override at any time. All this talk of sovereignty in respect of each nation in South Africa, sovereignty in respect of the Coloured people over themselves, is a lot of eyewash. They will never get sovereignty over their own affairs and this Bill has demonstrated that beyond question. No matter what form it assumes, the CRC will always be a subservient legislative body. It will only exercise delegated powers and the final say will always be here with this House. This, therefore, is baasskap. It means that unless Coloured people are allowed to sit in this House, the Coloured people will have no final say in respect of the determination of their own affairs. That is baasskap and nothing else.

Let us compare the lot of the Coloured people with the lot of the Black people. At least in the Transkei the intention is to give independence where those people will have their own Police Force and now, so we are told their own Army. They will also attend to their own foreign affairs. However, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, under the policy of this Government and under its system the Coloured people will not be able to do this because this Parliament will always have the veto in the end. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister which I hope he will reply to specifically when he replies to this debate. He knows that the passport of Mr. Leon who has now been offered the chairmanship of the executive of the CRC, has in fact been withdrawn. As far as I am aware, at this moment in time, Mr. Leon has no passport.

Order! I think the hon. member is now going too far. We are not dealing at the moment with passports or anything of that nature. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was merely using this argument to illustrate my point. Who is going to decide whether Mr. Leon is going to have a passport? Where will sovereignty reside? If sovereignty resides with the Coloured people then it will be the Coloured people who will decide whether Mr. Leon should have a passport or not, not this Government. The hon. the Minister must give us an answer in this regard. I believe that this Bill is a demonstration of the baasskap philosophy of the Nationalist Party and that is why the Coloured people feel so strongly about it. This Bill does in fact demonstrate that the Coloured people will never exercise sovereignty over themselves.

I come now to the third question, the question asked by the hon. member for Durbanville, what will happen if the CRC ceases to function?

Sir, the CRC is a creation of a White Government of South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg said that it was part of the apartheid institutions of South Africa. Sir, what is significant is that in the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that the reason why the Labour Party had been elected was that the Coloured voters had voted against apartheid. Sir, that is true. They voted against apartheid and they voted against an institution created by apartheid. What this Government and the Minister do not understand is that you must not merely create institutions for people and force them on them, but that you must create institutions for people with people. What the Coloured people want is to participate in the creation of their own institution instead of having an institution forced upon them. Sir, I said earlier that the hon. Minister could do a tremendous amount for race relations in South Africa if he withdrew this piece of legislation. If there were no such piece of legislation and if, as the Minister said, the people in the CRC were to commit administrative suicide, what should then happen? That is the last question that the hon. member put. I believe that the answer to that is very simple: Power should be given to enable the council to be dissolved so that another election can be held, and the Coloured people should then be given the right to decide whether they actually want the CRC or whether they do not want it. If the Coloured people decide at an election that they do not want the CRC, then it is up to the Government to sit down with them in order to create something else, in order to see to it that the Coloured people are able to participate in the determination of their own destiny. I believe that that something else is eventually going to be representation in this Parliament. What you are doing at the present moment is to create a legislative body and to give yourself the power to intervene at any stage and to say to these people, “This is what is good for you; you are going to take it, because we have decided that that is what you should have.” Sir, that is not the way in which you obtain the goodwill of people; that is not the way in which you should deal with this matter.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes, I will answer with pleasure.

What would the hon. member’s solution be if the Coloured voters decided at a referendum that they wanted representation in this House and if the White voters decided at a referendum that they did not want the Coloureds to be given representation in this House?

I think the answer is a very simple one. I have already asked the hon. the Prime Minister to have a referendum amongst the White people of South Africa…

Answer the question.

I am answering in my way. I am confident that if a referendum were held amongst the White voters, they would decide that they want the Coloureds to be represented here, and in so far as the Coloured people are concerned, I think they would also want representation here. But let us assume that you had two referenda and that in each, case you had a different result. The answer is that you must then sit down and come to a conclusion by consensus. The attitude of hon. members on that side is that if there are two different views in South Africa, their view must prevail. Sir, that is baasskap. That is our quarrel with hon. members on the other side, and that is the quarrel of the Coloured people with hon. members on that side. I say that the Coloured people want representation in this House; I believe that the majority of the White people want the Coloureds to be represented in this House. The only people who want to keep them out of this House are the Nationalist Party Government—nobody else. Sir, the hon. the Minister said towards the end of his Second Reading speech—

These are his words; he regards this as a game of chess. What worries the Coloured people is that perhaps they are the expendable pawns in this game of chess. This matter is far too important to be regarded as a mere game. This is a question of survival for all of us in South Africa, and that is why, even at this eleventh hour, I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to show a greatness of heart, to show that he has the interests of South Africa at heart, and to withdraw this Bill. Even at this eleventh hour.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left before the debate closes, I should like to emphasize once again why it is impossible for this side of the House to support the Third Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and the members who supported him in this debate can impovise as much as they like. The net result of this Bill is not better relations and a greater degree of confidence between the Government and the Coloured community, but precisely opposite. It does not involve an extension of the powers of the Coloured Council, but their curtailment. It does not bear the stamp of détente—the end of strained relations between the Government and the Coloured community—but of disharmony; it does not show the spirit of respect for the wishes and feelings of the Coloured community, but rather the spirit of serviceableness to the instructions of the dominant and dominating party. In our opinion, there have been no circumstances causing this Bill to be either necessary or inevitable. What candidates have said in an election is not, in any event, a good reason to introduce intimidating legislation of this nature. If there have been hard words for the Government in the election for the Coloured Council, then the Government is just as much to blame as anyone else, because if, before the past election, the Government had indicated openly that it would recognize the winning party and clothe the winning party with responsibility, and if it had indicated that there would not be a repetition of what the Government did after the previous election, viz. like a partial umpire, declare the losing party to be the winning party, then the election for the Coloured Council would undoubtedly have taken place in a very different spirit. Because whatever was said by candidates in that election, by the Labour Party or by any other party, no single party or candidate ever intimated that if they were to be clothed with responsibility they would refuse to comply with, the technical formalities that might be necessary to ensure that officials and teachers would receive their salaries. In fact, when a member is sworn in as a member of the Coloured Council, he has to take an oath that he will do his duty, and when he becomes a member of the executive he has to take a second oath that he will perform his duties as a member of the executive conscientiously. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that any member who has taken that oath accepts that responsibility and that any member who has given that undertaking would honour it as long as he was involved with the Council. There is nothing to stop a member who has taken the oath from pleading for the eventual abolition of the Council or pleading for a better dispension in the future. That is really the gist of the matter.

This Bill solves nothing. It does not contribute towards the solution of anything. The hon. member for Waterberg said here in his speech during the Third Reading that the Bill had already proved its value because according to him it has caused Mr. Sonny Leon and the Labour Party to see matters in a new light. If he believes that, then I cannot compliment him on his insight into Coloured politics, because if there has been any change in Mr. Leon and the Labour Party, then it has not been one of attitude or of objective, but merely one of strategy. They have not changed their basic standpoint. The statement they made this morning, the announcement that they would refuse to accept the principle of nominated members confirms this once again. Where they differ with the Government is that the Government tries to maintain the political fiction that the Coloureds can be shunted off on to a sideline and that they can achieve full political satisfaction and political self-determination through the development of the Coloured Council. Sir, that is an incorrect view of the role of the Coloured Council because at most, that Council can perform a limited role and nothing more than a limited role, and anyone who believes that in the situation in which Coloureds and Whites find themselves in South Africa they will eventually be able to maintain separate political institutions for themselves, is either uninformed or is playing a political game. One need only look at the list of ministries the departments we have. Start with the Prime Minister. Neither the Prime Minister, nor Defence, nor Foreign Affairs, nor Posts and Telecommunications, nor Transport, the control of trains, airways and harbours, neither Water Affairs nor Interior, Agriculture, Finance, Justice, the courts—there is nothing one can divide, as far as power is concerned between Coloureds and Whites. There can be no question of separate self-determination throughout. At the most one can effect a certain separation in education, but no more than that.

In view of these facts, the Coloureds’ problem with the Government is that they rightly demand that the Coloured Council be seen as a limited political measure, that it can never be anything else, but that it must be supplemented by full citizenship, by giving them representation in this House. The Government can introduce as many Acts of this kind as it wants to. The Coloured leaders will simply adapt their strategy to the legislation which the Government passes as has now occurred in the case of the Labour Party. In the meantime they will continue with their demand for full citizenship with increasing force until it is acceded to. Until it is acceded to, the Coloured Council will be used merely as a platform from which they will fight for a rightful share for the Coloureds in the parliamentary management of the country. We emphasize once again that against the realities of this situation the Bill is useless, futile and nothing but a piece of mischief. In the voting on the Third Reading we shall indicate that we do not associate ourselves with it and that we want to have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout right at the outset. The hon. member advanced arguments which we heard over and over again at the Second Reading, namely the question of bad relations, the argument that the legislation is not necessary and will solve nothing, etc. For this reason I should prefer to reply to these matters in the course of my speech. In any case, it is not necessary to cover this whole field once again at this stage, because we are not dealing with the Second Reading. I do want to say to the hon. member for his consideration that if there are no areas we can divide in matters which affect us as national groups in a plural community, where does the federal policy of the United Party then come from? Perhaps he should give that question some thought. Regarding the bad relations, etc., which this legislation will allegedly cause, I can only say that this legislation is the result of circumstances and of things which happened in the past. It was introduced before the election was over. This the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did not say in his speech. This legislation need not remain on the Statute Book for ever, because things are evolutionary. In any case, this legislation was fully motivated at the Second Reading as being a piece of legislation aimed at avoiding administrative chaos and at obtaining a guarantee for the continuation of the administration for these people, more than 52% of whom did not vote. In any evolutionary political development one finds that nomination is provided for on the road to greater autonomy, precisely to provide in principle for those people who do not vote or who are not yet able to use the vote in a democratic manner. Nor do I have any objections to the demand for full citizenship. On the contrary. It is a question of approach as to what full citizenship means. In the case of some people, the aspiration to full citizenship may be motivated by their socio-economic material needs, as against a merely political motivation on the part of others, with all that this involves. Some say: Seek the kingdom of politics first, as did Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana some 10 or 12 years ago. I do not know where he eventually found his kingdom when the political kingdom of Ghana was no longer his.

†It has been said that no arrangement in the course of political development of any group or nation is ever to be found in its final form, I think that it is correct. It is correct in South Africa in relation to the Coloured people, to the Bantu people and to the Indian people. We have set out upon a road and we have laid foundations. We have never yet followed a policy of laissez-faire as in the past when these people did not really have any perceptible political, economic or social development and when they as a group were in more dire circumstances than they have ever been in the past ten years or so. It is indeed unfortunate that the outstretched arm of friendship and the very well founded system of new political and scientific development for the Coloured people—whether it is unique or not is not the real question; the form of the new political development for the Coloured people was expounded by the hon. the Prime Minister on 8 November of last year—it is indeed very unfortunate the Coloured Labour Party did not accept those proposals and that they summarily dismissed them without, as far as I know, even exploring them. In an atmosphere of political debate and in the heat of a campaign, where absolute antagonism reigns and should reign if you want a fair amount of the people behind you, it is very difficult to even start talking about matters like this. Yet I am not a pessimist; I think that as all human beings are endowed with reason, in some cases to a limited extent, we will eventually in one way or another find a solution. What people say during political campaigns is not always literally intended. We will eventually find a way out of this situation which our adversaries would so very much like to see as a permanent impasse as regards the Coloured people. I am convinced that they want to see this as a permanent impasse, but I have news for them. It is not going to be a permanent impasse, because we are working with people with reason.

I want to come back to the debate and say that I, for one, am a little bit disappointed with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. One expects a member who is the first speaker on the opposite side at least to do his homework before he enters a debate on a delicate matter such as this. He made a blatant, nonsensical statement to the effect that I had acted on reports in the Press after the Bill had been introduced. Those were the reports on what was purported to have been said by members of the Coloured Labour Party and other members. How can this possibly be?

I did not say “after the introduction …”

You did say that. You said I had “acted on these reports.” I quoted reports after the election as part and parcel of my argument that the original reason for introducing this Bill had been substantiated afterwards by them. The hon. member then quoted these reports and said that I had acted on them. Perhaps the hon. member did not mean that, but I caught him out there. [Interjections.] One expects members to do their homework and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did not do so. I think it is nonsense to say what he did, because I expounded on the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. I said it was being introduced because of things that had happened last year and things that were said last year. I did this not only on the strength of newspaper reports, although I had quotations from newspapers here which I never denied. I acted also on the strength of facts which can be substantiated by looking at the agenda of the CRC. For example, one item reads: “That this Council rejects the Additional Part Appropriation Bill”. This was their right, but eventually that put the council in a spot. Nothing could be done about it, but in November they reversed this situation. I should like to quote something just to make sure that the hon. member does not suspect me of anything bad—

This was a report referring to statements made after the election. Having said this, I want to come to the hon. member for Pinelands. An allegation has been made to the effect that we did not consult with the Labour leaders. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made that allegation, and the hon. member for Pinelands mentioned it, as did the hon. member for Yeoville and others. The members of the fairly tattered Opposition need not get panicky about discussions with these people. I was very amused by a report in the Sunday Times Extra of some two weeks ago by Howard Lawrence. I quote the following:

Is this correct? I just want to know. Are they acting here on a directive from the Coloured Labour Party or not? I gathered, from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, that discussions were held, and as far as I can gather it was panicky to resort to discussions with these people at a time when the dust had not even settled yet.

*I really do not regard this as something for a party to be proud of.

This was a panicky Bill.

I really do not regard this as something for a party to be proud of. I first contacted and consulted with the leader of the Labour opposition three weeks ago, about a week after the election, when we were sure what the results were, and on the first day on which the Cabinet could meet to decide what we should do in respect of the new dispensation, although I had to make recommendations and could decide in advance. The appointment of the leader of the opposition as chairman of the executive had to be decided on. Naturally we wanted to let these people know as soon as possible after this had been done, and my instruction was to let the people know as soon as possible what we had decided, that he was to be the leader and that they were to have a working majority. If my people were efficient and saw to it that Mr. Leon received the message that very day, hon. members must please not blame me and try to disparage me by saying that my actions were panicky because the message was sent to him or was taken to him by someone. I sent no one to him.

†I sent no courier to him. I only said one thing and that is as far as my duty goes. I said that my department must see to it that these people know, as soon as possible, what the position is; the dust has settled and they should know. That is then what happened.

*On 26 March we met and it was decided to give these people the opportunity. Did hon. members want us to decide beforehand? Should I have made statements before the Cabinet had even been able to meet? Have hon. members not noticed that too many statements, which eventually contradict one another, only create confusion for us and that they create confusion among the Opposition as well? The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made an accusation against me.

†He accused me of incompetence or stupidity. I would rather be incompetent or stupid than make use of the kind of logic he has used in fighting this Bill.

*I do not consider his logic to be a credit to him as a person who has been so well trained in the law.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke of two contradictory mandates. It is true that superficially speaking they are two mandates. On the one hand we as the governing party should realize that we have a great responsibility towards our voters— they represent the vast majority of the White voters in South Africa today—to implement the policy of separate development, which was debated on all platforms. No matter what the hon. member for Yeoville says, this policy was very thoroughly canvassed over a period of three to four months. We cannot hold a referendum among the Whites every few months to determine whether the Coloured people should be represented in this House. We have elections from time to time and the question of whether we are going to have a different dispensation in two, three, four, five or a hundered years’ time is not relevant now. The fact is that we have received a mandate from our voters. The hon. members on the other side of the House also received that mandate, for at that time this was their policy as well. The policy which the hon. members are now advocating here, namely that these people should get representation in this House, is a volte face which has taken place since then and which testifies to political expediency. It is not the policy which the hon. members discussed at their congresses, so they should not blame us now for implementing a policy on which we decided at our congresses. Now there are two mandates. In the first place we have a mandate, and in the second place the Coloured people have a mandate which they interpret literally. We are adults and we are dealing with adults, even though we differ. If, in the heat of the debate during an election campaign, politicians were to say certain things —this has been said here repeatedly—which they want to interpret and carry out literally afterwards, surely we would have blood-baths in this country, we would have a blood-bath after every election. After all, these people have to win an election. During elections there is not only an element which wishes to realize certain aspirations. There are other elements as well, which I do not want to mention now because it would be irresponsible of me. There are other elements, people who are not easily assimilable. I use the words “easily assimilable” and the Press should please remember this, for if they do not, they will soon be saying that I said the people are not assimilable. The elements to which I referred can in fact be assimilated in a certain way, and we have made provision for this in our Cabinet Council and our other councils. The fact remains that when we are dealing with elements such as these, things are often said in the heat of the fight which in retrospect cannot be carried out literally. I think that the Labour Party, as the majority party, the party we want to give the opportunity of governing, realizes this. With whom are they now to have interviews? With whom are they now to talk? With whom are they to seek a solution? With this Government and nobody else. Do hon. members expect this Government to run to and fro, or should it consult these people in the normal course of affairs? These consultations have been going on for three full weeks, and reports on them do not appear in the Press every day. Why should they appear in the Press?

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

Yes, you may.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister the same question which the hon. member for Durbanville has put to me. The Coloured voters give a mandate to the people they elect to carry out a policy, and the White electorate gives us a mandate to carry out a policy. The two policies are different. Is it not baasskap if we enforce our policy on them?

The counter-question is whether this Parliament is sovereign and carries the final responsibility for every person living in South Africa at this stage. For this reason it must take every measure at this stage to ensure that chaos does not ensue. It is not a question of oppressing people, but of the right step which has to be taken at a particular stage. If these people come to talk to us, perhaps we shall not have these measures on the Statute Book at all any more in one or two years’ time. But then we must talk and not just rant and rave on our own. I think that these people understand this. I think they understand that we must talk and that we must at least be logical in this regard. I think the hon. member understands perfectly well what I mean. One cannot interpret the so-called mandates literally. There are in fact mandates which can be interpreted in a general sense. I think that what everyone meant was that generally speaking they did not want to see the CRC as the ultimate destination. However, they did not mean that the CRC should not be there at all. I just want to tell the hon. member that while 20 members have to be nominated, I have received well over 80 applications, and I believe that more than a third of them may be from supporters of the Labour Party. This being the case, where does the literal interpretation of the abolition of the CRC come from?

Now I want to come to another point. It is true that the majority of the voters did not vote. In an evolutionary political development and expanding set-up one must consider those aspects as well. One cannot only look at those who voted. One can in fact disregard this in the future, as we ourselves are doing today in looking only at the number of members on our side. They are not evenly distributed, but that is part of our Constitution. In the case of the Coloured people, however, the Government has an obligation to consider those people who did not vote, for it is generally accepted that rightly or wrongly they are not yet utilizing the democratic process to the full.

The last point I want to come to is very important. The hon. member for Edenvale really wanted to suggest here that the existing legislation is quite adequate for achieving what we wish to achieve with the legislation which is now before us. I just want to tell the hon. member that it is true that the State President may remove the chairman at any time and that if too many vacancies arise in the executive, a new executive may be constituted. Two-thirds of them can be removed and new members can be elected while the chairman carries on in the meantime. But can the hon. member imagine two-thirds of the executive being removed by the majority party while a two-thirds majority is required for removing someone? Even if they are removed, am I to remove one chairman after another until I find one who will do as I say? Surely in that case I may just as well do the work myself from the outset, rather than to cause more and more friction. Am I then to look for a stooge, as hon. members on the other side are always accusing us of doing? In that case, surely I could just as well say: “You are not doing the work now; I shall do it until you want to do it again.” This is a practical measure which has to be taken and if we do not take this measure, hon. members on the other side will be the first to accuse us of not having had the insight and of having allowed ourselves to be trapped because we were too stupid to look ahead. They will say that we have been warned over a period of years—I am not referring to what has been said in this case. For this reason I want to come back to what I said at the outset, namely that I should rather see a policy collapse, because this is not the most important thing in life. The most important thing for a Government, for a nation or for circumstances such as those in which we find ourselves is to achieve success, but then in an orderly manner. If we are to have change, it will take place in an orderly manner, make no mistake about that. If it takes place in a disorderly manner it will meet with nothing but our opposition. If hon. members disagree with us as to the way in which we are doing it, they will just have to disagree. There is a way in which something must be done and whatever action one takes, with some people one can never win, for no matter what one does, some criticism can be expressed against it. I have the right and the power to manipulate the executive to a certain extent. I concede that. Put my power is so limited that its use would cause much more friction than it would prevent. I think the hon. member will understand that.

The hon. member raised another point which I believe must be answered. He said that we could have waited until these people met in May and if then they did not perform their duties in terms of the oath or the solemn declaration which they make, we could have taken steps. But a solemn declaration can also be interpreted in various ways. This is one’s democratic right as well. Nevertheless, if this is done and things do not come right in May, do hon. members think that this Parliament could pass a law then? What law could it pass then? Should it pass a law enabling it to take over control of the budget? What is more, we do not know whether these people will act in the way that hon. members imagine. Hon. members say that we should first wait and see whether they act in this way. They may only meet in August to approve this budget which we approved initially. We can only approve this in June, and then they have to decide about it in August. Does the hon. member want us to summon Parliament specially for this purpose? I do not think the hon. member realizes the practical implications of the statement he made. I should have expected that with the knowledge he has, the hon. member would have made a closer study of the Bill as well as of the problems we are faced with in this regard. The allegation that it takes a week to prepare legislation of this nature really does not hold water in my opinion. We all know that as far as this is concerned, it sometimes takes months, because one sometimes has a difference of opinion, even between prominent lawyers. I expressed my doubts about the efficiency of this legislation as far back as October or November last year. However, I said that it would be unfair to the Coloured people to confront them with this matter in the middle of an election. I thought it would be better for us to do so when the dust had settled.

This legislation is merely aimed at filling a gap in legislation in respect of a lower government body as its exists at this stage. It is up to those in control to begin talks. They can initiate them. Those talks will take place in the light of public opinion. Then people will be able to say whether we are being unfair. However, if they refuse to have talks and flatly demand: “I want to come and sit in this Parliament on a common voters’ roll, an unqualified voters’ roll with proportional representation,” then I say that no hon. member on that side would be prepared to grant that at this stage. In other words, the friction will remain; it will not cease.

If we did not want to be accused, of a lack of insight and of irresponsibility, we had to do our duty, and we have done it. If we had not known our duty, in respect of many Coloured people as well, the vast majority at this stage, or if we had not done our duty, since we still have the final responsibility at this stage, I would have been ashamed and I would have felt that I was not doing my duty as a Minister. I know that there are Coloured people who are disappointed about the fact that we have to pass a measure of this nature, which seems to be a temporary retrogressive step; I understand that perfectly well. I also want to tell hon. members that I talk to quite a number of these people. They are sensible people. They understand why it was absolutely necessary. I think it will also serve to encourage these people to come and talk to us and to solve problems which arise between people and national groups who have to co-exist on the South African soil.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate we made it clear to the hon. the Minister from this side that we welcomed the provision which was being made in this Bill for community development. But there are one or two aspects of this clause in connection with which we would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister. This clause deals with facilities for community development. Reference is made here to the provision of service centres for elderly people, and there is specific reference to the provision of recreational, educational, health and welfare auxiliary services for elderly people. Then there is reference to places of care for the reception, protection and care of children. I do not know whether this refers to nursery schools, or whether it is merely intended to provide crèche facilities. Then paragraph (d) refers to the provision of facilities for community development. In the course of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister did say that he had in mind community halls, libraries, swimming baths and what he termed “recreational facilities”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is intended to provide further facilities which have not been defined here. My difficulty is that the term “facilities for community development” is used here without defining what it includes. Is the provision of recreational facilities such as sports grounds now to become the responsibility of the Minister’s department? Will they fall under the Department of Sport, or will the responsibility for the provision of these facilities be passed on to the local authorities and funds made available to them through the Department of Sport, or will this be done through the Department of Community Development? Does the same thing apply to the provision of crèches and the provision of day hospitals, which are certainly community facilities? Will these be dealt with by the hon. the Minister’s department, or would this be a matter of arrangement with the Provincial Administrations?

Health?

Yes, I am talking about day hospitals, which normally fall not under the Department of Health, but under the Provincial Administrations. Would subsidies be granted for this purpose through the Provincial Administrations? I can appreciate that clinics, preventive measures, inoculations and examinations and T.B. screening will be taken care of by the local authorities. What I am trying to indicate to the hon. the Minister is that while one welcomes this move, it seems to me that there will have to be close co-ordination between the various authorities who are responsible for what I regard as community facilities of the kind that I have indicated. As far as the provision of sites for religious denominations is concerned, will that be regarded as the responsibility of the community, or will the religious denominations have to continue to do what they are doing now, and that is to purchase sites which are set aside for churches in the layout of townships, or will the hon. the Minister give consideration to the granting of assistance to religious denominations in connection with the acquisition of sites? Sir, I ask these questions because I think these are matters of interest which require attention. On the question of facilities for community development, I believe that one of the real problems that one has in the rapidly expanding Coloured townships is that there are individual dwellings on individual plots —I suppose at the time it was considered to be desirable—and that one finds vast numbers of unkept areas round these single residential buildings, probably due to the fact that these people neither have the time nor the money to look after these sites. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared to regard the cost of establishing and maintaining common areas like playgrounds by local authorities as a legitimate charge against funds of the State. I believe that this would result in better facilities for the inhabitants of these areas, and that it would certainly lead to greater tidiness and better living conditions than exist at a number of detached buildings where the yards and the gardens are not maintained for economic or other reasons, I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would elaboratè a little more on these various aspects which can be regarded as facilities for community development.

To reply briefly to questions put by the hon. member, it is not the intention that my department will take over any of the functions of the Department of Sport and Recreation with regard to the provision of sports facilities, or any of the functions of the Department of Health in regard to the provision of health services with the powers it is taking here. The real problem is that it was assumed that local authorities had to provide certain facilities for the community such as sports grounds, sports facilities, community halls for the purpose of cultural and recreational activities, but that the local authorities found that the revenue from these townships was so small, that the ratepayers in the more prosperous townships always had to pay in because the funds for those purposes were not available. What is being envisaged here, is that financial means are now going to be created for those purposes, and in addition provision is going to be made for the necessary administrative machinery for the establishment of those facilities which the local authorities failed to provide and which, according to calculation, would up to this stage probably have cost an amount of perhaps R50 million. The aim is to improve those facilities in these townships which are being developed and also in those which are there already but in which the facilities are still lacking. As far as religious associations are concerned, the position is that my department makes provision for sites for religious associations when the town is being planned, and those sites are then offered for sale to the religious associations under special conditions. That position remains unchanged. What the new provisions which are, in fact, being inserted here, amount to is that my department is now taking over certain responsibilities which were formerly supposed to be the responsibility of local authorities. Then there are the new provisions which are being inserted in subclause (1)(c)(i) and (ii) and (d) in consultation with the Department of Social Welfare. [Interjection.] Yes, (c) and (e) are new provisions, and so, too, is (d). That is the one I have just dealt with. Then, if I interpreted the hon. member correctly, he referred to untended gardens and matters of that kind. My department tries to do its best in that respect by organizing garden competitions, etc., in an effort to encourage the interest of people in beautifying their environment. We are giving attention to that matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Sir, I find this clause interesting and I believe that we in Committee here should consider what this Council is going to mean in future. I think it is noticeable—the hon. member for Wynberg mentioned this in the Second Reading —that the Department of Community Development is now adopting a far more positive approach to local authorities, in this sense that the department seeks co-operation to a far greater extent. We welcome this and hope that it will also happen with regard to this clause 2, for we have here a very interesting phenomenon in this sense that the departments whose Estimates we usually discuss in this House of Assembly, with the exception of the Bantu Administration Departments, deal only with Whites, Coloured and Indian affairs, but here we have something in this legislation which also deals with Bantu affairs. We welcome this, for I think it is a sound practice that the activities of the Department of Housing will not be restricted to certain communities only, because the Department of Community Development acquires a vast amount of experience and knowledge. The benefit of its knowledge ought to be made available not only to the Coloured, Indian and White communities, but also to the Black people. I think we all accept that fine work has been done by this department in certain respects, and we are looking forward to more. Mr. Van Onselen, from the Department of Bantu Administration, was in my constituency recently, in February, to address a dinner of the Chamber of Industries. There, of course, he discussed Black housing, about which many people in my constituency, as well as the member of Parliament for that constituency, are worried. Mr. Van Onselen mentioned the fact that his department was going to spend R78 million on Black housing this year. I am sorry that the amendments which are being effected here, will not be applicable to the provision of Bantu housing as well. I wish, to quote here from a very interesting book which appeared recently, written by a number of lecturers at the University of Natal, From Shantytown to Township. It was published last month and I wish, to quote only the following—

I need not tell this House that the biggest increase in housing and in population in this country will take place among the Black people, and I predict that within 10 years the Estimates for the housing of Black people are going to be far bigger— in fact they ought to be bigger already— than the Estimates for White, Indian and Coloured housing. I find it a great pity that the amendments in this Bill we are now discussing, and specifically the amendments in clause 2, are not also being made applicable to the activities of the Bantu Housing Board. We are also sorry that it is not being provided here that at least one of the two officials of the department who shall be appointed shall be a Black person appointed on merit. For the paternalism we have had in this country as far as the housing of Black people is concerned, is amazing. During the last 15 years I think that we have had six tribal university colleges in South Africa which did not only accommodate Bantu. There was one for the Afrikaner tribe, the Rand Afrikaans Universtiy; there was one for the Zulu tribe; there was one for the Sotho tribe in the Northern Transvaal; there was also one in Port Elizabeth which is also, in point of fact, a tribal university; and then, of course, there are the Coloured and Indian universities, too. Sir, can you believe that, when the hostels for Black people at the University of the North were designed by Whites, they decided that the hostels should also have Lapas? They always referred to the Black people as “they” and said: “We know what they need”; “we know them”. We cannot carry on in this manner if we want to establish community facilities. What did they say about the University of the North? There they only went up two storeys, for they said “They do not want to live in tall buildings”. What nonsense, what stupidity! And why? It is because people are not prepared to hold proper consultations with other people. Sir, can you imagine how the Zulus, for example, would design housing for the Afrikaans or the English group as a tribe? If they were to develop an Afrikaans university, they would probably have a wooden block for carving up biltong, which is quite unnecessary. But in many cases we tell those people what they need, instead of consulting them. The most important supplier of labour in our country is the Public Service, and it is also, in contrast to other sectors of our society, the whitest labour force. It is necessary for us to have more consultation with the Black people, and what better representatives can we find to serve on boards of this kind than Black people? I would like to bring it to the attention of the Minister that this entire aspect of housing, especially Bantu housing, is going to become an increasingly more important aspect of our community. It is actually, to a large extent, going to make the Coloured, the Indian and the White aspect appear to be a minor aspect in comparison with the need that is going to arise with the ubranization and growth of the Bantu. In this respect it is important that there should also be Bantu persons, if they are competent, who are able to serve on the Housing Board. Not only that, but I also believe that they should concentrate on the provision of community facilities. In most cases the first community facilities which, are provided in Bantu areas are beer halls. I think that is wrong; we all know what effect that has on a community. We should also attempt to have the department of the Minister advise the Bantu Housing Board on the design of Bantu housing. The present design of the houses is extremely boring; virtually all the houses are four-roomed houses. I believe that this department which is in many respects susceptible to changes, as far as group housing and better community facilities are concerned for example should also, with its ingenuity, knowledge and experience, play a part in housing.

We all know that there is an enormous housing need. There is another aspect of Bantu housing to which I believe this department should give attention. We always go to the Blacks and tell them that we are Anglo-Saxons and that we design everything according to our Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic background. We say: These sites should be zoned for flats, these for houses, these for shops and these for halls, and so on. We are all aware of some of the slums and other areas that were not necessarily designed according to our pattern. They do, however, have a community spirit for they ply a trade in the place, they live in the place and they also have offices there. I believe that the Minister should give attention to this aspect of Bantu housing and to the possibility of establishing community facilities in this way and making a contribution to the housing of Bantu in this country. I believe that the best way in which, to do that, is to increase the size of this board and to appoint capable Bantu as members of the board. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must thank the hon. member for Pinetown for the friendly comments he made on my department. What is really at issue here, is that the Bantu Administration has undergone a reorganization and provision is being made in the legislation for the representation on the Bantu Housing Board. As a result of the reorganization, representation can no longer take place in that way, and therefore provision is being made in this way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister would do us a service if he would convey to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, that what we have in mind—and I am sure this is a matter which this hon. Minister is pleased with—is that one of the two representatives should possibly be a Bantu, when there is such a qualified person to serve on the board. Can the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that he will convey this to his colleague and that he will act on his good advice at a later stage?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment is self-explanatory.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives power to the Minister to require a local authority to prepare and to submit to the commission for its consent and thereupon to carry out a scheme for such purpose as may be determined by the commission. The hon. the Minister has indicated that, like us, he does not like to have these powers, but that he believed it might be necessary on occasion to have such powers in respect of a local authority. We have considered the matter and believe that, in fact, any request which is made by the Minister or by any other Minister in the future would of necessity mean an improvement of existing facilities. In other words, a scheme contemplated here would be a scheme to provide community facilities which do not at present exist or to provide for housing which at the moment does not exist. In other words, it could not be anything other than to provide for an improvement of conditions, within the powers of the Minister in terms of the Housing Act. For those reasons, although we had queries in this regard, we accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances which he gave us in the Second Reading debate and we will not oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in this connection I may simply mention that I think that this is a power which will seldom be used, because it is our experience that consultation with local authorities is such, that this necessity will not really develop. However, a few cases exist where it does occur. As far as the quality is concerned, the position is, as I indicated in my Second Reading Speech, that a Committee will be appointed on which local authorities will also have representation. This will ensure that there will, more or less, be uniformity. Where standards are lacking and there ought to be improvements, one will be able to do this and one will also be able to ensure that it is not too ambitious since funds have to be found.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, what I wish to speak on more particularly is what exactly the Minister has in mind by “standards”. Today, in determining what the standards are for community development, it does not necessarily only mean the physical standards of the building, but what is to be achieved, in the sense of how it is going to build a community spirit and how it will perhaps meet the needs of various communities. Some communities may prefer open-air facilities in the form of an amphitheatre. Some others may prefer something like a building.

I imagine the Minister is fully aware of the fact that in the Cape there has been a tradition of housing by the people for the people. We have it in these public utility companies such as the Garden Cities Development Company, the Citizens’ Housing League, etc. I think it is a great tribute to the community development standards which have been determined, for example, by the Citizens’ Housing League in the Cape, that many Coloured people prefer to live in Bishop Lavis Township above any other. One wonders whether this committee is going to try to meet the same kind of situation which the Citizens’ Housing League—incidentally, a member opposite is a director of this organization—is providing for. The Citizens’ Housing League has been precluded by this Government’s racial legislation from continuing to provide services for anybody other than Whites, but the feature of Bishop Lavis Township is the fact that the people who developed that township provided adequate social services. There was a high proportion of social workers to the number of people, there were halls and schools built and there was a real effort, not just to put people in little concrete boxes or ticky-tacky houses as the folk song has it, but to build them into a real community. There is also another very interesting development going on in the Western Cape which I know has been brought to the attention of the Minister’s department, viz. the Belhar Housing Scheme, where the Chamber of Commerce is creating what to me is one of the most exciting housing developments in this country. There again they have set themselves certain housing standards for establishing a community. They have in one section established what we call in Afrikaans “trosbehuising”, and in English “cluster housing”. They have interspersed, in this development, certain community development areas, places where people can gather together. The important thing is that they have, every step of the way, consulted with the Coloured people who are going into that housing scheme. They have asked them what they want and what suits them in a housing development. Once the various companies, which are members of the Chamber of Commerce, nominated their employees to benefit from these community development facilities, those employees were called together and asked to choose what kind of houses they wanted. They were shown a model and given the plan and there was close consultation between the architect and the developers, and the people who were going to live in that area, in an attempt to get some idea of what the prospective residents wanted. Of course, today we are realizing more and more—and that is obviously why we welcome this entire Bill, particularly the appointment of such a committee—that we must move away from the idea of building houses which merely consist of a number of rooms knocked together. We have to create communities, places where people can be well-adjusted and where they can be happily settled. In the Western world, of course, we have had a great deal of experience of this. We realize how important it is with the growth of these great urban societies we are going to have in this country where by the turn of the century we will have 12 or 15 cities with more than a million inhabitants—we need to make our cities warm places, places where people can belong. We do not want to make them lonely concrete jungles. That is why I believe that this committee is very important, but we must ask the hon. the Minister what standards it is going to determine. Is it considering all these aspects? Are green areas being considered, and what about smaller community areas where the Voortrekkers, Cubs, Scouts or local women’s groups can gather together? Are we simply going to provide big halls with a tearoom attached? Are we going to use some imagination and work this aspect into the whole concept of cluster housing? In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned that there would be representatives from various Government departments and that there might even be some Coloureds serving on this committee. I think the Minister should give us the assurance, however, that there will in fact not only be Coloureds but Indians and Black people as well. Unfortunately, for some strange administrative reason, this would appear to fall outside his authority. These various groups should be serving on this committee to determine what is needed in terms of a community for all the people. I would urge the hon. the Minister to move away from this rigid, ideological Nationalist point of view that White people can tell other people how they must run their lives. Let us rather have consultation, let us rather get together and ask what the people want as a community. I am sure that then we shall be able to create decent housing for all our people once the hon. the Minister ensures that this committee knows what its standards should be. They should not be standards relating merely to bricks and mortar. They should be standards creating intangible value in community life. There should also be non-Whites of all kinds, i.e. Blacks, Indians and Coloureds, serving on these committees.

Mr. Chairman, in a few words I should just like to say that I think that the community spirit about which the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, will grow as community facilities are provided on a proper basis. Extravagent facilities cannot be provided because they have to be paid for. Community facilities which are made available on a healthy basis will contribute to the development of that community spirit. That is one of our aims. In my Second Reading speech I indicated what the representation on the committee will be.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabour the point. I accept the fact that these developments must be paid for. I do not dispute that for one minute. What I mean is that we must not come along with a fixed and rigid idea that every community must only have one hall and that is all. It may well suit the community to have a smaller hall and perhaps two or three little rooms which would be suitable for the community dotted around a certain area rather than having one colossal hall which is only filled very rarely and where the acoustics are terrible, thereby perhaps not meeting the needs of the community. For example, in an area like Natal with a good climate one may find that people may prefer to have an open-air meeting place. Instead of spending the money on halls in such cases, the hon. the Minister and his department should seek to adopt a more creative approach to the whole need for community areas. I do not wish to suggest that they should get these amenities free or that they should not be paid for out of the structure which the hon. the Minister is creating by this Bill, but it seems to me that the Department of Community Development must take the lead and the initiative in supporting, for example, a concept like the one which the Chamber of Commerce is building in Bellville South. There are also a few other examples. They can come to my constituency and see a housing scheme which is being built for Whites. Admittedly, this housing scheme at Paradise Valley, is being built at a much higher cost level but there they have a superb concept of community living. They have squash courts, swimming pools—just about everything in this whole community. What I really mean is that the hon. the Minister should consider not only a sort of church-hall structure in the middle of the township but something more creative.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing that the hon. member for Pinetown should have come here and told us, chapter and verse, that we should not dictate to the Bantu or the Coloureds how their housing should be done. For the past ten minutes he has been telling us in what way halls should be built, something which is not described in this Bill at all. He is telling a committee which has not yet been constituted, that they should not build square walls, that they should not make halls too large, etc. The hon. member reminds me very much of the little boy in the comic strip “Dagwood and Blondie” who goes about laughing so much all day that his jaw covers his eyes. Surely we are dealing with housing. We have just heard about the University of the North where buildings of more than two storeys are not to be built. Does the hon. member have any knowledge of building costs? Does the hon. member know what it will cost to add a third storey to the University of the North building, around which there are miles and miles of land so that land is therefore not a factor? The hon. member is fussing about unnecessarily here. He is working on the design and drawing up the plans.

He wants to play architect.

He is architect, teacher and preacher, all at the same time, for the same congregation. No, really, I think the hon. member should understand that the hon. the Minister has an extremely difficult task to make proper provision by means of his committees, with the money at his disposal, and in terms of the provisions of this legislation. The hon. the Minister and his department have tried to supply what has been lacking over the years in our community, and has succeeded to a great extent in getting municipalities to co-operate with them properly. This is something which did not happen before. I just want to pay very great tribute to the hon. the Minister and his department for being so successful today. The hon. member discussed housing for Blacks. I want to say to him that they are painting the houses white. There is no such thing as Black housing, Brown housing, Yellow housing or houses with curry-coloured walls. The hon. members are so colour-blind that when a house is built for a Bantu, it is, for them, a pitch-black house. Hon. members should forget about it, about cluster housing and that sort of thing. I may say to the hon. member that this department has seen more plans than there is sugar cane in Natal for example.

Never!

Many planning ideas are submitted to the department. I may tell the hon. member for Pinetown that the Niemand Commission and other commissions on which we served have been dealing with these plans for years, but one factor has always been lacking, viz. money. There has never been a lack of ideas. It was this Minister who persuaded municipalities that they should contribute at the financial and administrative level. The hon. member should not become so serious about the size of the halls. I could probably take up the time of this House for six weeks if we were to ponder the question of whether a street should not have more than six adjoining houses or why a cable should run underground and not above ground, but we are not dealing with that. Surely this is not what this clause demands. Let us confine ourselves to the clauses.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte would have been able to make a more reasonable contribution to this debate if he had dealt with the basis of the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Pinetown raised the point under a previous clause as well as under this clause that this committee should be representative of all the race groups. If the hon. member does not like that, let him tell the House that he does not think all the race groups should be represented and consulted. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Langlaagte should know since he has had experience of it, that one of the greatest irritants in the past in respect of relations between local authorities and the Department of Community Development has been that the Department of Community Development has laid down standards which did not take into account the requirements of the local authorities. This has happened in Natal. The hon. the Minister is aware that, while certain standards are required by the Natal Administration because they know through experience that those standards are necessary, those standards were not followed by the Department of Community Development. This has created problems. Here in Bothasig there were also departures from the normal municipal requirements in the Cape. The hon. the Minister is aware and the hon. member for Langlaagte should also be aware—if he is not, he should inquire into this—that there have been a great number of problems arising from standards not being observed where such standards are based by local authorities on the requirements of the area concerned. That has been an irritant and I am hopeful from what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech that the constitution of the committee is going to be such that in future due regard will be had to the requirements of the local authorities in the areas concerned and that, in planning schemes and setting standards, there will not be a departure from tried and essential requirements connected with weather conditions, ground formations and other conditions in the various areas. We would welcome such a step.

The hon. member for Pinetown has made a plea to the hon. the Minister that there should be some consideration for the requirements of the various race groups which are involved in a particular case. I may say to the hon. member for Langlaagte that, if he goes into the history of the University of the North, he will realize that it was built with Lapa’s which were going to be student gathering places. These were extolled in this House and we were told how they would meet the natural requirements of the Bantu, but now there is a multi-storeyed residential students’ block at the University of the North. That is the change that has taken place.

To come back to the clause before us, I believe the hon. the Minister is taking a step in the right direction with the composition of this committee. He has consulted the United Municipal Executive in this connection and what the hon. member for Pinetown asks is that he should also have regard to the Indian Council in respect of Indian housing and the CRC in respect of Coloured housing.

Obviously, we shall not move an amendment since one cannot tie the hon. the Minister’s hands. He will know of the availability of those persons and we shall accept his assurance that, when there are persons available in either of those categories, they will be considered for appointment on this committee when it is established.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member for Langlaagte just wanted to lay his egg and cackle at his achievement. To me it sounded as though the hon. member for Langlaagte laid his egg and then looked around to see in what direction he could run off cackling, because he heard nothing of what I said in my attempt to make a positive contribution to this debate. The hon. member came to the rescue of his hon. Minister who had got himself into difficulties. I can assure him that my behaviour was in no way intended to launch an attack on the hon. the Minister. I wanted to raise a few facts here for precisely the same reasons mentioned by the hon. member himself. He said that the committee has not yet been appointed and that the standards have not yet been determined. Surely, now is the time for one to make a few suggestions to the committee. I just wanted to tell them that they should please not approach this whole matter in too ideological a manner, and that they should be prepared to be flexible in the application of their standards. I should also just like to inform the hon. member that the hon. the Minister does not have to convince the members of the local authority to have this type of legislation. If the hon. member had read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he would have seen that the hon. the Minister had, to a large extent, done this at the request of the local authorities of the United Municipal Executive. The hon. member should therefore please do his homework before speaking here and laying his egg. [Interjections.] The hon. member said, furthermore, that every house should be the same. Good; I agree that standards should be the same, but in Natal, for example, most of the Indians have large families. The mother and father live with the children and in many cases the type of house they need for the Indian community, is a six-roomed house. The ordinary four-roomed house is inadequate, because the parents may quite possibly want to live with their children. If the department or the local authority wants to be in step with the cultural practices of these people, they should design the houses in this way. Therefore, there should of course be changes and I welcome the change we now see in this whole department, viz. that they are now prepared to act in a more pragmatic way, to be more flexible and to consult local authorities to a greater extent instead of just saying: “This is what you should do, period”. My advice to that hon. member for Langlaagte is that he should do a bit of homework before he takes part in a serious and useful debate and tries to let fly like a hen that does not know where she is going.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I think this is self-explanatory.

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions which arise in regard to this clause and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us some clarity in this regard. We accept the amendment he has moved because it will bring about consultation with the local authorities.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.