Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the House last night I was reacting to the standpoints and requests of the hon. member for Pinetown, who apologized for not being able to be here today. However, I think that the matters which he raised are important enough to warrant my placing the full particulars in regard to the subject on record.

But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to make an observation on your ruling yesterday on certain words which I used in the debate. Your ruling yesterday was that you did not interpret my words or remarks to mean that the official Opposition were advocates or propagandists of the schools of thought represented by the ANC, the PAC, the S.A. Communist Party, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and Swapo. I wish to confirm that your interpretation of what I said was indeed correct and that I definitely did not intend what was understood by my words on the opposite side of the House.

I debated the issue of the school boycotts by Indian pupils with the hon. member for Pinetown. In a very friendly way I pointed out to the hon. member that his behaviour in that connection had, so I thought, been wrong. The hon. member indicated that he agreed that discipline was one of the more important components of the educational and teaching process and that a duty to apply that discipline rests on the shoulders of those who are responsible for that education, in exactly the same way as a duty to apply self-discipline rests on the shoulders of individuals.

If we were to examine the factual circumstances and the causes which gave rise to the unrest at Indian schools, I should like to emphasize that the unrest initially began as a commemoration of the actions of pupils during 1980 and that the boycott eventually, also under outside influence and specifically, too, under the influence of the Anti-Republic Festival Committee, developed into acts of boycott aimed at the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Republic, although no one was in any way compelled to participate in any festivities. Now, it is interesting to see that no reference was ever made in the media in Natal to the reasons for the boycotts when they began.

With all the earnestness which I can muster, I therefore wish to address a request to certain organizations and students at the Medical School of the University of Natal today to keep their hands off the education of children. I wish to emphasize that one of the principal reasons for, and one of the principal influencing factors in regard to the behaviour of the children, had their origin at that medical school. In the second place I wish to address a serious warning to those who misuse children to achieve their own radical objectives in this country. I think that this House—and I think that hon. members will support me in this connection—should place on record its disapproval of and its displeasure at such deplorable conduct.

In an effort to avert the boycott movement by Indian schools, school principals and teachers, who in the first place have a disciplinary function to fulfil, were requested to persuade the pupils to return to the class-rooms. Only when it became clear that this process would achieve scant success were letters sent to the parents of individual pupils involved in the campaign. In the letters the consequences of the conduct of the children were made clear to the parents, and the letters also contained an invitation to the parents to discuss any problems which they might have with the school principals. Many parents availed themselves of this invitation and discussed matters with the school principals, with the result that many of the pupils who had been participating in the boycott movement, returned to their classes. However, nowhere did I read any publicity being given to these people’s actions. There is only one inevitable conclusion to be drawn, which is that it did not fit in with the pattern of that which certain members of the media wished to achieve.

After the pupils had refused to heed the repeated appeals by school principals, and still refused to do so even after those letters have been sent to the parents, the school principals, as direct functionaries in the disciplinary process, suspended the children so that order could be restored in the schools and so that those pupils who wished to proceed with their programme of study, could do so. The number of pupils involved represented 0,3% of the school-going pupils of this community. I want to emphasize that the educational authorities, all the way from the school principal up to the Director of Education, have a duty to protect those children who want to learn and avail themselves of the educational facilities against the boycotters. If hon. members wish to look at the pass rate, for example among matriculants in the Brown community during 1980, and compare it with the pass rate for 1979, there was a significant decline, of more than 20% if my memory does not fail me. One of the causes was the destabilizing effect which the boycotts had had on the children, even on those who attended the schools. There is no one who can accuse me or my officials in the department of not having done everything in our power to improve the services, physically and essentially, in respect of education for these population groups. On behalf of the Government I commit myself to achieving equal quality in respect of content and facilities for all people, as soon as our financial resources allow us to do so. There must be no doubt about this. On the other hand, however, we cannot allow children to be misused because of hostile intentions and ulterior motives. Secondly, we cannot allow discipline in our country to be torn to shreds. I expect the officials whose duty it is, to maintain discipline. If we do not do that, then my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Police, must step in and do so. I maintain that it is not his function, and that he should not be put in the position where he has to do so. What were the consequences? The consequences of that suspension was that 605 pupils were expelled from those schools. All the expelled pupils were offered an opportunity to apply for readmission on certain conditions. After consideration, 191 pupils were readmitted. Ten pupils were permanently expelled from the schools, and 46 pupils did not apply. 358 were informed that they could apply for readmission at the beginning of 1982. The concession was granted to 172 of them to write their examinations as private candidates and if they should fail but qualified for re-examination, they could do this the following year. I went further. After I had met the Teachers’ Association, I said that if there were members of the teaching staff who wanted to give these children extra lessons after hours, we would, where possible, make facilities available for them to do so. Of these 172, 80 children availed themselves of this concession.

The fact that there is a pending court case prohibits me from discussing the merits of this matter. However, I have already indicated that if the review procedure which is in progress in respect of these pupils should result in the expulsion of these pupils remaining in force, I wish to indicate now that the Director of Education would be prepared to give favourable consideration to the readmission of these pupils, next year, with the exception of the identified ten pupils. I hope that in future I shall receive the support of the hon. members on the opposite side.

In conclusion I want to say—and the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Indian Council confirms this—that if the Director of Education had not taken the steps which he did take, the boycott and the resultant violence which would have stemmed from the boycott would have escalated, and I am not prepared to allow that in respect of the educational departments for which I am responsible.

Mr. Chairman, there are certain positive steps which I should like to convey to the hon. the Minister and his department as far as mass housing is concerned. I wish to discuss this first, and if I have any time left I shall also say something in connection with the school boycott.

From the nature of the case, mass housing is an unnatural method of township development, because within a matter of months, empty expanses can be converted into rows and rows of houses ready for people to move in. Apart from the normal disruption which changing one’s home entails, these people are of course saddled with additional social problems as well, because social or community structures areas yet lacking in such towns. [Interjections.] There is a collection of individuals, not a community. This, too, places a heavy burden on the planners of public services such as clinics, sport and recreation facilities, transport facilities and particularly, too, schools and nursery schools, in their endeavours to alleviate and not aggravate the problems of these instant communities. This department is responsible for the provision of school facilities and therefore I want to request the hon. the Minister and the department to accept as their policy that schools be included in housing contracts, or at least that local authorities see to it that they co-operate as closely as possible with the department so that school buildings may be made available immediately. I have been involved with several such schemes and I can personally attest to the impression that is created amongst the members of certain of these communities, viz. that they are being neglected by the Government, and they say that they have no say in their own destiny.

Another problem which I experienced is that the standard of the houses compares unfavourably with that of the school buildings. Technically there is nothing wrong with concrete block houses, but because this is seen primarily in mass housing schemes for non-Whites, there is a certain stigma clinging to it in the sense that the Government supposedly creates inferior housing. Thus, when a school is erected with red face-bricks, this incorrect conclusion is confirmed and it becomes difficult for local authorities to prove the opposite.

Which do you want us to change: The school or the house?

The same material must be used in building houses as well as schools. If this could be done, one would perhaps, due to the economy of numbers, be able to stretch the limited funds available for school buildings. We accept that at this stage there is a backlog, and this merely serves to prove that more funds must be appropriated for the erection of schools so that the Department of Community Development might actually build communities and not just houses.

The one fact that we must realize with regard to school boycotts is that the original boycott in 1980 did concern certain direct grievances concerning the schools as such. Those grievances were then dealt with immediately, with the result that at that stage the children saw the boycott action as productive. So in that case the Government did contribute to the feeling amongst the children that one does get a reaction as a result of boycotts.

The grievances of 1981 definitely had no bearing on school facilities. They concerned aspects not related to school facilities. The Republic Festival was held and we have recently learnt here that the old apartheid principles dating from 1948, will continue to be implemented. I think the children will soon realize that if they should participate in boycott actions in an effort to remove apartheid, they would not be successful and would only prejudice their own development. Therefore I request the Minister, on the basis of the Government’s ideal of self-determination, to restore to the Indian community their right to take decisions on the question of re-admission. They were deprived of that power by the Government in 1980, after the boycotts. I think that if that power were restored to them it would contribute towards restoring the confidence of the Indians in the Government.

Mr. Chairman while I was listening to the hon. member for Greytown, I could not help recalling two texts from the Bible which refer to young people. Solomon once said that youth is vanity and Paul wrote to Timothy that one should not despise one’s youth. The hon. member is young and new to this House. If I were now to give the hon. member a message, I should tell him that youth is vanity. If vanity is sometimes linked to unpreparedness and ignorance on a specific aspect, that definitely does not result in a very good contribution.

Old is obdurate!

When the hon. member became a member of the PFP, made himself available as a candidate and was eventually elected a member of this House …

I have been a member of the PFP since 1969.

… he joined a specific school of thought, a school of thought which has been active in South Africa for a few hundred years. This is particularly clear when we consider the concern for the Indian community in South Africa. I want to put it categorically to the hon. member today that as a member of the PFP he actually finds himself within the milieu of the old British imperialism, because he expresses the same ideas and philosophy which went hand in hand with that imperialism and connected to this is also a dash of old fashioned, hidebound liberalism.

I have already read all those old books.

The hon. member says he has read all those books, but has he read the book by Bala Pillay?

By whom?

I thought the hon. member had not yet read this book. As a matter of fact, I do not believe he has even gone through the report of the department. The book British Indians in the Transvaal appeared a while ago, and in …

What has that got to do with the report?

… the introduction the following appears—

This is the historic basis on which that hon. member now places himself. [Interjections.] However, I want to give him a further example. If he reads the book The South African Indian Question—1860 to 1971, by prof. Pachai, he will encounter the following on page 272, and the hon. member should listen to this—

He would learn something.

Yes, if he is capable of it. On page 272 one reads the following—

They were the hon. member’s spiritual forebears—

What has that got to do with your treatment of the Indians?

The writer goes on to say—

The hon. member who has just made an interjection, should listen to this. He has a somewhat thin skin. The writer says—

So what?

“So what”? I shall tell the hon. member “so what”. It is essential that we carry out an historical in-depth analysis today of the distribution and the emigration of Indians from India. In this connection I want to refer to two books that are very critical of my party, and the hon. member should read them. They were written by P. S. Joshi and the titles are The Tyranny of Coloured and Struggle for Equality. The writer analyses the problems of the Indians in South Africa, but the mistake he and the hon. member make is that they begin at a point in history which suits them. The hon. member begins his arguments only from a certain point in the history of South Africa, without indicating where the problem actually first arose. This writer, like many Indian leaders in South Africa, also begins at a certain point. But let us ascertain what the situation was more than 100 years ago in India itself. What were the conditions under which the Indians lived? What is interesting is that if one looks at the emigration figures, one is astounded to see how few Indians actually leave South Africa, in comparison with what Indian communities in the rest of Africa have done.

What has that got to do with it?

A great deal.

If other countries treat their people badly that does not mean we have to do the same.

The hon. member sees things in my argument which are completely untrue, and the hon. member knows they are untrue. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. member knows it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. That hon. member’s problem is that he does not know the history of his own people. He definitely does not know South Africa’s history. [Interjections.] He must give me a reason why Indian communities left Africa.

We all know that history.

Why did they leave?

Because they were oppressed.

That hon. member says the Indian communities left Africa because they were oppressed. But look at the emigration figures and see how many Indians leave South Africa, this so-called land of oppression. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the policy of those hon. gentlemen. What is their policy in fact? After all, their policy also involves the Indian community and not only the Whites, their own people. Sir, their policy, and this goes for the Indian community too, is Black majority rule in South Africa.

That is not true.

But it is true.

No, that is not right.

That hon. professor says it is not true. [Interjections.] I do not want to be disrespectful to the grey hairs of the hon. professor, but he must please explain something to me. Suppose they establish a Parliament for South Africa in which there is, as they say, no racial discrimination and all people above a certain age can vote, therefore all the individuals in South Africa are thrown together and they vote; who will then be in the majority? Who will the Government be?

Have you never looked at our proposals?

After all, it goes without saying that there will be a Black Government. [Interjections.]

Oh no, man.

No one with any understanding could argue this. One cannot have 10 people of whom nine are Black and think the majority will be the one White person.

He apparently wants a minority Government.

That is the absurdity of the policy of the hon. members of the PFP.

Are you scared of the Black people?

Today I want to state categorically that as long as the NP rules in South Africa, as long as the policy of the NP is victorious in South Africa …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the hon. the Prime Minister that South Africa is made up of a group of minorities, or does he consider it to be made up of one large Black majority?

I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] However, I do not understand the hon. member’s question. In South Africa there are minorities, if one sets one people against another. This is the point I am trying to bring home to the hon. member. I do not say the Indians in South Africa are completely satisfied with their dispensation, but historically they have had a better dispensation under the NP and its predecessors than they will have under the PFP or would have had under the PFP’s predecessors. This is stated in black and white. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I take great pleasure in associating myself with what the hon. member for Rissik said. It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Greytown, who is a new member of this House, still has a great deal to learn about the Indians and matters relating to them. The hon. member for Rissik asked hon. members to show him any place in Africa where the Indian was still welcome or where he has been allowed to take his rightful place. However, there is no such place in Africa. For Indians in South Africa there is not even a place in their mother country. I therefore agree with what the hon. member for Rissik said when he suggested that the Indians in South Africa are better off—in spite of all the unfortunate aspects and the so-called evils that fall to their lot—than in any other place in Africa, and even in their own mother country, India.

However, this afternoon I wish to discuss one of those matters which the Indians find offensive. This is a subject which has several times been subjected to scrutiny in this House, and is a subject which has in fact in certain respects been ridden to death. I wish to discuss the nominee system. I believe that where the Government has committed itself irrevocably to removing hurtful discrimination, the nominee system with regard to the Indians is one of the greatest, if not the greatest obstacle on the road to peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa. This system must be the greatest obstacle on the road to peaceful co-existence, because it is a fact that if an Indian wishes to trade in a White proclaimed business district he first has to obtain a permit, or he has to find a White—and I call them White blood-suckers—to take over 51% of the shares in the business, while the trader gets 49% of the shares. Such an Indian is then allowed to trade in a White business district. This means that when the name of such a White is used, it follows that he has to be remunerated accordingly, and this remuneration increases annually. That Indian is necessarily left to the mercy of this blood-sucking White. It also follows that this leads to large scale exploitation by these Whites.

Possibly Progs.

Yes, they are not “possibly Progs”. I can tell the hon. the Minister that most of them are indeed Progs. Hon. members should put themselves in the position of the Indians in any town or city, for example in my city. They should imagine what would happen if a big developer, Sanlam for example, were to decide to build a large business centre, an ultra-modern complex with a lot of parking space, in their particular city. What is the result? The inevitable result is that the whole business centre will shift from the old business area to this new business complex. This does not take place only in my city, but in every developing part of our country. Any person, no matter what his race, colour or religion, may enter such a business complex and buy from whoever he wishes and whatever he wishes. It does not matter how much he buys. However, as soon as an Indian has to compete with his White counterpart or with anybody else in such a new business complex, first of all he has to obtain a permit from the hon. the Minister. In other words, he again first has to find a nominee. It follows that we are turning people into crooks. We are turning certain Whites into nothing less than unscrupulous exploiters. It is inevitable that this must give rise to a feeling of total aversion to the White person on the part of the Indians. In the process we ultimately drive some of the Indians into the hands of those who do not seek peaceful solutions to our problems in South Africa. I could use all the time allocated to this debate to discuss the disadvantages of the system. However, I just want to mention one example which came to my attention this week, an example of what a monstrosity this nominee system is. An Indian came to me and appealed to me to help him by making an effort to have this nominee system abolished. He has a small business in a White proclaimed area where he trades, and he found a White to act as his nominee. From our conversation it later became apparent that that particular White was involved in business concerns together with no fewer than 60 other Indians on the basis of the nominee system. This means that if that small businessman has to pay the White R100 per month just to use his name on a paper in order to be able to trade legitimately—i.e. to circumvent the law in that manner—the income of that White would exceed R6 000 per month. This amounts to R72 000 per annum, and for what? They do this in order to make use of a well-known loophole in the legislation at the expense of the Indians. I say that this must create bitterness in all Indian businessmen. When the Indian businessman has to pay his White nominee the R100 or RX at the end of each month, he must within himself revolt against this White man. He, his wife and his children, too, must essentially revolt against being exploited to such an extent that he has to pay a certain amount every month to a certain White just to be able to run a business in an honest Christian way.

That is correct. Apartheid is expensive.

This must lead to revolt against the authority responsible, too. Who is that authority? It is the Government. And who is it? It is the White man, and also the Afrikaner. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this whole system thoroughly, and not merely as it was looked at in the past. Let us appoint a departmental committee to launch an in-depth investigation into this matter in order to find how many Whites there are who are exploiting the Indians in this manner. I am sure that if such an investigation were launched we would all be shocked to see to what extent the Indians are being exploited.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley South has touched upon a very important aspect of the welfare of the Indian community and we whole-heartedly support his efforts to get the hon. the Minister to have a look at this. The reason for the underlying problems the hon. member for Kimberley South has pointed to today lies in the areas he has indicated. There is a shortage of trading areas for the Indians which affects the movement of Indians from one area to another to enter into new ventures. We in Natal in particular are acutely aware of the misuse there is of Indian shop-owners by these proxy or nominee associates. We shall give the hon. member 100% support in his petition to the hon. the Minister.

In fact, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Community Development was recently in Durban and had a look at the area known as the Grey Street area and I am sure that, when his Vote comes up for discussion, he will tell us about his visit to Durban, what he saw in the Grey Street area and what his recommendations are going to be.

That concerns a different debate.

Yes, it concerns a different debate, but I am referring to the hon. member for Kimberley South’s petition to this hon. Minister. I look forward to the other hon. Minister’s comments in this regard.

I believe that the hon. members of the House will be aware of the fact that the Indian community represents the smallest minority in South Africa. It comprises no more than 750 000 people and its history in South Africa goes back to about 1860. The Indians were originally brought to South Africa to become cane cutters, an occupation which they were engaged in for a number of years. Then when the Chinese and the Pondos were brought in to do the cane cutting, the Indian people moved into commercial and professional fields. Since then one can only have the greatest admiration for the Indian community for the efforts they have made, their self-motivation and their achievements in a relatively short time. Amongst the Indian members of our community one will find all the professions represented. One finds amongst them doctors, dentists, lawyers, nursing staff and even teachers. One finds Indians in every profession. In addition to that they have moved very successfully into the trades. I think hon. members will be interested to know that the highly successful construction projects for Sasol 2 and 3 were largely dependent upon Indian craftsmen and tradesmen. They are also used to a very large extent in the clerical and administrative fields, fields which they excel at in Natal as well.

I believe that this small group of people has done extremely well for itself in South Africa, but not at the expense of South Africa. These people are known to be extremely patriotic. They are very loyal to South Africa and they defend our cause at every opportunity. One has only to look at the international trade which occurs, particularly in the clothing and textile industry, to see what a magnificent effort they are making in this direction.

But then, as with other communities, in this community there are also problems which require priority treatment. My petition to the hon. the Minister is fourfold. The areas concerned are areas which I trust the hon. the Minister and his department will focus their attention on, because they are areas that do require very urgent attention.

In the first instance the hon. the Minister is probably aware of the acute housing shortage. I know it is not the hon. the Minister’s responsibility to build houses, but when one takes the total welfare picture into account, I believe the hon. the Minister will play an important part in determining these priorities. The experiment which we did with Chatsworth, the first mass housing scheme in Natal, was successful in providing roofs over people’s heads, but as a social structure it was not very successful. The crime rate there has risen. Families are being squeezed into smaller and smaller accommodation, and regrettably, the effect of that on the social fabric of the Indian community is not very pleasant or positive. I believe we should rather undertake the type of development there that was undertaken at Mitchells Plain. If we could repeat the same for the Indian community we would be doing very well.

Did they ask you for development of that nature?

They are developing along the same lines. I have seen it. That is why I mentioned that, initially, with the Chatsworth development, it was not very successful. Luckily, however, we have moved away from that sort of development. The gravamen of my argument as far as housing is concerned, however, is that we are not even catching up on the backlog, let alone the future requirements for the lower income group among the Indian community. There is a very long waiting list, and the time it takes for Indians to get their names to the top of the list, when they actually become eligible for a house, is increasing daily.

I know it is not the hon. the Minister’s direct responsibility, but the welfare of the Indian community is his concern as well.

Then, I should like to make a particular appeal to the hon. the Minister to see what he can do, also by influencing his colleagues, in respect of a greater absorption of the Indian community into the armed forces. These people are very patriotic; very patriotic indeed. I know that a number of prominent Indian community leaders have been very disappointed by the fact that the armed forces and armed services have not made sufficient opportunities available for Indians to join forces. They have been taken into the Navy in small numbers, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of young Indian men who would also be prepared to serve in the Army and in the Air Force as well. If one thinks of their particular acumen in the technical and administrative fields, I am sure that the Army will be able to make very good use of their services. The unemployment among Indians is still very high; very high indeed. This is something which requires urgent attention. If we can create an additional avenue of employment for them, I am sure, this would be welcomed by the Indian community. Here again I can only appeal to the hon. the Minister to discuss these matters with his colleagues in the Cabinet.

Finally, I should like to come to a specific aspect which is also the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, namely the question of the constitutional design of South Africa. I was very pleasantly surprised to discover the results of a survey undertaken recently in Natal. It was a private survey, and therefore I am not at liberty to disclose the source. What is interesting about this survey is that it reveals just how conservative the Indian community of South Africa is in fact. I should like to tell the PFP that if they are banking on largescale support by the Indian community of an open society, a multiracial society, I am afraid they are going to be very disappointed indeed. [Interjections.] In fact, the one community which is going to be most disadvantaged in terms of PFP policy in connection with minority protection is going to be the Indians. They do not even make up 3% of the South African community. Therefore one wonders how they would be able to claim protection under the minority rights being offered by the PFP, which requires 10% to 15% of the total population figure before protection can be claimed. This group is very culturally bound. They may be divided into Christians, Muslims and Hindus. Be it as it may, they are very strongly culturally bound. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Minority veto, yes.

You talked about minority protection. [Interjections.]

What then if the minority veto is not protection for a group? What is the intention of that then? [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. members of the PFP what the intention is of a minority veto if it is not protection. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the PFP are squealing very loudly now because they know that their minority veto will not work in respect of minority protection. [Interjections.]

Finally, I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that this community is very strongly supportive of democracy and private free enterprise. I believe that when we come to the new constitutional model, the hon. the Minister will find that these people are prepared to work, as they always have, very closely with the White community and with the Coloured community and the Black communities of South Africa. I only hope that the fruits of deliberation in the President’s Council will provide a dividend equal to the contribution made by the South African Indian community to South Africa, and that we will compensate them adequately for this in a new political dispensation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North has adopted a very positive and responsible attitude in this debate on the position of the Indian community in South Africa, and I can endorse very much of what he has said. Having lived in Natal all my life, I have become thoroughly acquainted with a large proportion of the Indian community. I know their outlook and their attitudes in life.

Is that why they love you so much?

I know of the problems that they have between minorities and majorities amongst their own people, of the various group loyalties that they have, of the group tensions that they have, and it is only obvious that they should adopt an attitude of wishing to preserve whatever they have. I think that in their heart of hearts most of the Indian community are well aware of the fact that their potential for development, their potential for human freedom and their potential for political rights in South Africa far exceeds that of any other Indian community anywhere. Even in Great Britain the Indian community does not feel perfectly happy about the situation in which they find themselves there. But the important thing is that in South Africa, because we have so many different groups, minorities only and no single majority amongst the population groups of South Africa, the Indian community would be most aware of the need to try to preserve and expand on whatever rights and privileges they have.

Recently, on 18 August this year, The Natal Mercury printed a supplement “Indians in industry”. It was an excellent supplement, and I should like to compliment The Natal Mercury on it. It certainly does show to what extent the Indian community has diversified in its economic life. On the front page of the supplement it states that there has been a remarkable increase in Indian industrial ventures in Natal. From however small they were, the 181 industrial ventures about 20 years ago have increased to more than 700 now.

Under the NRP government in Natal.

That has happened under the direct assistance that is being provided by the Indian Industrial Development Corporation that was started by this Government. I think as far as industrial development is concerned, the provincial council has very little to do with that and has very little to offer the Indian community. The Indian community has advanced economically under the direct economic policy of this Government. Let there be no doubt about that.

The Indians established their own bank, the New Republic Bank—not the New Re public Party; they had nothing to do with it—and they have established their own financial institutions to assist them in financing their projects. For many years, whenever one mentioned the Indians one thought of traders. Especially in the Transvaal, many people when they think of the Indians still think of traders.

What about the Free State?

In the Free State they also think of Indians as traders because they cross the Vaal to trade just across the border in the Transvaal. As far as Natal is concerned, however, I would say that the employment categories and economic categories of the Indian community are probably closest to the general pattern of the White community in South Africa. Educationally they are the one group that has done most to help themselves. Before Indian education was taken over by the central Government they were the one community that did most to uplift their own people. They also have an old culture which is part of their whole fabric and therefore it is possible for them to develop on a sound foundation. I believe that the Indian community in South Africa is basically a happy one.

I have appreciation for the fact that politically they find themselves somewhat—to use a colloquialism—between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand they realize that they are in Africa and that the politics of Africa are unstable especially in the situation in which Africa finds itself at present where the spotlight is focused on Africa as part of East/West tension. On the other hand, they know that with a White Government they have a safe position. They have a position which guarantees their future economically, politically and socially. Consequently, finding themselves between a government that is being criticized internationally because it is the whipping-boy of the world, and world opinion, they do not wish to be associated too closely with the White authority in this country. On the other hand they must try to curry favour with the Black community and they must see to it that they are not found to be in opposition to the Black community politically. They therefore find themselves in rather a difficult position.

I have an appreciation for the difficult position in which they find themselves but ultimately they are going to have to decide where to throw in their lot. All of us in South Africa will have to find a solution to our problems by building a better future for all the peoples in this country on a basis of co-operation and not on a basis of confrontation. I have been involved in many discussions with Indians from all walks of life, including the ordinary labourer. I have spoken to the most radical among them; I have spoken to moderates among them; I have spoken to the very rich and I have spoken to the very poor among them and generally I find that basically they display a positive attitude. Sometimes one finds that they try to put on a positive face whereas individually they may often feel differently. However, one has an appreciation for the difficult position in which they find themselves as the smallest minority group on the Southern African continent. Nevertheless, I am positive that the Indian community knows on which side its bread is buttered.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to Chatsworth and said that it had not actually been successful as a social fabric. I accept that that is the case and it is so because Chatsworth was developed to a far too large extent as a dormitory area only. It should have been developed as a township that offered all the facilities of a normal municipality, a normal town. There should have been provision for much greater industrial development, for trading development, for services and so forth. It should have been an area where the people could have developed in an autonomous situation but now they have developed purely as a dormitory area for the economic life of Durban. That is why the area has not been a success as a social fabric. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member Prof. Olivier made a few statements and put certain questions to me with reference to a speech I had made. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to him.

I stated that the Government is moving dynamically towards a new dispensation. The hon. member doubts this. I want to ask him if it is not true that the President’s Council is a far-reaching, dynamic effort which this Government is making. We have never had anything like this before in the country. Never before have we had such a forum or body where people chosen for their knowledge are involved in a hive of activity to deliberate on all the facets of a new political dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in this country. Besides the important work being done by the President’s Council the entire country has been set to working and thinking. Scholars, experts, universities, city councils—they are all putting forward plans and proposals. Is this not a dynamic process? If this is not dynamic, what is?

Everyone is involved in this process except the hon. member’s party, the PFP, because the PFP is boycotting the President’s Council. That is why it has no meaning for them and that is why they do not see anything dynamic in it. The hon. member and his party would be far less frustrated if they would only make use of the instruments being made available to bring about constitutional reform in the country. But no, they are boycotting the President’s Council. To an ever-greater extent they are becoming a party of boycotters. Yesterday they even boycotted the Committee when they walked out. [Interjections.] More and more their image is becoming that of a party of boycotters, a party that has links with squatters, boycotters and demonstrators. To an ever-increasing extent their image is becoming an ugly one of a party that identifies itself with protesters, detainees and outcasts.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I have respect for him, because he is a reasonable person. The appeal I want to make to him is that he must talk to his leader or to the people who are the real leaders in that party. He must ask them to take part in this exciting, great and dynamic effort on the part of the Government, which is to create a new constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa.

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

No, unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to questions.

The hon. member denies my statement that the PFP’s concept of a national convention has become an embarrassment to them. He says it is not true, but does the hon. member wish to deny that there is a deep-seated difference among them as to who is to be invited to that convention? [Interjections.] Is the hon. member such a stranger in Jerusalem that he does not know about this serious controversy in their ranks? He need only glance over his shoulder and he will see someone who differs with him on this issue.

You can take my word for it …

If he does not know, he can ask the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville is a sincere politician and also a good patriot. He will not deny that in this regard he differs with the hon. member for Houghton. Do we not all know that the hon. member for Houghton would also like Nelson Mandela to be at that convention, whereas the hon. member for Yeoville does not want him there? How can the hon. member Prof. Olivier deny that this matter is causing them embarrassment and that it is causing tension in their ranks?

I want to repeat my statement that this key concept of the PFP policy, i.e. a national convention, has become a millstone around their necks, because they realize it will not succeed. If they are in such earnest about this, why do they not go ahead with it? Why do they not go ahead with a national convention? [Interjections.] Who are they waiting for? Why are they shying away from it? Why do they not hold a convention? And if decisions are taken they can bring them back to this place so that we can examine and consider them.

Since the hon. member Prof. Olivier was so kind as to put a few questions to me, I should also like to put a few questions to him, and I hope that he will give honest replies. Is the hon. member in favour of Nelson Mandela attending their convention? Of course the hon. member will not reply. But he would do well to rise to his feet later and tell us what his party’s standpoint in this connection is. I also want to ask the hon. member what he is going to do if the President’s Council makes recommendations. Is he going to boycott those recommendations as he is now boycotting the President’s Council? And in the third place I want to ask the hon. member whether the PFP is holding direct talks with Swapo about South-West Africa.

You have already done so.

The hon. member should tell us what his standpoint is. [Interjections.] My last question to the hon. member is whether the PFP will legalize the PAC and the ANC, if they have a say in the matter. There are still many questions I could ask.

What is the use, I am not being given a chance to answer them.

There are many questions they leave unanswered that we would like answered. The voters in this country would also like answers to these questions.

I have said that the moderate Whites in this country also have aspirations which they would like to see realized in a new dispensation, and that they would also like to be assured of their own place and future in the world. The hon. member asked me what I meant by this. He will find the answer in the election manifesto of the NP.

I asked what you meant by the right of the Whites to self-determination.

I have the Hansard here. I repeat that the hon. member will find all the answers in the election manifesto of the NP, and that manifesto is available to everyone. As a matter of fact, I can send the hon. member a copy right now if he does not have one. [Interjections.] In the election manifesto of the NP that hon. member will find many answers regarding the course which the NP is going to follow in future.

Nic knows what the answer is.

Where is the reform?

Regarding this very important point, the question of the own place in the world, I should like to quote a short excerpt from the election manifesto of the NP—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must realize that in the six minutes available to me I cannot deal with the points he made, save to say that his argument or suggestion that the Opposition should convene a national convention which the Government would boycott is ridiculous. Clearly one could not have a national convention unless the government of the day were also an integral part of it. [Interjections.] It is manifestly ridiculous!

But you tried to arrange one at the beginning of the year.

Here the hon. the Prime Minister is being as ridiculous as the propagandist of the NP. He knows that a national convention involves all the recognized leaders of the various elements in a society. [Interjections.] If the Government of the day boycotts it, of course there cannot be any national convention. [Interjections.] Let us forget all that nonsense. I hope the hon. the Minister in charge of this debate is going to respond to what I have to say now, because I think the country is waiting with bated breath to find out one simple thing about the Coloured people who are not a “volk” or a “volk in wording”, according to the hon. the Prime Minister.

You said that last night, and I shall reply to you.

According to the hon. the Minister, in a constitutional sense, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites are part of the same South African nation, therefore one wonders if, in fact, they are going to get equal political rights as citizens of that nation. That is fundamental. Once that question has been answered unambiguously, the debate can continue, and then the work the President’s Council is doing may be of some value. Yet as long as we have the kind of arguments we have had for two days now, and also the kind of arguments used by the hon. the Prime Minister when discussing his own Vote, it is so much of a waste of time. Let the NP say that the Coloureds, as citizens or members of the same nation, are going to have the same political rights. Then they can argue about and deal with the ramifications of the protection for individual groups.

There are two other issues, which will be coming before this House, which are a matter of speculation and concern. They emanate from reports from the President’s Council. The first one concerns District Six. The other day the hon. the Prime Minister said there were certain principles which would not permit him to accede even to a recommendation of the President’s Council. No common voters’ roll, he said, was a principle as far as his party is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Only if I am given more time.

He only has six minutes.

He also said that the attitude towards the inclusion of Blacks in the new dispensation was a matter of principle. If the President’s Council recommends that District Six should be an open area, available to Coloureds and Whites on a mixed basis, would the Government reject that as a matter of principle? We want to know that. This matter is in the public eye. There is tremendous excitement because there is a feeling that this is about to happen.

Why are you so worried about the President’s Council?

I raise this matter because the hon. the Minister in charge of the matter last year said that in terms of what was said in the no-confidence debate—and he was referring to statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister about District Six—the principle involved was non-negotiable. We want to know whether the President’s Council is wasting its time if it is considering recommending that District Six be an open area for residential purposes. [Interjections.] That is a simple question. The hon. the Prime Minister says it is a matter of principle. Is it a matter of principle, however, that the Government will not accept District Six as a mixed residential area?

You seem to be very interested in the President’s Council.

Would it or not? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister is usually available for comment across the floor of the House.

I do not understand your point.

It is a very simple one.

Now you are arguing like a schoolboy.

The hon. the Prime Minister said there are certain principles that he would not accept. I am therefore now asking him, and the hon. the Minister in charge of Coloured affairs a simple question: If the President’s Council were to recommend District Six as an open area, would the NP have to reject it because it goes against the principle of the NP?

[Inaudible.]

What I want to say is that in terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan it is a principle. I therefore want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the President’s Council is wasting its time.

Why are you so worried about that?

Because there is a lot of public money being spent. That is why. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister has also said there can be no sharing of power. [Interjections.] In the light of that, is this Government prepared to accept that there should be integrated local authorities with an integrated voters’ roll? That is a very simple question. This is a matter of dispute. The hon. the Prime Minister and others have indicated that they prefer separation. Mr. Schlebusch, the president of the United Municipal Executive, has however indicated that his executive would like a common voters’ roll in single municipalities. The hon. member for De Aar says they believe in separate development and also that “apartheid is besig om te slaag”. We want to know from the hon. the Minister in charge of this department: Is it a matter of principle or not that there should be a common voters’ roll, based on residential and other qualifications? Is it a matter of principle as far as the National Party is concerned that for municipal purposes there should be a common voters’ roll, or not? If the Government says that as a matter of principle they should be separate, the work of the President’s Council is once again being nullified in advance.

Why did you not make your contribution in the President’s Council?

In this respect I must express my disappointment that the hon. the Prime Minister sought to attack the Cape Town city council the other day. He accused them of hypocrisy on the basis of a confidential document which somehow or other came into his hands. The hon. the Prime Minister accused the city council of having sent three of its senior officials overseas, and he earned a rebuke from the mayor. The mayor said they were not its senior officials; they were in fact the Town Engineer and two members of his staff.

They are not senior?

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about “three most senior officials”. The mayor, and I accept his good faith in this matter, said that the Town Clerk and the Town Treasurer, who are the other two senior officials, have not yet seen the document. In dealing with the question of qualifications for municipal franchise, Mayor Kreiner said—

I believe that once again this was another smoke screen by the hon. the Prime Minister, because he ended his speech by saying (Hansard, 25 August 1981, col. 1864)—

The hon. the Prime Minister then referred to certain residential and property qualifications. That, however, is the very thing that the NP took away in the Cape. We had it in the Cape for 130 years, but in 1972 the NP took it away. It was the NP who deprived the Coloured people of these rights. Now the hon. the Prime Minister says that the city council is guilty of hypocrisy because it says we must go back to a system which the NP itself took away.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we must come down to brass tacks on fundamental issues like the question of whether we can share the residential area of District Six. The fundamental issue as far as local authorities are concerned, is whether we can share political decision-making on a common voters’ roll. As far as national politics are concerned, the fundamental issue is whether we are prepared to accept that Coloureds and Indians can be equal citizens with full rights in one country which they have to share without any separate “volke”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has just reiterated the same statement we have been hearing for so many years, viz. that one can do only one thing with the Coloureds, the Indians and other ethnic groups in South Africa, and that is to share power with them at all levels. This is the answer of the hon. member and his party to our problem. I want to submit that this is not the only possibility in South Africa. In order to share power at all levels in South Africa it is not necessary for one to have a form of equal citizenship on that basis in South Africa. This is the age-old difference between the reasonable and fair people in South Africa and the hon. members of the PFP. The hon. members are constantly advocating this. As a matter of fact they prescribe it for their national convention. Even before that convention begins, they must remember that power on all levels in South Africa must be shared. I want to submit that the NP is absolutely correct when it says that one can give all the population groups in South Africa an equal form of citizenship without its being necessary to share power and authority at every level. This is the fundamental difference between that hon. member and us. The hon. the Prime Minister has already replied to him, or rather to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in respect of the President’s Council. They want the hon. the Prime Minister to refrain from dictating to the President’s Council and yet at the same time they want him to dictate to that body. Why are those hon. members not prepared to give the President’s Council a chance and wait until the President’s Council comes forward with its proposals?

You are not giving the President’s Council a chance.

The hon. member for Sea Point is evading the question which the hon. member for Bloemfontein North put to him. If we on this side of the House are not prepared to call a national convention in South Africa, why are the hon. members opposite not prepared to make a start with it themselves? After all, they also have resources. They have the largest financial resources in South Africa. They are the people who say they are constantly consulting the Black people in South Africa and they know exactly how the Black people feel and think. Surely they are able, if they cannot get the co-operation of this side of this House, to make a start with the Black nations in South Africa …

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

I am sorry, but I do not have the time. Surely they are able to make a start with the Black people. [Interjections.] I want to allege that the hon. member for Sea Point—unfortunately I do not have the cutting with me—at a time when he was the leader of the PFP, threatened to call a national convention. The former hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, challenged him to do so.

Where is he now?

So far they have refused outright because they know that the national convention they have in mind will come to absolutely nothing in South Africa. If it does amount to anything it will only be one thing, i.e. “one man, one vote”.

This side of the House has very clearly stated what its approach is. It is the approach of decentralization of power and authority in South Africa. I wish to reiterate that we can hold out the prospect of a form of equal citizenship for all groups in South Africa on a basis of differentiation without our having to dominate any group in the country. Let me say immediately that it is an unfortunate political vacuum which has developed because the Coloureds, for example, have no political forum today. It is a great pity that this should be the case.

How long have you been in power? For 33 years!

It is true that the Coloureds now have no political say in South Africa. They do not have representation in this House, nor in the Provincial Council, and they do not have it through their CRC either. But surely it is not the fault of this House that he has no political forum in South Africa. We also know that such a position cannot continue indefinitely without equal citizenship being created for the Coloureds and without channels of joint responsibility being opened for them. Surely it is a principle which the NP stated very clearly in its manifesto that there must be a form of joint responsibility between the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, the groups which share the rest of South Africa and for which separate States cannot be created. For this reason I say that those channels will be opened. It is simply unthinkable that they will not be opened in the course of time. I do not think that any reasonable White can be satisfied that there will be no channels for joint responsibility. We also realize that this would be an untenable situation for the Coloureds as well and could possibly give rise to passive resistance and even to violent opposition. I believe the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Government are in the process of defusing this situation. For the Coloured people and the Indians there is the prospect that they will be able to lead more than just a decent life.

We realize, when we look at history, that more doors are being opened for them, for example in the sphere of industry as well as in the field of education and elsewhere in the business world. This is happening to a greater extent today than ever before. Today the average Coloured and Indian is sharing in the benefits of our higher standard of living. This cannot be doubted. Nevertheless emphasis is continually being placed solely on the fact that these people are being denied equal citizenship in South Africa. However, not a word is ever said about the tremendous progress which the Coloureds and the Asians have made on the level of socio-economic development. Never has a single compliment been paid by hon. members on that side of this House to the Government or the rest of South Africa on the progress being made by those population groups on this level.

I do not for one moment wish to suggest that there is no room for further progress. We know that large numbers of Coloureds and Indians are still living in very difficult and deplorable conditions. The standard of living of many of them is low. Frequently however they also have a lack of ambition, a lack of pride and the diligence to apply self-help. This we may never deny. It is so often alleged that the poor-White problem gave the Afrikaner the chance to fight to bring about an improved dispensation for his fellow South Africans. Although there is great truth in the fact that the Afrikaners have achieved a great deal by standing together, the other side of the picture cannot be ignored. Concerted action without hard work by the individual also means nothing in South Africa. This is the lesson which the enterprising and ambitious Coloured and Indian can also learn in South Africa.

There has never been any other path to achievement than hard work. Together with the desire to do well, there must also be hard work in order to ensure success in South Africa. This is what the Government would like to see being developed among the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa. The ideal is that they must not always stand and wait for handouts, but must also say that they are prepared to uplift their own people by means of self-help.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for De Kuilen said by pointing out that the success of the political and social structures that we are planning and considering in South Africa today, will depend on domestic relations between nations and peoples.

In the past, and today too, under the excellent leadership of the hon. the Minister, the Government is showing that it is truly searching for a situation in which there will be lasting happiness for us and our children in South Africa. In the past, and today too, the Government has surely been showing—indeed, it has given enough evidence of this—that it does not want to dominate and suppress, nor does it want to belittle and cheat groups and peoples and persons and nations.

Unfortunately, members of the Government are not the only people in this country, because unfortunately on both sides of the colour line there are people and groups and organizations who are bedevilling and spoiling relations in South Africa, as quickly as the Government is creating a climate and an atmosphere of confidence and acceptance.

In the first place there is that group of people who are joyful and ecstatic about the possibility that the existing dispensation in South Africa can be overthrown by means of practically any obscure internal method, and also by means of help from abroad, and even from the West. The people that we find in the ranks of those to whom I have just referred, are, for instance, members of the organizations to which the hon. the Minister referred earlier in the debate. Unfortunately, in their ranks we also find the so-called good organizations of women and clergymen, whose vision of South Africa is limited to the level of distributing bread and blankets.

Unfortunately, it is also true, alas, that from time to time we notice that the official Opposition unfortunately also finds themselves in the company of this type of people. They are the people who are on their knees in an exaggerated confession of guilt for the so-called injustice that has been committed in our history and allege that the only way in which it can be rectified, is to capitulate before the world and before Africa. They are the group of people who are bedevilling relations because it has become a matter of faith with them that South Africa is an annex of hell and that they are the angels of light who will be able to save us from this situation.

In the second place, they are not the only group of people who are bedevilling and spoiling relations and dispositions in South Africa. There is also a group on the other side of the spectrum who are bedevilling relations and creating mistrust. They are the righteous whose orthodoxy appears to be beyond suspicion and whose orthodoxy appears to be in irrefutable agreement with the Government’s policy of separate freedoms. They are the people who want to absolutize separate freedoms and who see this policy as a separator for forcing White, Coloured and Black apart. They are the people, unfortunately chiefly on the side of the Whites, who say that the Afrikaner Government is doing too much to woo the English-speaking people, the countries abroad and the coloured peoples in the country.

The close connection between nations in South Africa, the single factor on which our continued existence in this country depends, is being brought to nought by these people. They lack the courage and initiative to conceive a new coexistence for the various peoples in this country, to design it and implement it. They claim preferential treatment of Whites, and by means of this they are doing a disservice to South Africa, a disservice which in my opinion is of the lowest degree. They are ripening the hate and revolution within South Africa. They are undermining our credibility, and when I say “our credibility”, I am talking about the credibility of the Whites, of the Afrikaner, of this Government. Through their racism, they are causing these attempts of ours to fail. They are the excessively cautious who do not dare to take a step forward, but what happened to Lot’s wife at Sodom is going to happen to them. If you are continually looking over your shoulder, you will turn into a stone, and a stone is a hard thing, a permanent thing and a strong thing, but it is also a lifeless thing. A stone cannot move. They are causing delay by their retarding influence and the sterility of their imagination, and they are forcing the Government to waste time with regard to certain matters. Therefore, I want to make a serious request of the hon. the Minister not to allow himself to be intimidated or delayed by these people. But who are they? They are chiefly the HNP with its organizations and newspapers, but unfortunately in recent times it has appeared—and I am sorry that I have to add this—that the respectable SABRA is also guilty of seeking untenable absolutes in our political and social structures. There is no place for ideological perfection in our situation. The Address of the French Senate to Napoleon when he became emperor of revolutionary France, may possibly still be applicable to South Africa today. The Address began as follows: “The striving for perfection is a tremendous evil of our time”.

South Africa is on the threshold of a great new era of human pioneering work. In history, there have been periods of geographic pioneering work when new areas of the world were opened up to mankind. There were periods in history when the people of the world carried out pioneering work by establishing national governments. There were periods in history when pioneering work was carried out in the sphere of cultural formation by means of literature, music and other arts and in the most recent phase of our history, we have experienced the pioneering era in the sphere of science and technology. As far as we in South Africa are concerned, I want to state that in the next 20 years we are going to experience a period of pioneering work in South Africa in which the concept of the dynamics of our political and social systems will have to be very drastically widened and this will be accompanied by achievement and by a personal utilization by all the leaders of all the communities in our country. In this regard I should like to address myself to the Coloured communities in our midst. I want to warn them against the negative effect of having a say without the concomitant achievement and responsibility. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for De Kuilen has just said here. I want to say they must guard against a lack of achievement and responsibility becoming the millstone around their neck which in turn also becomes a factor for bedevilling relations in this country. The leaders of South Africa in all groups will have to fulfil their responsibilities in the collective interest of South Africa even though this may lead to opposition within their own ranks on the part of people who do not understand the true path of freedom in South Africa or do not want to walk along it.

Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Caledon calling to the hon. the Prime Minister not to allow himself to be put off by the ultra-conservatives and the rightists in South Africa in the hope that reforms would take place, but I want to tell the hon. member that he will have to intensify that call. He will have to shout more loudly at the Prime Minister because I am afraid that born within and outside the NP there are so many of those people against whom the hon. member is warning him that those reforms are not making much progress in South Africa today. In fact, those rightist elements, including the HNP, have barely anything to worry about as regards the direction in which South Africa is moving, if there is any movement at all. [Interjections.] Reproaches have been hurled back and forth. The hon. member for De Kuilen as well as the hon. member for Turffontein sounded warnings yesterday. The point is just that with all its power over the past 33 years, with all its funds, with all the money at its disposal, the NP as a government has not managed to achieve success, and if, after 33 years, it has plunged South Africa into the constitutional chaos which we are experiencing today, then I am afraid that they must seek the fault in themselves.

†Mr. Chairman, in a debate where the constitutional future of this country is being discussed I found the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay rather an ominous one. I am sorry the hon. member is not here at present. I did give him notice that I was going to discuss what he had said. The hon. member made it clear that his party, the NP, does not require the consent of the Coloured people for the introduction of a new constitution. He said that that was not a sine qua non for the introduction of a new constitution. In other words, this is not a non-negotiable principle. [Interjections.] Surely that is correct. Surely that was what the hon. member meant because he said that that was not an absolute requirement. Is that not correct? The hon. member for Klip River does not wish to reply to me now, but that was what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said.

In fact the inference of that hon. member’s speech is that he foresees the possibility that a new constitution, proposed by the President’s Council and accepted by his party’s congresses, may well be rejected by the Coloured people of South Africa. In this respect I believe that the hon. member is very realistic indeed. He is realistic in foreseeing the possibility that the Coloured people may once again be faced with an unacceptable constitutional dispensation. This is a frightening but unfortunately a highly probable prospect.

It highlights the objections that the PFP originally had against the President’s Council, viz. that it is unrepresentative and that its deliberations will therefore not reflect the feelings of all the citizens in the country and furthermore that any proposals emanating from that body will therefore be viewed with suspicion from the beginning.

That is a prejudgment.

Even if they are technically in order, they will still be viewed with suspicion. I am not suggesting that that cannot be overcome, but then there should be an open-mindedness on the part of the Government of which, however, there is no sign.

I want to point out that the Government created a precedent last year when they disbanded the Coloured Representative Council at the request of the Coloured population. I say this is a precedent because for the first time the Government has actually acted according to the wishes of the Coloured people in so far as the constitutional set-up is concerned. For the first time the Government has actually given effect to the wishes of the Coloured people in so far as the constitutional set-up is concerned.

If after having created this precedent the Government should force a form of political representation on to the Coloured people, a system that suffers the same defects as those that have been tried before, the Government will stretch the patience of the Coloured people to impossible limits. The Government will then be doing something very dangerous indeed.

As time does not allow me to deal in detail with this, let me by way of just one example test whether such a rejection by the Coloured community of a new constitution will be unreasonable. I am of course referring to a new constitution within the limits and constraints set by the Government. Let us look at the existence and the administration of the Group Areas Act. I take that Act as an example because I believe that even hon. members on that side of the House will concede that the Group Areas Act hurts people tremendously. The hon. member for Kimberley South made a very good speech this afternoon in which he quoted just one instance of how it hurts Indian people. It hurts Coloured people similarly.

I now want to refer to two questions which were put by the hon. member for Sea Point when he asked how many people of the White, Coloured and Indian communities were moved since the inception of the Group Areas Act. The answer gave the various figures broken down for the four provinces. In the Cape Province 732 White people, 58 366 Coloured people and 2 581 Indian people were moved.

From Windermere, inter alia.

If that is not discrimination, if that is not hurtful, then I do not know what is.

But after they had been moved, they were better off.

Let us look in terms of hectares at the total number of group areas proclaimed since the inception of the Act: In the case of Whites 761 000 odd ha and in the case of Coloureds 91 000 ha. Once again it proves the point that it is a grossly discriminatory Act, not only because of its nature, but also because of its administration.

I want to make this one point finally. If the Coloured people should accept a constitutional deal or settlement in terms of which they are not given full citizenship rights in regard to the administration of that Act and in regard to the decision whether the Act should be retained or not, then they would be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty towards the other members of that community.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the third day of this discussion I believe that we should at least come to an agreement with the official Opposition about where our differences lie. To begin with, I wish to address my remarks to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to refer to a question which has been asked across the floor of this House, namely: “If we invited you to a convention, would you come?” I wish to deal with what is implicit in the question, because it has a bearing on another standpoint adopted by the official Opposition in respect of their participation in the President’s Council. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must help me, because this is important. The fact is that the official Opposition did not commit itself as far as participation in the President’s Council was concerned until they had seen how it would be constituted. Is that not so? That is correct. What is also true—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of it—is that the day the Second Reading debate began, they deviated from their original standpoint. Who gave that instruction? The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition owes it to the country to say from whom he received that instruction. [Interjections.]

It is not true …

It is no use laughing. The hon. leader knows about his conversations with me.

You are dreaming.

No, I am not dreaming.

The hon. member for Green Point asked in the debate what the President’s Council could do about constitutional development. After all, the objection of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not directed against the establishment of the President’s Council. He agreed that constitutional development was a process, and in order to enhance the acceptability of a new constitution, the people who will be affected must participate in the process. Is that not true?

You believe that is the case with the President’s Council?

Would that hon. member please be quiet? [Interjections.] I shall reply to the hon. member, but he must just be quiet for a moment, because every time he opens his mouth, he shows that he has nothing to say.

Do not use such woolly arguments.

After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the idea that the implementation of the Westminster system in a unitary State would lead to revolution and conflict in this country. Is that not true? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods in agreement. If this is so, why does he not talk to the hon. member for Sea Point? [Interjections.] Please give me a chance, for I should like to reply. If he conveyed that message to the hon. member for Sea Point, what grounds does the hon. member have for asking, when we say that the Coloureds are not a people. [Interjections.]

You say they are not a people.

Does the hon. member not agree with that?

I did not say it.

But does the hon. member agree with it?

Of course.

Very well. Then we have made some progress. [Interjections.] Sir, one cannot drown out an argument with a lot of noise.

That is for sure.

Yes, that is for sure. Why then does he ask me a question when we say that they are not a people in terms of the cultural definition of the word, but part of a nation in terms of the constitutional definition of the word? Why do they not get equal rights in the same institution, while his leader argues, also with regard to the Coloureds, that we cannot have the Westminster system in this country unadapted? [Interjections.]

Why is the hon. member for Bryanston laughing at himself like that?

We are laughing because the hon. the Minister is being ridiculous.

We are laughing at you.

We are looking now at the hon. Leader and his ingenious advisers …

You leave me alone. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I cannot leave him alone. [Interjections.] If the hon. member thinks that the contents of this booklet I have in my hand are objectionable …

No, you are.

I am now going to deal with this booklet. That hon. member was their adviser, wasn’t he?

No, he was not.

But was that hon. member not the chairman of their committee?

No, he was not.

Then who was?

You have got it all wrong, as usual.

Then tell me who was.

You have got it all wrong, as usual.

Then tell me who was. [Interjections.] Did that hon. member not draw up the 14 points?

Tell us, Brother, tell us!

The former Brother may as well admit his mistakes.

Have you read your Hansard of yesterday? [Interjections.]

Yes, I have.

Yes, but now he is going to read that hon. member’s 14 points.

Yes, I am now going to deal with those 14 points. See what they list as their policy resolutions. I quote from the second resolution oh page 21 of their booklet—

Yes.

Wait a minute. Just give me a chance—

Those are fine words.

However, they remain nothing but fine words.

Arising from this I should like to ask him a question. Do the political groupings represent the plural society? They must please answer me on that. This is the first time I have heard that the political groupings represent the plural society. [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. Give me a chance.

You are confused.

It is no use complaining now. [Interjections.]

We are laughing at you. [Interjections.]

It is said here that all the political groupings must participate in the Government. All I want to ask, therefore, is: What connection do the political groupings have with the plurality of the country? I ask that because this is what it says in the booklet. [Interjections.] That is what it says here.

Are you suggesting that you represent our view?

I am talking to the hon. leader and not to that hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must help me.

You need help.

No one in this House is saying that we should not change the status quo. No one has any quarrel with the principle that we should maintain the rights and privileges of every group impartially. No one is alleging that this is happening in respect of the Coloured people and the Indians in the country under the present constitutional dispensation.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but we are now talking within the context of the debate I am conducting with the hon. member. No one is quarrelling with that. No one disapproves of our objective, which is to implement in practice the principle of equal rights and privileges for every section of the population in models that are capable of being realized.

Yes.

The hon. leader agrees with us. The next question is how we move from the status quo to the ideal formulation which we agree on. The hon. member said that he agreed.

I agree that we differ on that point.

Yes, he agrees that we differ on that point. However, he also agrees that the process and the mechanism we use are of vital importance. Let us now consider the hon. leader’s mechanism and let us then consider ours. Firstly, the hon. leader will agree with me that his mechanism is a national convention. He agrees with that. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. leader, for the sake of the record, not because we believe that he differs with us in this regard: If a constitutional change in the country to achieve the ideal situation is to take place constitutionally, must it not be approved by this Parliament?

Yes.

Very well. I now want to come to the results of the hon. leader’s process or mechanism, because we must consider those. The hon. leader’s process consists of a national convention, which I assume must also be composed of the political groupings, and not necessarily of the population groups.

[Inaudible.]

Let us first deal with this. Is there any difference between the hon. leader’s interpretation of a political grouping and his interpretation of a population group?

Of course. May I address the House? We cannot go on like this.

Just tell me that. You can tell me that while you are sitting down. [Interjections.] The hon. leader has not said how he is going to constitute his convention. Goodness knows, we have been waiting a long time to hear that. He has not even indicated to us what the guidelines are. He has not even defined the groupings. However, I would assume that his various factions would be among the groupings that would attend the convention. I want to tell the hon. leader that his process is a dangerous one, and I am saying this in all sincerity. It is a blueprint for conflict and revolution, and I cannot imagine a better one.

Are these the same people who will meekly accept NP policy?

That hon. member came to Parliament on another man’s vote. If his name had not been Pierre Cronje, he would not have been here.

Sir, I now request the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all seriousness. His standpoint is that the national convention must proceed with its work until such time as it has found a model which is acceptable to this Parliament. Surely that is implicit in his standpoint? In other words, until such time as Parliament accepts its plans—if we assume that such a conglomeration will be able to work out any plan at all—the status quo, in terms of which people have no rights, according to him, will continue. Now he will agree with me that that convention of his …

That is not correct.

Then what is correct?

There is nothing to prevent Parliament from removing discrimination while the convention is in progress.

No, but I am talking in terms of the model of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

But that is part of the model.

Wait a minute. We are talking about the mechanism for changing the constitution.

But Parliament can change laws. That is what we are always asking you to do.

I am coming to that. The hon. leader must just give me a chance. [Interjections.] Surely he will concede that Parliament is differently constituted from his convention.

I agree. It is a historic fact.

Very well. Now I want to ask what hope he has of having any plan which his convention may decide on accepted by Parliament if he is not in power?

One plays by the rules.

But you must do it with the President’s Council.

Please give me a chance. I did not interrupt that hon. member.

You ask questions, but you do not want the answers.

The hon. member is shouting while I am having a very proper discussion with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Chief Whip opposite could take him as a model for improving his manners.

Secondly, the PFP is not trying to become the Government of the country.

How must we try, other than by fighting elections?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never claimed to be anything other than in opposition. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot give us a time scale within which he thinks he will occupy this bench, what does he think is going to become of his proposals with regard to constitutional development? Surely that is naïve, Sir.

You are tying yourself into knots today.

Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows what mechanism we have chosen. Surely we have followed a certain course. He may disagree with us, but the Government has said how it wants to change the status quo. It has fought an election on this basis and won it by a greater majority than ever before. The Government referred the proposals concerned to a Select Committee, in an attempt to make it more acceptable to the various parties.

Now I come to the President’s Council. After all, the proposals before the commission were a package of proposals. They included the creation of a Black council. We did not exclude the Black people from the process of consultation. They were included. Once again, when we argue in this House about participation in that process, hon. members conveniently forget that there was a package of proposals. I blame the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for keeping back a part of the truth. I also blame him for being one of those who told the Black peoples that it would be an inferior position to serve on it, while he knew …

I did not tell them that. That is what I told you.

You said it in public.

After you had said it.

No, you said it in public. So you said it to them as well. Or do they not listen to you?

You said in public that they should be excluded.

No, I said they should be in a council. I also negotiated with them about it, something which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do.

[Inaudible.]

I negotiate with them about it, my colleagues and I.

Now I want to talk about the Coloured people. I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we may differ with each other, that we may even differ profoundly. Yesterday, however, I listened with the greatest disappointment to the contributions by hon. members of his party, and I shall tell him why. In their discussion of the Coloured section of our population there was one thing that was lacking, and that was compassion towards the Coloured population group. I kept getting the impression that in the process of condemning the Government’s standpoint and policy—which they have every right to do—they did not care what effect their conduct would have on the attitudes of people in this country. They behaved as though these people were lying on a dissecting table, judging by the terms they used to describe who the Coloured people were. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize that there are many peoples in this country, but also many population groups. Among the peoples are the Xhosa, Venda, the Shangaan and others. The hon. member Prof. Olivier will remember that. One of the peoples is the Afrikaner people. Afrikaners are a people with its own culture. Afrikaners are a people. However, there are many population groups as well. There are far more minorities than peoples in this country.

I agree with the hon. member for Rissik when he says that when we talk about constitutional reform, people talk about 33 years, while forgetting about the preceding almost 300 years. They also forget about the historic perspective which is necessary when we talk about the relations between population groups and about constitutional development. Allow me to sketch the historic perspective to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to reply as far as I can to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Sea Point. The historic perspective lies in the fact that the British system, which applied in the Cape and in Natal, cannot be ignored. The hon. member for Sea Point concedes that the British were in power. After all, the British régime gave Coloured people a qualified franchise.

Everyone had a qualified franchise.

No.

Yes, everyone had a qualified franchise.

Please, would the hon. member give me a chance? I shall give him the …

Everyone had a qualified franchise.

Please let us get the facts straight.

How many Whites were excluded from the franchise?

Up to 1928, everyone had a qualified franchise.

But I have not got as far as 1928 yet. Now the hon. member for Sea Point has chosen his own period again. Does the hon. member agree with me that when the White women got the vote, the Coloured women did not?

I said so yesterday.

Very well. Why is the hon. member quarrelling with me, then? Surely this amounts to a qualified treatment of people.

At that time it was no longer a British system.

Oh, come on. Is our system not British?

The British were no longer on the scene.

But was it not a British system? Oh, good heavens! [Interjections.]

We had a qualified franchise for all in South Africa up to 1928. [Interjections.]

But was there not a provision to the effect that Coloured men could not stand as candidates for Parliament and the provincial council?

That was not the British system.

What system was it, then?

In the old Cape Colony they were not excluded. That was the decision of the British Parliament.

But what system was it, then?

Probably McHenry’s system.

Probably McHenry’s system.

The South African Parliament took the decision that they could not stand as candidates. Do not come with that nonsense.

The expediency of this arrangement—and it was not devised by this party—was further proved by the fact that the Coloured women did not receive it, but what happened in 1945? At that time the spiritual ancestors of those people introduced a system of compulsory registration for White voters, but not for the others.

Was that still under the British system?

I am not talking about that any more. I think the hon. member should first make a phone call. Does the hon. member agree that up to and including 1948, this was the situation with regard to Coloured people?

1948?

Yes, up to 1948.

Up to 1958. [Interjections.]

So the situation existed where a distinction was drawn—not by this Government—in respect of the rights and privileges of this population group. However, I object when hon. members say that everything has gone wrong over the past 33 years and that a chaotic situation has developed.

At that time they had representation in this House.

They had White representation in this House. But was that not discrimination?

Of course it was.

And what are we doing now? We are all getting away from that. When we consider our history—forget about whether it was right or wrong—who has taken the constitutional initiatives in this country?

Not the National Party.

Who then? [Interjections.]

But what is this debate all about?

When we talk about the Blacks you say that we are talking about the Coloureds.

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to continue his speech.

We are trying to get away from the history of this country, and the hon. members opposite should not blame this Government for the status quo. Therefore I say that if they reject the Westminster system, they also reject its foundation, and they have not given us any alternative.

What is the foundation of the Westminster system?

Oh, must I teach you that as well! Must I lecture the hon. member on that?

What is it? We differ about that.

No, we do not differ about it. [Interjections.] There is a difference between self-determination and sovereignty. Does he not understand that? The hon. the Prime Minister said, when he stated that the groups should get the right to self-determination, that it was not absolute. Now we are arguing as though it were absolute. It can be defined as autonomy over one’s own concerns and acceptance of the fact that there are common spheres, in respect of which there must be joint decision-making and co-responsibility. We say institutions must be established for consultation and co-responsibility. The difference between the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and our party is that we have provided a model of how this can be done.

So have we.

No, Sir, they have provided a convention. [Interjections.] Oh, Sir, in his speech during the censure debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there were four conditions for constitutional development. Firstly, there must be no discrimination. If there can be no constitutional discrimination, that implies only one thing, and that is one man, one vote. [Interjections.] It cannot be anything else. If that is so, what are we talking about?

They want an open society.

We want to use a society, structured as it is, to build the constitutional model … [Interjections.] That is the point.

Do you want to get away from discrimination?

But of course, if it is unjustified, but that does not mean that we want to get away from differentiation. That is the point. That is what it is all about.

On an ethnic basis or on a colour basis?

I wonder whether the hon. member for Sea Point would not concede this point to me. He says that if we recognize the existence of groups, identifiable groups, and we want to use that as the foundation on which to build a constitution, then we are being racist. According to him, the Coloured people represent a separate race. What is the hon. member doing?

Colour prejudice.

We cannot argue with one another on that basis.

On what basis is it, then?

Surely people are grouped together on the basis of many activities. [Interjections.] Sir, may I please continue? The Coloured people identify themselves as a community.

Theron does not say so.

Theron does not say what that hon. member is saying. Theron says they are not “’n volk of ’n volk in-wording” and Theron says that if we expect them to do what the Afrikaner did, that is not possible. That is what Theron says. I have before me the remarks made by the Theron report in this connection. I want to ask the hon. member this question: Does he know that the Xhosas in Ciskei and the Xhosas in Transkei are constantly at loggerheads with one another?

Just like the Afrikaners in the Cape and in the Transvaal!

And they are the same people. They belong to the same people. Has the hon. member no understanding of the emotional aspects of the situation? I want to ask the hon. member this question: Why is a civil war being waged in Angola? Why?

Why?

Because the reality of that country, as of this one, lies in the fact of plurality and in the existence of minority groups, in sequence.

I now want to come to the contributions made by other hon. members to this debate. The hon. member Prof. Olivier spoke about parity in teachers’ salaries, and his statement that only 26% of the Coloured teachers benefit by parity is factually correct. However, the hon. member will concede that it is an accepted educational principle that a teacher with proper professional qualifications has N plus three. Does the hon. member agree with me?

Go on.

Very well. This is the minimum entrance qualification for the teaching profession. The hon. member will also agree with our standpoint that there should be no difference in the quality of the education on the basis of the population group to which the pupils belong. Furthermore, the hon. member will agree with me that the quality of education is determined by many factors, including the quality of the staff. The quality of the staff is in turn determined by, among other things, the qualifications of the staff. Therefore the hon. member will concede to me that the staff should be encouraged to comply with the minimum qualifications for admission to the profession.

So we have not only brought about parity for the teachers, we have at the same time taken steps, firstly, to bring the training of Coloured and Indian teachers into line with the requirements for a properly qualified or diplomaed teacher. However, we have gone even further in that we have introduced schemes for the benefit of those who are already employed as teachers, to enable them to improve their qualifications so as to comply with the minimum requirements for professionally qualified teachers. For those who cannot make use of the training facilities, there must also be an incentive to ensure that their services are retained for the teaching profession.

As far as numbers are concerned, these undiplomaed teachers have made a tremendous contribution to the education of the groups concerned. Therefore we have introduced extramural courses in this connection at various places, so that this may be complied with.

Having said all this, I immediately add that we are not unsympathetic towards the undiplomaed teacher. For this reason, we have co-operated with the hon. the Minister of Education and Training in addressing a request to the Commission for Administration to conduct a special investigation into the possibility of improving the position of these teachers. So we are doing everything in our power to accomplish this.

While I am on the subject of education, I may point out that in respect of the provision of school facilities …

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister deals with that matter, I wish to express my appreciation and to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I must first point out that for Coloured as well as White people, the normal qualification that is required is Std. 8 plus three years or matric plus one year in the case of category A. In the case of category B it is matric plus two years. That is the position, if my information is correct. However, the salaries for those two categories are not the same for all races.

Most of those teachers receive personal salaries. Is the hon. member aware of that?

I am referring to the salary scales.

But the fact is that there are no comparable posts as far as the physical position is concerned.

I want to come to school facilities. There are gaps and shortcomings that have to be eliminated in order to achieve uniform standards as far as possible. In this regard, too, we have done all we can. This year the allocation is R55 million with a possible additional R5 million to provide for cost increases. The Department of Community Development is responsible for the building of schools, and provision has been made for R75 million a year over the next four years. I hope that the country’s financial position will be such that we shall be able to achieve this objective. What surprises me is that cognizance is not taken of the progress that has been made. [Interjections.] I am not talking about the Opposition, but in general. I therefore believe it is necessary that we discuss these matters with one another, because I think it is essential that we account to ourselves for this situation.

Hon. members will recall that Coloured people became the responsibility of the central Government in 1964, and since then, phenomenal progress has been made. I need not mention the drop in the birthrate of the Coloured people and the per capita increase. In 1966 there were 395 000 children, in round figures, attending primary schools, and in 1980 there were 594 410, an increase of 50%. With regard to secondary schools, an important aspect, there were 20 951 pupils in 1966, and last year there were 125 824, an increase of more than 500%. Compulsory education was only introduced in 1974 in respect of all 7-year-olds, and since 1980, all children between 7 and 16 years must go to school.

I do not want to weary hon. members with figures, but I wish to quote just a few. In 1967, R203 000 was paid out in transport allowances, and in 1980, R326 000. Boarding allowances in respect of boarding houses, among other things, have risen from R978 000 in 1967 to R2,3 million in 1980. Let us look at the Senior Certificate examination results. In 1964, 1 344 pupils sat for this examination, and last year the figure was 8 389. I could furnish figures concerning every facet of education, but I refer only to this figure to prove in practical terms that we are making progress towards our ideal objective of providing equal education for all within our financial means.

The hon. member for Sundays River asked me two questions, and the one was whether the bursaries of married and temporary White teachers could be taken over. The hon. member has also corresponded with me about this question. It is financially more rewarding—that is the hon. member’s impression—for teachers to accept part-time rather than permanent positions, because of the remuneration per hour. I shall first answer the question about the taking over of bursaries. Approval has been received from the Treasury for the bursaries of White teachers to be taken over, irrespective of the temporary or permanent nature of the appointment and irrespective of marital status. The term of service is taken into consideration with regard to the compensation of the authority which originally granted the bursary.

Part-time teachers are paid at R10,64 per hour, irrespective of their qualifications or experience. The tariff is calculated pro rata on the annual salary of category D teachers, so teachers with lower qualifications can earn more in a part-time position. However, the disadvantages are that they are not entitled to any leave—not even sick leave—and that they have no pension benefits. On top of that, they receive no annual salary increase or service bonus. When we look at the net result, therefore, we shall find that the position is somewhat different from what it is believed to be.

†The hon. member for Berea discussed the discontinuation of the research project by a member of the academic staff of a university. Let me say immediately that this particular complaint is at the moment being handled by my department and the authorities concerned. However, I should like to warn that we must not generalize about an isolated incident—I do not suggest that this was the intention of the hon. member—because it may discredit the entire university. We must realize, I believe, that we are dealing with an established university which has a council and a senate that have a status and independence when it comes to decision-making. When we therefore plead the case of an individual, which we are entitled to do, I therefore request that we bear this in mind. I should like to submit that the achievements at that university have been great and valuable ones.

*This brings me to the hon. member for False Bay, with whom I should like to start on a personal note by thanking him for his contribution in this House. The first step the hon. member took in representative politics he took as my team-mate in False Bay. He has an excellent record of service to his party and to Parliament. Since he is leaving in the near future, I want to wish him and his family everything of the best.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member made a plea concerning the position of the Coloured people in general, but specifically in the Western Cape. He referred to the fact that in the Erika Theron Report it was recommended that unskilled Coloured persons should be trained so that they could be economically active. I am glad the hon. member has given me the opportunity to talk about this. Let us refer to what has happened since those earlier times. Since then phenomenal progress has been made in this specific regard. The hon. member will know that the formal education of Coloured pupils is the responsibility of my department, but that their training is primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Manpower. The Manpower 2000 project is taking an in-depth look at the aspect which the hon. member advocated. A great deal has already been achieved in this connection. My department is also prepared to assist industrialists by offering the necessary training courses—at any level—for which there is a need. In co-operation with the Department of Manpower a trade training centre has been established by my department in Bellville for the training and retraining of this specific population group. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister of Manpower undertook the official opening of this centre this morning. The institution makes provision for the training of 100 adult men in five different trades. At present consideration is being given to extending the training at these centres next year. In order to provide more training facilities for Coloured workers outside the Peninsula, a technical institute was established at Nababeep on 1 April. At present the possibility is also being considered of establishing a technical institute at Atlantis as well as George in 1982.

There is also a great need for agricultural training for our Coloured sector of the population, because they are involved in agriculture. I foresee a time when they will be involved in managerial posts and will be involved in agriculture in the capacity of owners, to a greater extent than is the case at present. Over and above what we are doing for the rural areas, we are also giving attention to vocational education in the field of agriculture. Apart from the fact that it is already being offered as a subject at school, we have also decided to establish a college at Upington. I also intend, in co-operation with the Agricultural Union, to investigate the possibility of a further agriculture school in the Boland region.

A total of 80% of the Coloured people are in the Western Cape. In 1960 there were 554 000 economically active Coloureds in South Africa. During the next two decades or 20 years—i.e. up to and including 1980—this increased to approximately 1 million, of whom 73% work in the Western Cape. In 1960 66% of the total work force in the factories in the Western Cape were Coloureds. In 1976 84% of them were working in the factories. I say this is phenomenal progress in respect of the training and employment of this sector of our population. In 1976 there were 47 871 Coloured people working in the Government departments. In 1979 there were 54 000 Coloured people employed in the Public Service. Hon. members can look at every sphere of activity and they will find the Coloured people there to an ever increasing extent. The same applies to education and the Public Service. During the past decade new prospects have opened up for the Coloured people. Because they live here in the Western Cape, it is necessary to protect them against exploitation because of people who offer their services for wages lower than those the Coloured people are able to accept.

†I now come to the hon. member for Constantia. I should, first of all, like to deal with his explanation in relation to his attitude concerning the erection of cluster housing in Constantia. The hon. member now presents as excuse for his attitude that he in fact objects to the planning. I should like to test the validity of that argument. If I understand the position correctly, the hon. member’s party is against the action that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has taken in removing the squatters from Nyanga. Working on those premises, I interpret it that the squatters in Nyanga can five in hovels and in the worst conditions irrespective of any planning standard whatsoever, but Coloured people cannot live in improved, high-standard cluster housing in Constantia.

That is a ridiculous statement. It is absolute nonsense.

Whenever we expose that dichotomy in standpoint we get the reaction that it is a ridiculous standpoint. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point, who said it was ridiculous: Is there any planning in respect of the squatters at Nyanga?

A shanty is better than no shelter at all.

The hon. member for Constantia did not tell us: “There are planning problems. Remove them because of the planning problems.” He said let them remain there in the most appalling conditions.

You are not very fond of the truth.

When it comes to something they can buy on the basis of high ethical considerations and town planning standards the position of the Coloureds must not be improved.

Nonsense! Would you like to tell us that cluster housing at Groot Constantia is good town planning?

That “Anglikaner” had better keep quiet. Then the hon. member for Constantia, went on to say, as did hon. member for South Coast, that the Government refuses to negotiate with the real leaders of the Coloured people.

†I should like to ask the hon. member: What is the substance and the basis for this absurd allegation? The Government and my door are open to all the leaders of the Coloured people.

Who are their leaders?

I am coming to that.

The jail door behind which you put Alan Hendrickse was not left open.

I wonder whether the hon. member should not go and do his duty in Walvis Bay instead. In any case, he does nothing for them. I am going to attack him on that score in a moment. He pretends that they do not exist.

†I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia whether the Rev. Hendrickse is a leader of the Coloured people.

Yes.

I deal with him.

How often?

I should also like to ask him whether Mr. Curry is a leader …

He has been elected.

Is he a real one in terms of the hon. member’s definition?

He has been elected. So he is a leader.

I deal with him. Why then does he accuse me of not dealing with them?

You put them in gaol.

You see, Sir, the problem is that we have to listen to debates as if this were a senior school where people have no experience of the fact that debating points must be substantiated by facts. I should like to tell the hon. member how I deal with these people. I have discussions on a regular basis with leaders in the Indian community and in the Coloured community.

Do you listen to what they say?

That is not the point. I am coming back to that as well. The hon. member must please not run away from the argument now.

Who is running away?

Sir, when Mr. Leon was the leader of the Labour Party he was a “real leader”, but now that he has decided to participate in the process of seeing whether it is possible on a constitutional basis to attain the objective of participation in the government by all the groups in this country, he is not a “real leader” any more. In other words, the definition of “leadership” applied by the Opposition is determined by whether the people concerned support their point of view or not.

Will you test their leadership in an election? [Interjections.]

On 22 May I met a delegation of the Freedom Party and also Kerr, and on 11 June I met the Labour Party.

Did you meet the Freedom Party and cope together?

No, I did not meet them together. That would be the same as meeting all the hon. members opposite together, because they are as divided as the hon. members opposite are.

Speaking of high school debates, that is good!

They have several parties and they have conflicting ideas. I met with them, but the hon. member opposite reserves for himself the prerogative to determine who the real leaders are with whom I should hold discussions. Let me tell him that I am not prepared to account to him or to any other hon. members opposite at any point in time for when, how and with whom I discuss matters of interest to the Coloured people.

You are supposed to account to Parhament.

I should like to tell him, however, that before he starts talking on behalf of Coloured people, I suggest he should consult them. Sir, every time when we hold discussions with people of colour or consult them, the mere fact that they consult with us is counted against them.

Not only the Labour Party meets me and my colleagues from time to time. I met a delegation from a management committee and local affairs committees amongst the Indian people and at that meeting were also present the Administrators of the provinces, their members of the executive, representatives of the Municipal Executive and officials of my department. We met in order to discuss ways and means of improving the effectiveness of participation in local government by these people. I challenge that hon. member to bring me one example in the history of this country where a discussion of that nature has ever taken place before. Then he has the audacity and the impertinence to question the people with whom we work and professes to speak for these communities.

That is because they cannot speak here for themselves. Let them come and speak for themselves here.

The hon. the Prime Minister, at the request of the Freedom Party, met members of that party. At the request of Kerr the hon. the Prime Minister met Kerr and at the request of the Indian Council—and one of its executive members is present here today—met them for discussion. If I would have to summarize this I would say that the outstanding characteristic of the administration of this country under this hon. Prime Minister has indeed been the quantum and the fact of consultation with all leaders. Instead of lauding those efforts all those attempts are being decried.

*Now I want to address the hon. member in impeccable Parliamentary language.

What happened the last time the hon. the Prime Minister spoke with those Coloured leaders?

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke with them this year and that was a better quality of discussion than I could possibly ever have with the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Interjections.] Let me put it to the hon. member for Groote Schuur that I am much nearer to them, in any event, than I am to him.

*The Coloured population are much nearer to me than the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

Now why are they so far removed from you then?

Why must the hon. member for Constantia make a constant fool of himself? [Interjections.]

They are so near to you, but you still deny them the right to vote.

The hon. member for Green Point and the vociferous hon. member for Constantia, who is sitting right behind him, have put certain questions to me in respect of the Coloured Council, the council that was to be established. I do not intend establishing that council. I do not intend establishing it, not because of a request by the hon. member. What I object to is the fact that the hon. member for Constantia produces a document that has been handed to me.

It was handed to me too.

I would not have thought the hon. member had stolen it.

What is the point you are trying to make?

I object to the fact that the hon. member for Constantia produces that document and distorts the contents thereof.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not use the word “distort”. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw that. The hon. member is distorting the contents of the document.

No, that is still the same thing. The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “distorting” as well.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. You will understand, though, that I now find it difficult to express what I want to say. The hon. member is completely misinterpreting the document. And he is doing so deliberately. What are the facts, however? This organization—rightly or wrongly, it does not matter—consists of people who were at one stage identified by that hon. member’s party as actual leaders. There are for example Mr. Lofty Adams, Mr. Le Fleur, and a few others. They tell us they are looking for mechanisms and methods of achieving liaison after they destroyed the CPRC.

They were appointed, not elected.

The CPRC was elected. Must I start teaching the hon. member today?

He is not listening.

I want to make one thing clear here today. I make no apology for it either. I think it was a mistake on the part of the Coloured people to destroy the CPRC. I am not the only person who realizes this. They say so themselves.

Was there any error on your part?

Of course. I shall come to the hon. member for Sea Point in a moment. I change my attitudes. When one is unable to admit one’s mistakes, one cannot improve matters either.

Are you prepared to reconstitute the CRC?

The fact of the matter is that after the CRC, which was an elected body, was dissolved, the people who had participated in it—I am not reproaching them for this—inter alia also the Labour Party, accepted the system of management committees as a platform from which they could make themselves heard. Today I say without qualification that I co-operate with them although I do not always agree with them and they do not always agree with me.

So why do you not reconstitute the CRC?

Is that a request?

Yes, it is. It is better than nothing.

This is very interesting. Here now is a request that I must now reconstitute the CRC. But when it was there, that hon. member’s party wanted to destroy it. It was not then something that was better than nothing. It had to be destroyed. What we are playing at in this country?

That is a very good question.

That is a stupid question and I expected it from the hon. member.

No, your question is a good one.

Mine is always good.

*The hon. member for Sea Point said our policy differed from that of Dr. Verwoerd, Dr. Malan or whoever else one would care to mention. I make no apology for the fact that my party’s policy is changing. I would have been denounced if I had not been able to change. A political party which is not able to interpret the conditions of the time and to adjust its policy to the conditions cannot control the conditions. [Interjections.] But what we did not do, which those hon. members did do, is that we did not change our principles which we wish to implement by means of our policy. I shall give an example of this. Hon. members opposite cannot change a policy because they do not have one.

Principles change.

Principles change every day. If the one is not suitable, there is another one at home. I do not ask for concurrence with my policy. I am not asking hon. members to support it. However, I am asking for one thing. I am asking for recognition of the fact that my party and I, in spite of the great divisions in the community, for they are great and they are emotionally loaded and the conflict potential is high … But will the hon. member concede that my colleagues and I—and the hon. member for Klip River said this—in spite of the fact that there are people in this country who think they can buy their security by spinning themselves into a cocoon of self-sufficiency, have pleaded for relations in this country as no other party has done? This Government established relations committees. Why? To bring people between whom there are great divisions together around a table.

The right leaders must be brought together.

Let me get to the leaders.

That is a step in the right direction.

No, I am talking to the hon. member for Constantia now, but, Sir, I must say the rules of this House make it difficult!

For us as well!

I know, Sir.

Don’t forget, we have to suffer listening to you.

I have to suffer you, that is worse! That is much worse. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Constantia spoke about the ineffectiveness of the management committees. This is not a new idea. I have said so myself. However, I have set the process of improving their effectiveness in motion, and I have said so. I wish to mention an example to him. Surely he will not deny that in the Cape Town City Council the PFP component is on top.

Especially the mayor! [Interjections.]

Sir, it is interesting that the greatest achievement they are now boasting about in the Cape Town City Council is the fact that for the first time a Nationalist has been elected mayor. Now they are bragging about him! I want to make my point. Where else is the co-operation between a White authority and a management committee poorer than in the Cape Town City Council? [Interjections.] Nowhere. Let us take the words of Mr. Curry. After all, he is a real leader. We agree on that score. He lives in Stellenbosch and he works with the Stellenbosch City Council and they are Nationalists. And do you know what he says? He singles out the town council of Stellenbosch as the town council where there is co-operation between a management committee and the town council and he propagates that basis of co-operation with other local authorities. And that hon. member sits there in his self-complacency and speaks about the efficiency of participation in the system of local government.

Does David Curry agree with the management committee system?

I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point one thing: It is this Government that made a start with the adjustment of the system of government in this country, the system of administration in this country. We began here. We reformed this place and I want to tell him that the reform processes …

In what sense?

Oh please, Sir, is the Parliament still constituted in the same way as it was last year?

Is the hon. Minister referring to the Senate now?

I want to tell the hon. member that those changes are not final and I say that a system of local and regional governments can play a role in this country where exclusive and common interests can meet. This implies changes in our systems at levels of mutual interest as well.

I am discussing this with the authorities, because I want to say one thing: Whatever the model may be, the fact remains that the decentralization of decision-making to lower levels is part of the solution to the problems of the country. We are working on this in co-operation with the bodies involved.

The hon. member says we are waiting for the President’s Council. What surprises me is that the President’s Council occupies such an important position in the discussions in this House although the hon. members reject it.

There are principles at stake.

The hon. member for Sea Point put a series of hypothetical questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. He wanted to know what the reaction would be if the President’s Council were to do something or other. Surely that is nonsense. If a cat were to come in here and sit on his lap, what would he do?

The hon. the Prime Minister did reply to a few of them.

The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned certain standpoints concerning party principles. The hon. the Prime Minister said that if he received certain proposals which he found acceptable after having considered them, he would then use the congresses within the party mechanism to present these matters to them. Unlike the PFP, his proposals are carried out by congresses of the party.

Are you in favour of White domination?

The hon. member for Constantia should rather go and build houses in Constantia.

I hope the hon. member for Constantia is never in the position of being able to dominate anything, except to disseminate his own ignorance. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member Mr. Van Staden. He gave the historic perspective in respect of the political development of the Coloured people. As did the hon. member for Sundays River, he also referred to the exaggerated emphasis placed on political rights while socio-economic aspects are forgotten. Today I want to say—again I am not saying this reproachfully—that if we had all—the party to which I belong has governed for the shortest period of our history—undertaken the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloureds at a faster rate, the accent on politics would have been less.

Are you saying that politics is not important?

Surely I did not say it was not important. I told the hon. member what processes it set in motion. Why make the nonsensical statement that it is not important? I am talking about the Coloureds’ own identification of priorities.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden pointed out that we must devise a system so that we can draw attention in a regular and orderly way to the obligation to register as voters. I shall see what we can do about this.

†The hon. member for South Coast raised one important matter with which I have to deal. I have already dealt with his observations as to the real leaders. He wanted to know why the Coloured people could not elect their leaders as the Indian people are going to do on 4 November. He forgets, however, that the Coloureds enjoyed that opportunity for many years.

The hon. member discussed the question of places of safety with particular reference to Wentworth in Durban. Let me just point out that the hon. member did apologize for not being able to attend this afternoon. When the hon. member discussed the question of places of safety, I asked him whether he was using Press reports as the basis of his remarks. He said that that was not the case. If that is correct, why did the hon. member not approach me with the knowledge that he had of that institution quite apart from what he had read in the Press? I should like to give the hon. member the facts.

The hon. member wants to know whether the department is doing anything about the state of affairs. Secondly he wants to know whether the staff is suitable. Thirdly he wants to know whether the staff is suitably trained. Fourthly he wants to know whether it is because the staff is not sufficiently paid that we cannot attract the right professional staff. The department was aware of shortcomings with regard to places of safety and detention in general. The hon. member will recall that there was an investigation in regard to various institutions, and if he would be patient I will give him the information. Work study investigations were carried out during this year at all these institutions, including Wentworth and Durban. Recommendations were made for various improvements, and these are, in fact, in the process of being implemented at the moment.

Following the work of this study investigation, and as a result of an official report received from the regional office in Durban, an in-depth inspection by a Chief Welfare Officer from head office was conducted at this institution during July 1981. Certain aspects at this institution were found to be unsatisfactory, and the following steps have been taken to rectify the shortcomings: Firstly, more specific guidance has been given to the social workers of the Durban region to ensure a more realistic selection of children for placement with foster parents or for detention in the institution. The hon. member is aware of the provisions of the Act in regard to the commitment of children. Secondly, the superintendent and the Chief Welfare Officer have been instructed to ensure that the correct statutory procedure for the apprehension of absconders is followed and that every effort is made to combat absconding.

*I do not know whether the hon. member has experience of these institutions, but I have, because I served on the control board of one of them. There is not a single one of these institutions where there is not a percentage of absconders, and this is the greatest problem, whether it is a White or a Coloured institution. I served on the control board of a White institution.

†Furthermore, arrangements are made for direct control of institutions by the child welfare officer, and a more intensive inservice training programme for the staff has been introduced. This has nothing to do with the report in the newspaper. I am now referring to the steps that have been and are being taken. The continuous contact with the place of safety by the responsible social worker has been intensified and a questionnaire has been introduced to facilitate effective inspections of these institutions. Moreover, steps have been taken to ensure more selective screening of applicants for appointment and the replacement of less suitable staff, as some of the staff were not suitable.

There are no prescribed periods of detention, and this will vary from case to case. Everything possible is being done to ensure that no child is detained for longer than necessary, and any delay in transferring children from a place of safety is not on account of lack of accommodation in other suitable institutions.

Instructions have been issued that all children of school-going age should attend public schools. However, the hon. member will understand that children have frequently absconded while on their way to school. In other words, it is not so easy to avoid it.

Recommendations for a more realistic salary structure and the creation of additional posts are being submitted to the Commission for Administration. Finally, at the moment I am considering the appointment of an advisory board for these institutions which will bring about other disciplines, and other people will also become involved in the lives of these unfortunate children.

*I therefore hope the hon. member understands that in this connection we have done everything that can be done.

†The hon. member for Berea raised the question that Indians were, as he put it, not allowed to get married outside the country. Let me just state the facts. The first Government ever to acknowledge the Indians as a permanent part of the population of this country was this Government. In 1961 the Government brought relief when it was decided that the Indians would be accepted as a permanent part of the population of South Africa, and that as most South African Indians were Indian citizens, they would be entitled to benefit from that fact. Hon. members must please listen now. Under the Government of Louis Botha, Gen. Smuts was the then acting Minister of the Interior, and by way of a momentary digression, may I ask if there is anyone in this House who is prepared to say that Gen. Smuts was a racist? I do not think so. I think we all agree that he was not. In August 1913—and I am stressing this in view of the difficulty of the situation we have to deal with—he imposed certain restrictions on the entry of Asians into South Africa and also on their movement between provinces. Just for the record, I have it here in his own writing. The date was 1 August 1913. In terms of chapter 33 of the Statute Book of the OFS, which is still in force, Asians could not settle or remain in the Orange Free State without permission. In 1975 restrictions on the inter-provincial movement of Asians were lifted, except for entry into the Free State and the northern districts of Natal, to which the provisions of the old Orange Free State law and the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, Act 33 of 1927, applied. The hon. member asked whether these Acts would be reviewed. When this legislation was enacted, the Group Areas Act did not exist, and naturally in terms of the Group Areas Act many facets of the presence of all population groups—in this case this particular population group—can be organized and regulated. My answer to his question is therefore that in general terms the Government does naturally review statutes from time to time, discussing and considering the effectiveness of the relevant statutes.

This brings me to the question of the brides. I and my predecessor made an arrangement with the executive of the Indian Council about brides. In this case I have to take sides with the girl. Indian girls, it so happens, far outnumber Indian men, and I do not think they should be subjected to unfair competition from other girls.

Heunis the matchmaker!

That there are many different groups in this country cannot be denied. If we were to open our doors to all immigrants, irrespective of where they came from, what would happen? We would be flooded, swamped …

And drowned.

What amazes me so, is that those hon. members criticize this side of the House throughout the debate about how badly we are supposed to be treating our people. Then they immediately ask us to allow people to come and five in South Africa under these appalling conditions. [Interjections.] The kind of logic to which we must sit and listen in this House is unbelievable. [Interjections.]

†It is true that in less complicated societies than ours, not consisting of a number of varied communities as is the case here, the problem of peaceful co-existence is less of a conflicting nature than ours. That is true.

*I should like to refer for a moment—I do not like doing this, but I have to refer to it—to the pious Mr. Fraser of Australia who condemns this Government and my country for our approach to the different communities. In his own country he has a population of 14 million people, including 200 000 aborigines. I need not tell hon. members what the World Council of Churches has to say about him. If his country, numerically speaking, had to be in the same position as we are, he would have 70 million aborigines in his country. In what kind of world are we living?

The hon. member for Sea Point asked me…

He is not here.

That hon. member can convey to him what I have to say. The hon. member for Sea Point shot down his own argument and pretended it was mine. He asked why the hon. the Prime Minister, when he makes a law about referendums, cannot allow the Coloureds to participate in a referendum. But the hon. member does not know what the facts are. The Government has decided to introduce empowering legislation in this House—and we hope this will happen next year—to make provision for the holding of referendums among all the population groups. It will be the prerogative of the executive to decide what questions should be asked and of whom and when they should be asked. The Ciskei held a referendum in respect of their constitutional development. Why must we waste one another’s time with so many academic questions?

The hon. member for Brits referred to certain legislation. I do not wish to discuss the history of the legislation now, but wish to adopt a standpoint in this regard, which is that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would listen to proposals in respect of amendments to the legislation. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister received any assistance from any of those hon. members concerning amendments. However, the hon. the Prime Minister covered that ground. He spoke to the English church leaders who came to see him, and he said there were two aspects to the legislation, namely the theological and the sociological aspects. I am not an expert in the sphere of theology, but I can assess the sociological aspect. However, the churches in the country are divided among themselves. Hon. members must get a standpoint from the churches which read the same Bible and then come back to me. Surely we are not adopting an inflexible attitude. I shall assess the sociological aspect of the legislation, because I am responsible for its consequences in the country. I did not intend to say this, and I do not have authority to say it either, but I find it strange that a church leader who came to see the hon. Minister along with the other leaders, inter alia, concerning this subject, expressed the wish that people … I shall not pursue the matter further, but I want to say one thing: I think it is time the churches in this country realized to what extent the continued practising of their convictions and religions and the continued survival of their institutions depends on the stability of the society which is being preserved by this party. I want to say that, after they have made that calculation, they ought to go down on their knees to the Government, in spite of its mistakes, mistakes which it admits.

That is a very dangerous doctrine.

I should also like to refer to the neglecting of open spaces, inter alia, in the Cape Peninsula. To me it is important that we know that a community’s life is not restricted to housing, but that recreation is also important. In this connection I have held talks with the City Council of Cape Town and the Divisional Council of the Cape. Officials of the Department of Transport Affairs and of the Department of Community Development were also present. We agreed to develop these open spaces in a programmed way to provide people with recreational areas.

I want to thank all the hon. members who took part in the debate for their contributions. It was not possible for me to reply to all the speeches. I want to thank the hon. members for Klip River, De Kuilen, Turffontein, Brits and others, for their contributions. I want to tell the hon. member for Kimberley South that I condemn joining him in the exploitation of the Indians to which he referred in the strongest possible terms. The problem is already receiving attention. There has already been an inquiry into the matter and there is data from the Riekert Commission in this connection which implies amendments to the Group Areas Act. These have been accepted in principle, but still have to be implemented in practice. That is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. In the meanwhile the situation is being dealt with under section 19 of the Act. I also want to thank the hon. member who is chairman of the particular group on the Government side.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has already said that that already exists in Durban.

You need not get excited.

I only pointed it out.

I want to conclude. [Interjections.] Since there has been a reference to the hon. member for Mossel Bay in an interjection I just wish to say that I have never before in this House heard a more expert exposition of constitutional aspects than that given by the hon. member last night. I should like to tell him this.

Mr. Van der Merwe from my department is being promoted to the Commission for Administration. Allow me to strike a personal note by saying that although I congratulate him on his promotion, the fact that his leaving is a personal loss to me. I really hoped that he would be able to serve in his new form in my department. He leaves a void in my department, but also in my personal life.

Then Mr. Kempen is leaving on 1 November. He dedicated most of his life to the interests of the Coloured people. If there is one man who has laboured unceasingly to further sound relations and goodwill between population groups, it is he. I find it a pity that he is leaving the service for personal reasons. Although no one is irreplaceable, I want to tell him that his departure is going to leave a void in the department, in the hearts of his colleagues and also in my office.

Mr. Krog, Director of Indian Education, a man with a wonderful record in the service of Indian education, has been appointed Director of Education with a rank comparable to that of Deputy Director General of Education. I want to congratulate him on this. Mr. Arendse was appointed to the same post for Coloured education. As far as I know he is the first Coloured person to gain this distinction.

Hear, hear!

I want to congratulate him and also his community on this appointment. He personifies a number of things. He personifies the ability there is to be found in the Coloured community. He also personifies the fact that, in spite of all the criticism we receive, it is under this dispensation that he and his colleagues are able to earn and attain this and other positions. I wish him the successful accomplishment of a difficult task.

I also want to thank my colleagues for their contributions, including any people I may have omitted. I want to address a special word to the hon. member for Witbank. He made a plea concerning the Transvaal. I have not yet received any request from them. However, I am looking into the matter. However, if I were to accept the expenditure and the number of free days off as a norm, the hon. the Prime Minister would have to give me four peoples’ pay. However, we understand the hon. member’s sentiments, and also the sympathy he has for that system. We know the Transvaal is a large province and that important work is being done there.

Many thanks to all hon. members for their contributions. If I have ommited to mention anyone, he must please forgive me.

Vote agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill we moved that it should be referred to a Select Committee because we foresaw that there are many problems in it which could be ironed out in that way. This would also ensure that we would be placing legislation on the Statute Book which would benefit the agricultural sector, which would cause the co-operative movement to grow and which would give the co-operative movement more momentum; and at the same time that a conflict situation would not arise between organized trade and the co-operative movement in South Africa. We stated our points but unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not find it possible to comply with our request. For that reason we have had to move amendments to quite a number of the clauses in this legislation and they appear on the Order Paper.

The amendment to this clause which is printed in my name on the Order Paper is aimed at eliminating any lack of clarity with regard to clause 18. It is necessary for me now, in discussing this clause in which the definition occurs, to refer to that specific clause because the definition has a specific bearing upon it. I believe that legislation should be as clear as possible and that is why we must ensure that the concept of “co-operative practice” should leave no room for misunderstanding. During the Second Reading debate, we on this side of the House tried to establish what the hon. the Minister understood by the concept “co-operative practice” and the hon. the Minister was not able to furnish a clear reply to the questions that we put to him in this regard. The hon. member for Paarl did in fact try to explain the principles of the co-operative movement, but even he did not discuss the definition of “co-operative practice” with us and did not give us any clarity on it.

Clause 18 of this Bill empowers the Minister to grant co-operatives the right exclusively to pursue a co-operative practice or to empower other organizations or persons also to pursue a co-operative practice in special circumstances. However, in clause 18(a) it is further provided that “cooperative practice” is to be defined by notice. Therefore, in our opinion, this gives the hon. the Minister a right or a power which is too extensive. I am prepared to concede that the right to pay bonuses to members in accordance with patronage proportions, is characteristic of the co-operative movement. This point was accepted by both the Steenkamp Commission and the Jacobs Commission, but it was never envisaged that a co-operative practice would also include other trade practices, and that is why I have moved my amendment in which I am trying to define the concept of “co-operative practice”. I think that when hon. members on that side of the House look at my definition of “co-operative practice”, they will agree with it.

I do not think it is the intention of the House or of the legal draftsmen that the Minister of Agriculture should be given the right to decide at a later stage, possibly within a few years, that an ordinary trade practice which is being pursued by cooperatives at that stage, can be granted exclusively to a co-operative to the detriment of the organized trade. That is why I am attempting to make the definition as precise as possible.

In order to obtain an acceptable definition, I also held discussions with officials of the department. I must point out that even those officials experienced great difficulty in giving me an exact definition. We on this side of the House searched further and looked in the library for papers on the co-operative movement. As far as we were able to establish, there was only one cooperative practice that was so characteristic of that section of agriculture in South Africa, that I was able to draw up my definition in the way that I did.

I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (x) “co-operative practice” means the right of a co-operative to pay to its members bonuses in accordance with the patronage proportion;

I want to recommend strongly that the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Wynberg and from a few of his remarks I deduce that he has a reason for submitting this definition which he wants introduced to clause 1. His colleague the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following, inter alia, during his Second Reading speech—

It is clear to me now that the hon. member for Wynberg is definitely introducing those conflicts to the legislation by means of his amendment.

In essence, the hon. member’s amendment amounts to the definitions in clause 1 being supplemented. If one looks at clause 1, one finds that it contains 37 definitions. In his amendment, as the hon. member says, he defines “co-operative practice”. However, this definition is not desirable and therefore it is not acceptable to this side of the House.

By means of his definition, the hon. member is placing a restriction on the concept of “co-operative practice”. As the hon. member himself indicated, in order to understand the full significance of his amendment, one must also take note of the amendment that he intends moving when we come to clause 18. These two amendments amount to “co-operative practice” being defined as “the right of a co-operative to pay to its members bonuses in accordance with the patronage proportion”. In doing this, he is restricting the development of the cooperative practice. After all, co-operatives cannot simply do business on the bonus system; there are other systems too. “Cooperative practice” is the core concept.

Mr. Chairman, may I please put a question?

No, I am sorry, but I should like to continue with my argument. The concept of “co-operative practice” is the core concept. Indeed, it is the most dynamic concept in co-operatives, and if we fix the meaning of “co-operative practice”, as the hon. member is attempting to do in his definition, we are attaching to it a meaning which will be a hindrance on the path of the future development of the co-operatives. That is why the Minister has the right, as determined in clause 18, from time to time as he may deem necessary, to define the co-operative practice as a practice that may be pursued exclusively by cooperatives. This is the aim of clause 18 as it reads at present. In terms of the amendment which the hon. member has in mind, he wants to deprive the Minister of that right to define “co-operative practice”. In the future, as far as the co-operatives are concerned, this will definitely put us in a dead-end and we are therefore definitely not amenable to it.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member give any other example, apart from the one that I described, of co-operative practices that are in practice at the moment?

I have the development of the co-operatives in mind. I have raised my objection to the hon. member’s proposed amendment, because it restricts co-operative development. We object to this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not actually wish to talk to the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, but wish to refer to another point. [Interjections.] I want to refer to clause l(3)(a) which states—

1. (i) that co-operative either is a member of that company and controls the composition of its board of directors or holds more than one-half of its share capital.

This clause goes on to give various other situations which could lead to being a subsidiary, but one situation that is not covered—and I mentioned this in the Second Reading—is the situation where the company concerned is owned by a combination of co-ops; in other words, if two, three or four co-operatives all have shares in this company, so that it is, in fact, totally a subsidiary of the co-operative movement, as there are no other shareholders at all. It could be totally the subsidiary of a number of cooperatives, and yet in terms of this definition it would not be a co-operative subsidiary and subject to the same controls as subsidiaries of co-operatives are. I think this is a problem on which the hon. the Minister could perhaps comment I certainly would like him to do so.

I mention this specifically because of the situation with outsider trading. This could be a way for co-operatives to get around the restrictions on co-operative trading, as set out in the Bill before us. In other words, they could, in conjunction with other cooperatives, buy a company and trade with whom they like, and how they like, through that company, though there would not be a subsidiary involved that would have any controls over it. This is the way I see this particular definition, and I should like the hon. the Minister’s response to that.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. In the current Act as it reads at the moment, this whole concept is contained in section 101, and it has been there since that legislation was drafted in 1939. However, the hon. member proposes that a co-operative practice should be so defined that a co-operative would be entitled to pay to its members bonuses only in accordance with the patronage proportion. By doing that, as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen argued, he is narrowing or limiting the authority of the Minister in this respect—as defined in the current Act—to the mere payment of bonuses to members.

The hon. member asked what other matters could perhaps arise which the Minister of Agriculture might want to declare cooperative practices. If in future it should be found necessary to declare a practice a co-operative practice, the limiting of this authority by the acceptance of this hon. member’s definition would restrict us enormously. I can quote examples. There is, for example, the case where a product is dealt with on a pool basis, and this could be declared a co-operative practice. This situation could well develop. However, the fact is that this authorization does exist in the current legislation. As I have said, it is contained in section 101. This section has never caused any problems. It is merely being perpetuated in this proposed legislation. Therefore I am really not prepared to accept the amendments of the hon. member for Wynberg.

This brings me to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He asked, with reference to clause 1(3), what the position would be if three or four co-operatives were shareholders in a company. He asked why that company would not then be a subsidiary of the co-operatives.

†The hon. member quoted from the Bill. It is quite clear, however, that a company would only be a subsidiary of a co-operative if the—

In this case where there are three or four or five co-operatives, they are just ordinary shareholders. Neither of them either controls the composition of the board of directors or holds more than one-half of the share capital. Therefore they are just ordinary shareholders in that company. That company is therefore not an affiliated company to the co-operatives.

Yes, but I think it should be.

I am not prepared to change that in any way. The fact is that surely co-operatives have the right to hold shares. No co-operative holds a majority share in that company. Why, then, should a company be termed a subsidiary of one of those co-operatives? If a co-operative holds 25% of the shares it has only one quarter of the shares. Therefore it does not have control as such over the company. It does not have a majority share and cannot appoint the board of directors. Consequently it does not comply with the definition as stated in subclause (3). Therefore it is just an ordinary shareholder. I can see no objection to that kind of shareholder.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for making his position clear, but it does not solve the particular difficulty which we have. The point we want to make is that the company as a whole is a subsidiary of, for example, four co-operative companies. It is therefore totally controlled by not one company, but in fact by a series of companies. In the normal sense of the term, therefore, it is not really a company, but a subsidiary between four shareholders who could all be co-operatives.

You are talking utter nonsense.

The hon. member for Barberton can get up in due course and talk when it is his turn. This is the Committee Stage, and the hon. member can speak three times if he likes. He must just allow me to put my case now. If he does not do that, it is just going to take that much longer.

The suggestion that I am making is that the four co-operative companies can then jointly control the subsidiary company. It is fairly obvious that they can get together as four co-operatives and jointly decide on how that company is going to be run, on how they are going to do it and how they are going to organize everything. It is in actual fact a subsidiary of a number of cooperatives.

What is wrong with that?

An hon. member here asks: “What is wrong with that?” I think that in that way the co-operative company could actually escape the provisions of this particular Bill. None of these provisions will therefore apply to that subsidiary company. In other places where they do hold the majority shareholding, these provisions would of course apply.

Mr. Chairman, the point of departure of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is totally wrong. If he thinks that the co-operative sector is controlled by one body then he is making a big mistake. Co-operatives are separate corporate bodies. They are totally autonomous. It has been argued that four shareholders, or whatever the number may be, could join to make a company a subsidiary. Of which one of the co-operatives which are shareholders would such a company be a subsidiary?

All four of them!

That is totally unrealistic. That company will pay its taxes just as any other company has to pay taxes. There is no need to argue about this at all.

I also wish to react to the points made by the hon. member for Wynberg on the same subsection. I think the Official Opposition are once again making the same mistake that was pointed out during the Second Reading, viz. they think that everything contained in the package deal should be incorporated in the legislation. This is by no means necessary. One of the things which they want to define clearly in connection with the cooperative practice, is the question of bonuses. But this has already been defined clearly enough elsewhere. There is no need to define here that such a thing may not be done anywhere else. We have also mentioned other arguments in connection with the question of loans. An amendment is also to be proposed to the effect that the kind of loans to be granted and the purpose for which they are granted must be specifically stipulated. Consequently it is not necessary to have everything contained in the package deal incorporated in the legislation. Therefore I find the amendment unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister. Since we are dealing with legislation, the object of this Committee is not only to look after the interests of one group in the community, viz. the farmers—I myself am one—as they are represented in the trade by their co-operatives. It is also our task to ensure that the other section of the organized trade is not going to suffer now or in the future as a result of legislation before the House.

Now we have the situation where we are giving the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the right to decide in future what a co-operative practice is. I have no objection to the hon. the Minister restricting a practice which is characteristic of the co-operative movement, to that sector of the trade. What I do object to, is that the hon. Minister is being placed in the position to decide at any time in the future, in a competitive situation between the organized trade and the cooperative trade, to favour one in preference to the other. I do not think that this is the aim of this Bill.

Therefore, it is clear to me that people in the business world who are competing with one another, must know where the Minister can draw the line. This is actually all that I am asking. I tried to define “co-operative practice”. Now hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Paarl, tell me that there are in fact other practices that exist today. If this is the case—I accept that it is—why can those hon. members or the hon. the Minister not tell us what those other existing trade practices are that are characteristic of co-operatives, so that we can include those practices in the definition? The aim of definitions in legislation is to ensure that the people who have to implement it, will know what it is all about. Now there is a registrar and a deputy-registrar and these two gentlemen have probably been in the business for years and therefore know what it is all about, but tomorrow or the day after someone else may occupy one of those two positions. Then he will look at this legislation in order to establish what a “co-operative practice” is. However, he will not find it here. In that case he cannot turn to the hon. member for Paarl.

They will tell the other fellows about it.

That hon. member does not know anything about it. He should keep out of the debate. To whom then will that person turn in order to obtain clarity regarding that definition? He must depend on the definition itself.

If the definition that I am proposing is too narrow, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister himself will not tell us what he considers the correct definition to be. Otherwise we are creating the situation where no one knows what powers the Minister, or his successors, actually have for discrimination against one sector of the trade in South Africa and favouring the other. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure that a balanced situation will be created and that there will be fair play.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg is asking what co-operative practice is. Co-operative practice is this legislation. It is absolutely, totally and completely impossible to define cooperative practice in one word, as the hon. member for Wynberg is attempting to do. The legislation in its entirety tells us what co-operative practice is. Many books have been written about co-operative practice. However, I should like to point out that it is also very dangerous to attempt to give an exact definition of co-operative practice at any given moment. Why? Because cooperative practice is continually changing.

In order to prove this, allow me simply to quote what an expert on the co-operative has to say. The person to whom I am now referring, was the president of the International Co-operative Society, a certain Mr. Tanner. At a co-operative congress or conference in Paris, he said, as early as 1937—

Surely it is as clear as daylight that cooperative practice is continually changing. There will always be changes, because the economic system is continually changing. Here an expert says that the co-operatives have been formed in such a way that they can adapt to individual economic circumstances. That is why I feel it would be futile—absolutely futile—to attempt now …

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg still has ample opportunity to speak.

It would be absolutely futile now, by means of a single word, to attempt to define co-operative practice, because co-operative practice entails so many different things. It entails the result of co-operative trade. It entails the shareholding in the co-operative movement. It concerns the division of surpluses. All of this—and I could mention a number more—forms part and parcel of what co-operative practice actually is. That is why I think it is an absolutely ridiculous proposal, and therefore quite unacceptable too.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the motivation for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and to the response of hon. members on the Government side. We have found no reason for the limiting of the power of a co-operative in this respect.

I cannot see why it is necessary to limit the co-operative practice to one single aspect, as is proposed. If the amendment were to read: “Co-operative practice ‘includes’ the right of a co-operative”, then we could support it, because then it would include what it is specifically intended to include in terms of the Bill. Reading, as it does: “means the right”, makes it totally exclusive of any other practice or any opportunity in the future of introducing any other practice as a co-operative practice.

Therefore, we shall not be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury alleged that I said I had tried to condense the definition into one word. Nothing is further removed from the truth. [Interjections.] If the hon. member were to look at the definition in the Bill itself, he would see that some of the definitions contain long explanations of what is meant by those specific concepts.

Now I did in fact say tonight that I do not insist that my definition of “co-operative practice” is the only correct definition. I also requested other hon. members, if there are any other practices that should be included here, to mention them so that we could try to obtain clarity on this. The hon. member for Malmesbury is now trying to create the impression that the entire Bill concerns the co-operative practice. Why then do we have an Act? If everything that is stated here means a co-operative practice, then we could simply say that a co-operative practice may continue.

The hon. member went further and quoted from a book in which the cooperative principles are explained. Then he said that as economic conditions change, the co-operative must be able to adapt accordingly. Where he says “as business methods develop”, I assume he means that adaptations will have to be made. Of course this is true. By virtue of its nature, a cooperative is a business enterprise which does business, particularly with members who are farmers.

Why then, if the co-operative has that built-in ability to adapt to circumstances, are we giving the Minister a right to make an announcement as and whenever he wishes—possibly from time to time—which deprives other possibly competitive business enterprises of the right to adapt their enterprise in practice in a certain fashion? That hon. member’s argument is in fact strengthening my argument in the sense that it will not be necessary for the Minister to have to protect a co-operative in the way in which this Bill is making it possible for him to do.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether the consultative body which will be established and which will represent all interests, will not be the place to which any proposed additional co-operative practices will be referred and will give advice to the Minister?

That is quite a long question. Of course, during the Second Reading we recommended strongly that such a body should in fact be created by legislation and also that it should have teeth. However, the hon. the Minister decided that such a body could not be included in the legislation. Nevertheless, he maintained that he is prepared to negotiate with and to listen to any group, for instance businessmen and organized trade, that want to negotiate with him.

He went further and said that such a body would be established.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister would in fact negotiate with such a body. However, my problem is that such a body would not have teeth in the sense that it would have any powers, because it is not recognized by legislation. Possibly the hon. the Minister and the members of that body may argue for some reason or other; I am not referring to this hon. Minister, but his successor, because he is a friendly Minister.

He will be there for many years yet.

Yes, after many years when none of us are here any longer, they may argue. By that time, people will not be able to remember who piloted this legislation through the House and what the intentions were. It is for this very reason that it is necessary to know exactly what the words mean, and this is the problem that I have.

Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely strange that the Opposition said during the Second Reading debate that they do not want an extension of some of the rights that the co-operatives have, but now, when a section from the old Act is being transferred in its exact form to this Bill, they want it to be curtailed.

No, it has not been transferred in its exact form.

However, there is another aspect related to this. After all, the co-operatives are an instrument that has been created in the hands of a community in order to achieve a greater degree of streamlining. If we now want to create a streamlined organization, the hon. member for Wynberg must agree with me that in order to have a streamlined organization at all times, or to be able to have an instrument, we must take into account the fact that developments may arise over a period of time which make it necessary for changes to be made.

Of course.

If the hon. member agrees with me on that point, does he still want to curtail this in the legislation and fix it so that it can only be changed by means of an amendment? What happens in the interim and what happens to the efficiency of the community, does not matter. We say that if the Minister has that right, as he has had in the past, of being able to use it as an instrument for efficient marketing or wherever it may be necessary for, then surely it is serving the purpose. However, if one does the opposite, one is going to have a restriction which will mean that the instrument is not streamlined. On the basis of that we cannot support the amendment.

Business suspended at 181130 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of difficulty in trying to understand this particular clause, and even more so now that the hon. the Minister has spoken. I find the section that he quoted from the original Act even more difficult to understand than this clause is. Section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act, No. 29 of 1939, provides that only registered societies or companies may carry on co-operative business. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

To the best of my knowledge, this Act that was passed in 1939 has never been amended. It is very difficult to understand the provisions of this legislation. If one looks at the clause in this Bill on which section 101 of the Act has a bearing, namely clause 18, one finds that it reads, inter alia, as follows—

You know, Sir, this reminds me of the definition given by that famous pianist, Gertrude Stein, who was asked to define a rose. Her definition was: “A rose is a rose is a rose”. That, to my mind, is the same as we will have to understand by this definition. As far as this definition is concerned, a cooperative practice is a co-operative practice is a co-operative practice!

Melrose cheese.

Yes, that is an advertisement for a product that I am not allowed to mention. I thank hon. members for the plug.

You can’t find a better cheese than Melrose!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point raised a problem with which I should like to deal. If one wishes to have a system in terms of which one wants to declare a co-operative practice, what one should do, because there is so much confusion, is to sit down and by regulation prescribe the methods whereby if a co-operative wishes to introduce a cooperative practice, it must apply to the Minister and motivate its case. This then will be published in the Government Gazette and then there shall be some sort of board that will have to sit to decide whether it shall be a co-operative practice or not. We must make a law which everybody can understand. It is no good making a law which is going to result in a number of court cases. One has to define what one wants to make provision for. It is no good saying that a co-operative practice shall be a co-operative practice. I rang up a professor of Agricultural Economics and I asked him what a co-operative practice was. His definition of it was that it was as broad as it was long. That was the only definition he could give me. There is no such thing as a definition of “co-operative practice”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. the Minister must endeavour to define what a co-operative practice is in order to make the legislation clear so that there is no confusion on the part of anybody, whether it be the co-operatives themselves, private enterprise or the legal profession, including the judges. I am certain that if something of this nature went to a court of law it would be thrown out.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is making an almost impossible suggestion. When this so-called co-operative practice becomes applicable in future, it must according to him be advertized and a court must virtually be convened to ascertain whether something of this nature is acceptable. Legislation is not administered in this way. This is totally impossible. What the principal argument of the hon. member for Wynberg once again amounted to was that he wants everything to be defined within the legislation. He wants all possible businesses which could be listed as co-operative practices to be defined in the legislation. This is not possible either.

Define it.

A law is not an accumulation of acts or ommissions. What that side of the House is afraid of—the hon. member for Wynberg admitted as much—is that the hon. the Minister could, as he put it, declare something to be a co-operative practice as and when he wished, to the detriment of the other ordinary companies.

He will be able to do so.

However, this is not possible and I shall tell the hon. members why it is not possible. The hon. the Minister is bound by the objects of the co-operatives. That is reason number one. Secondly, the hon. the Minister is bound by the powers granted to the cooperatives by this legislation. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister is bound further by the activities in which a co-operative may engage as was clearly described in this package agreement.

I shall tell you what the problem is. The problem is that the Opposition has no feeling whatsoever for this Bill. One can read through their speeches during the Second Reading and then one will see that they have no feeling whatsoever for the Bill because they are completely out of touch with the farmer and his problems. The hon. member for Wynberg is beating his breast and claiming to be a farmer. He is a “boy” from the “Southern Suburbs”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept our amendment, all that will be necessary for him to do in the future, will be to come to Parliament and to ask the House to amend the definition. It is as elementary as that. We have provided him with a definition to start off with. If he wants to introduce a change to that co-operative practice in five years’ time, all he needs to do is to introduce an amendment. I want to tell him that if he happens to be in power at that particular time, it should not be too difficult to get it through. All he needs to do is to amend the legislation as soon as he wants to change the practice.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Wynberg as well as other hon. members opposite have seriously misunderstood the intention of the Bill. One cannot but read the amendment to clause 1 of the hon. member for Wynberg in conjunction with clause 18. One must read them in conjunction with each other. This afternoon and this evening we have had an effort on the part of the official Opposition to persuade us to define a so-called co-operative practice in this Bill. I think I am understanding the official Opposition correctly. However, they are misinterpreting clause 18. The intention in clause 18 is not to empower the Minister to give a comprehensive definition of what is understood under “co-operative practice” by way of regulation. Hon. members opposite must read the English text of the Bill. In the English text clause 18 reads as follows—

1. (a) declare any co-operative practice defined in the notice …

This includes any form of co-operative practice. The hon. members opposite must read it correctly. Consequently the hon. the Minister may declare any form of cooperative practice to be a co-operative practice, which is in that case being reserved for our co-operatives. The hon. member fails to see this. We must read clause 18 in conjunction with what the hon. member for Wynberg is proposing in his amendment. The intention of clause 19 is that if necessary, the Minister will, in given circumstances, be in a position to reserve certain things for cooperatives in South Africa.

Give us a few examples of that.

The hon. the Minister furnished examples, for example the pooled marketing of products. I cannot think of a better example. In fact, the Minister said this afternoon that the essence of this provision had existed ever since 1939.

It was nonsense in the old Act.

There have never been any problems in that connection. This is an empowering provision, a provision which empowers the Minister, if circumstances demand this, to reserve certain things for co-operatives in the interest of the farmers of South Africa. This is what is at issue here, and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, the official Opposition has now specifically singled out one point which is contained in the definition of “co-operative practice”. Just the other day I sketched the history of co-operatives and I could mention at least five other points which are at present cooperative practices as well. However, they are so fundamental that one need not mention them in the definition.

What are they?

I shall tell the hon. member. As I have said, throughout the history of the co-operative movement, open and voluntary membership irrespective of politics or religion has been one of its cornerstones. A second point is one vote per member and a third, limited interest on capital, something which is also specifically defined in the legislation. A fourth point is division of surpluses according to turnover. This is the one point which the hon. member for Wynberg wishes to single out to present as a co-operative practice. There is a fifth point, viz. the sole association with members, to which a minor adjustment has been made. A sixth point is that a co-operative does not carry on business with its members, but on behalf of them. Here are thus at least six examples of what a co-operative practice as opposed to a normal practice is.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we should examine the fundamentals of this amendment now. I tried to give hon. members a fundamental reply on this matter just now, but apparently the hon. members of the Opposition do not want to or are unable to understand the position. What are we concerned with here? We are concerned with the redrafting of the Co-operative Societies Act. What are the definition and clause really concerned with? They are concerned with the preservation of a situation under the existing Act and which is at present valid. Let us examine what section 101 of the existing Act, Act No. 29 of 1939 says. The rubric reads—

I shall quote further—

1. (a) after a date set forth in a notice signed by the Registrar (such date not being less than one month after the receipt of such notice by such person or association of persons) warning him or it that the Minister is of opinion that, having regard to the objects of this Act, the system or the constitution under which he or it carries on business …

Here is the crux—

This, then, is the co-operatives—

Therefore this power is not in dispute at all. It is a right that has existed since the passing of the Act in 1939. Over all these years, since 1939, there has never been a problem with the implementation of section 101. There has never been any requests since 1939 for this provision to be amended.

Exactly.

Exactly. This is those hon. members’ argument. We are now placing the same concept, constitution and powers in another piece of legislation, but now the hon. member for Wynberg suddenly moves an amendment. What does his amendment mean? It means the restriction of the powers of the Minister to declare a practice to be a co-operative practice. But the question may be asked: May the Minister simply declare any practice to be a co-operative practice and then prohibit the private sector from carrying out that practice? This is the pivot on which everything turns. I think this is why we should also examine clause 20 of the Bill. What does clause 20 say? Let me quote—

If it were Hendrik, we would not have had all these problems.

In other words, the Minister cannot simply declare any practice he wishes to be a co-operative practice.

Why not?

Because if it is not a normal co-operative practice, i.e. if it cannot be defined within the objects of a cooperative, surely the Minister cannot do so; otherwise he is acting contrary to the provisions and objects of the Act as such. That is the point. The practice which the Minister is authorized to declare to be a co-operative practice must be a practice which is carried out principally by co-operatives alone.

“Principally.”

Surely the Minister of Agriculture is not the only Minister in the Cabinet. Surely the Government does not look after one section of the population alone. Surely it looks after the interests of everyone. Why would the Minister of Agriculture declare a practice to be a cooperative practice to the detriment of the non-co-operative sector? If that party were in power, they might do so. [Interjections.] What is the crux of the matter? The crux of the matter is that there is a power which has existed since 1939. We are now re-writing the Co-operatives Societies Act, but we are retaining the same principle and the same power. But the hon. member for Wynberg is moving an amendment that seeks to restrict that right and power to the single aspect of a bonus declaration. This proves only one thing to me, and that is where the sympathy of that side of this House lies. [Interjections.] The sympathy of that side of the House does not lie with the farmers and the co-operatives. They are prepared to allow the farmers and the co-operatives to be restricted and stifled.

No, that is not true.

They do not want you to allow something to be declared to be a co-operative practice which is in the interests of the co-operatives. This demonstrates that the feeling of that side of the House is opposed to the farmers and the cooperatives. [Interjections.] I want it placed on record that those hon. members came forward with an amendment which was to the detriment of co-operatives. Those hon. members came forward with an amendment to legislation which was framed in 1939 by the previous party of the hon. member for Durban Point. This specific provision was placed on the Statute Book by the United Party and has withstood the test of time Since 1939 there had never been any complaints. But now that we are coming forward with legislation which may benefit the farmers a little and protect the co-operatives, the hon. members present an amendment to undermine and to suppress the farmers. [Interjections.] I know where the sentiments of those hon. members lie. This is on record. I have tried to reply in a friendly way, but if hon. members want to play politics, then we shall do so. If those hon. members act to the detriment of the farming community and want to undermine the farmers, they must do so. But this side of the House stands by the farmers. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, that hon. Minister is getting carried away by his own verbosity.

Who’s talking!

The hon. the Minister started on a nice quiet note, but the more he spoke, the more he admired his own words and the more cross he became. Eventually we had to listen to a fiery speech. The hon. the Minister suggests that we in these benches want to plough the farmers under the ground. What absolute rubbish! Let us look at the history of what has happened to farmers under this Government. How many less farmers are there than there were, shall we say, five years ago? What has happened to the dairy industry under this Government and even under this hon. Minister?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask which clause the hon. member is discussing?

I should like to explain to the more simple minds that I am simply replying to the hon. the Minister. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what has happened in the country to the dairy farmers. The Government is spending millions and millions of rands to import dairy products into the country because so many farmers have left the dairy industry. Yet the hon. the Minister tells us that we want to plough the farmers into the ground. It is absolute rubbish.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

1. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, any co-operative previously registered under any previous law shall apply for registration in terms of this Act within a period of three years from the date of commencement thereof: Provided that the date of incorporation of such reregistered co-operative shall be the date referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2).

I move this amendment purely for the purpose of bringing every co-operative under this particular legislation. There are far too many Acts which allow businesses to be carried on, and if anything happens, one has to refer to the old Acts. The only purpose of this is to have complete uniformity between all co-operatives. There is going to be confusion if one has registrations under the previous Act existing side by side with registrations under this legislation. The amendment is purely aimed at achieving uniformity and I can see no objection whatsoever to it.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the motivation which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advanced for his amendment. I must frankly say that his advancing that amendment makes no sense to me. Adequate provision is made in this regard in clause 2. Clause 2(1) reads—

Consequently, explicit provision is being made in clause 2, as it stands at present, that old co-operatives may automatically continue to exist. It is absolutely unnecessary for the hon. member’s amendment to be added. If one tests this in practice one will find that if one adopts the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, one will have the position that the 321 co-operatives in existence at present will have to follow all the prescribed procedures de novo to have themselves registered as co-operatives in terms of this legislation. This is absolutely unnecessary. You can imagine, Sir, what chaos it would cause if we were to adopt the hon. member’s amendment. Just think of all the additional work it would entail for the office of the Registrar of Co-operatives. Consequently we certainly cannot accept the amendment and we are satisfied that the clause as it stands at present makes adequate provision for this.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout provides that a co-operative which was registered under any previous law shall apply for registration in terms of this Act within a period of three years from the date of commencement thereof. In terms of clause 2(1), all co-operatives existing at the commencement of this legislation shall be deemed to be co-operatives which were formed and incorporated in terms of this legislation.

This remains the case for three years.

I am of the opinion that what the hon. member envisages by this amendment is that all co-operatives must adopt a statute in accordance with the provisions of this legislation.

That is correct.

In that way existing co-operatives will be compelled to go through the whole process of incorporation de novo, which in my opinion will impose an unnecessary burden on them. Is that correct? In addition, clause 2(2)(c) provides that an existing co-operative, subject to any amendments of its statute effected after the commencement of this legislation, shall not be prohibited from doing anything which immediately prior to the commencement it was empowered to do.

However, clause 2 must not be read in isolation. In this regard the provision contained in clause 35 is of great importance. Clause 35(1)(a), for example, provides that the Registrar may with the approval of the Minister amend the statute of an existing co-operative so as to bring it into conformity with this legislation. I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, and consequently I am unfortunately unable to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

, and shall, when he performs an function referred to in subsection (3) produce such certificate at the request of any director or officer of a cooperative This amendment, I think, might easily become known in the history books as the Wood amendment. This was an amendment which was put by the former hon. member for Berea and by his father on every possible occasion. This does not actually make it a bad amendment. I think that in this instance it is a good amendment, an amendment which, I think, would be in fact appreciated by the co-operative movement.

What this amendment seeks to achieve is that the inspector who is going to inspect a co-operative—an inspector that has been appointed by the Registrar of Co-operatives—should produce his certificate of appointment as an inspector at any time when we wishes to inspect a co-operative. He may be asked to do so, in terms of my amendment, at the request of any director or officer of a co-operative. I believe that this makes very good sense in that one could easily have someone inspecting a certain aspect of a co-operative, and then an officer of that co-operative should be entitled to ask him for his certificate of appointment. I believe this should be the case. I believe it is to the advantage of co-operatives, and I should urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the motion an inspector most produce his certificate of appointment at the request of any director or officer of a co-operative, is he essence of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. This is in any event done in practice. An inspector identifies himself in any event when arriving at a co-operative.

This proposed amendment cannot be adopted, for a reason which can easily be explained. The amendment could be interpreted to the effect that inspectors have to produce their certificate to directors or officers of a co-operative only, whereas what the intention of the legislation amounts to is that anyone who questions their bona fides, can ask to produce such a certificate. I want to make it very clear that any inspector, on his arrival at a co-operative, and on being asked by anyone what he is doing there, will produce his certificate at once. There is no doubt about that.

I do not think that the hon. member need be at all concerned in this regard. I do just want to point out that if we define it is as the hon. member proposes, it could be interpreted to mean that the inspector need produce his certificate only to a director or an officer of the co-operative in question.

Mr. Chairman, in that event I wish to withdraw my amendment, with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Instead I should like to move the following amendment—

, and shall, when he performs any function referred to in subsection (3), produce such certificate at the request of any employee of a co-operative This means, if one looks at the amendment I have withdrawn, that the words “any director or officer” are to be deleted and the words “any employee” be inserted as a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, why docs the hon. member want to omit the word “directors”? I am sorry, but I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister suggests that this will not allow a director to ask for the certificate. A director of a company is as much an employee of that company as any other person who draws a salary.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly see no sense in the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. In fact, it is senseless. It is a demonstration of a lack of experience of co-operatives on the part of that hon. member Inspectors that are appointed, who drive long distances from Pretoria, are authorized by a certificate and have to have that certificate on their person. But what happens in practice? The inspector drives from Pretoria and arrives in Zeerust, but left his certificate behind. Must that man turn around without further ado? It is the easiest thing in the world for any person who has a problem or request to contact Pretoria. Consequently I really do not see the need for this specific insertion. He is properly authorized, and any person who doubts this, can go and ascertain from the body which can confirm that the inspector has the necessary authority. Sir, this is a motion which could result in all sorts of difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, judging from the way in which that hon. member is arguing this evening, I would say that he left his head at home.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that the hon. member is off his head.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is aimed specifically at protecting the co-operative movement. Nowadays cooperatives are highly sophisticated and complex business undertakings. It could very easily happen that a person who seeks to obtain information about a co-operative could pretend to be an inspector.

It could be a Nationalist in disguise.

I take it that not all inspectors are known to all directors, officials or employees of a co-operative. Accordingly it could happen that a person comes in and wishing to obtain certain information, but is not an inspector at all. The information he obtains in this way could be used to the detriment of that business enterprise. In today’s modern business enterprises, which are highly competitive and where there is a great deal of information which is confidential and which must not be given to outside people who may want to use that information for reasons of rivalry or competition, this proposal will in fact protect the co-operatives. I really cannot understand why hon. members on that side of the House are objecting, nor why the hon. the Minister does not want to adopt the amendment. While listening to what the hon. the Minister was saying, I almost felt that he would have liked to adopt this amendment. By incorporating the words “or employee of the cooperative” the objection raised by the hon. the Minister is rectified, and I ask him to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which has never caused problems.

But we are living in different times.

If this were a matter which gave rise to problems, one could have considered this amendment. Let us examine the duties of an inspector. In clause 13(2) it is clearly stated that—

Subsection (3) reads—

1. (a) without previous notice, at all reasonable times enter any premises of a co-operative or company subsidiary or any place where any book, writing or other document of or in connection with a co-operative or company subsidiary is kept.

Then, in paragraphs (b) to (f), the powers of such an inspector are indicated. If a person enters a co-operative and, as the hon. member argued, asks for confidential information or information in respect of matters which could be to the detriment of the co-operative if it were to become known to its rivals, or anything of this nature, does he really think for one moment that the director of that co-operative will simply furnish all that information to any person who walks in there? If he does not know that person he will ask him: Who are you? He will say to him: Show me your certificate. [Interjections.] But exactly, Sir. Why must we incorporate this in the legislation? Any director of a co-operative may ask anyone to identify himself. I honestly think it is unnecessary to incorporate this in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know why the hon. the Minister is being difficult in this regard. It is provided that such a person must have a certificate. It is certainly not for putting up against his wall. It concerns the certificate with which a person can identify that he is in fact an inspector. The hon. the Minister told us that the manager of the co-operative would not furnish that information, but what would happen if such a person were to enter when there was, perhaps, only a junior assistant in the office. A nice big senior man marches in and says: My friend, the director said that I should just quickly come and do this and that in there. As the hon. member for Wynberg said, this is just to have the assurance and to offer such a junior official the opportunity of being able to identify such a person as such an inspector, or to catch a person who might pretend to be an inspector. If the hon. the Minister does not adopt this amendment, he is making it possible for such a person not even to have to wear his mask if he wishes to obtain information at such a co-operative. Consequently I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

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

1. (1) On page 14, in line 44, to omit “as well as” and to substitute “and”;
2. (2) on page 14, in line 49, after “cooperative” to insert “or a company subsidiary”;
3. (3) on page 14, in line 55, after “cooperative” to insert “or a company subsidiary”;
4. (4) on page 14, in line 56, after “cooperative” to insert “or the company subsidiary”;
5. (5) on page 14, in line 60, to omit “or (3)” and to substitute (3) or (4)”.

The situation here is that one might have a subsidiary of a particular co-operative. This might be some small factory in Cape Town whereas the actual co-operative may be situated in another town some hundreds of miles away. Let us say that a problem arises and that an inspector discovers that problem at the factory. If such an inspector discovers a problem at the subsidiary that he wishes to report, I want that to be reported to the head office of that co-operative as well. In other words, everybody must know what the situation is as far as the inspector’s discoveries are concerned. It is merely to make absolutely certain that not only the cooperative but also its company subsidiaries know what is happening.

On the other hand, some problem or other might arise at the co-operative’s headquarters of which the people in the subsidiary company have no knowledge. I feel that they should also be informed of the situation. That is all that these amendments seek to achieve. They merely seek to ensure that everybody is informed.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment to clause 14(2) of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for it is simply a change of terminology. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept his other amendments.

Could the hon. the Minister please indicate which amendments he accepts with regard to clause 14?

Mr. Chairman, I accept only the first amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout which concerns the amendment in line 44, on page 14 of the Bill. Consequently I am only accepting the amendment which the hon. member moved in respect of clause 14(2) and no other amendments which were moved in respect of that clause. The first proposal of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout refers to clause 14(2), and I accept it. However, I do not accept the proposed amendments in respect of clauses 14(3), (4) and (5). The amendment which I do, however, accept, pertains to clause 14(2).

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived and amendments (3), (4) and (5) dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, since my proposed amendment with regard to clause 1, which concerned the definition was not accepted, and because that definition has a specific bearing on clause 18, I shall therefore not move my amendment with regard to clause 18 as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss this particular clause briefly with the hon. the Minister because it is a wide-ranging clause which gives the hon. the Minister very great power, to declare any co-operative practice defined in the notice as a co-operative practice which may be pursued exclusively. He can prevent anybody other than a co-operative from carrying out that practice. He can further prohibit any person who is not a cooperative from pursuing a co-operative practice so declared.

There is, of course, a possibility of danger for the farmer in this particular clause, and it is from this aspect that I am looking at it. There are occasions, I believe, when it is not necessarily to the advantage of the farmer that he should only, for instance, be able to do a certain thing through a co-operative. It might be to his advantage for normal commercial enterprises also to do business with him in this regard. I simply wish to put it to the hon. the Minister, and to have it on record, that I believe that he must be extremely careful in the application of this particular clause. We acknowledge that the power in regard to this clause is totally in his hands. In terms of the free enterprise system as defined by the hon. the Prime Minister, and which is the official policy of the governing party, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, before he, in fact, invokes this clause and declares any co-operative practice to be an exclusive practice, to make quite certain that because of his so declaring, the actual position of the farmer is not made weaker through lack of marketing outlets for his product.

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to refer the hon. member to clause 20 which reads—

In other words, in determining a cooperative practice I am limited to that which is the field of operation of a co-operative only, as defined in the Bill. I can also give hon. members the assurance that I would not declare as a co-operative practice any practice which would be detrimental to the producers. This is a power which one would exercise with great care and circumspection, and therefore hon. members need not be concerned in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for that assurance. I would, however, point out that clause 20 actually has nothing to do with it because there are many co-operative practices carried out by co-operatives that are also carried out by ordinary firms. The point I was making relates simply to the exclusivity of practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

I think that this is merely an omission to which I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. Clause 22(1) reads, inter alia, … or any thing which is derived from an agricultural product.” I think there is a typographical error here because clause 22(2) reads “… as a dealer in agricultural products or any such thing.” I think the rest of the sentence has been left out. In all humility, I think the hon. the Minister will accept that.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41:

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

All that this clause really means is that a company subsidiary shall identify itself as being a subsidiary of a co-operative. If one reads the clause carefully, one sees that all it means is that whatever applies to the cooperative shall also apply to any subsidiary company of that co-operative. I cannot see any objection to that. It is absolutely fair and correct that the subsidiary, if it is a private company, should also be defined as being part of that co-operative.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. This clause contains prescriptions as regards the use and publication of a name by a co-operative and is self-explanatory. The proposed amendment in terms of which prescriptions to company subsidiaries will be given in terms of cooperative legislation, is not acceptable. Section 50 of the Companies Act of 1973 contains a provision similar to the one in clause 41. If an amendment in this regard is essential, the Companies Act will have to be amended in this regard.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49:

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

: Provided that—

1. (i) no such company or other juristic person or partnership shall pay any moneys to the co-operative concerned for management or directors’ fees, or make any payments to it other than dividends;
2. (ii) any transaction concluded by any such company or other juristic person or partnership shall be deemed to be a transaction for the purposes of section 54 (3);

My problem lies with clause 49(1)(f) which provides that—

I have certain small problems with the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 52”, because this means, in fact, that the co-operative can borrow money from the Land Bank, the intention being that the funds should be used for farming purposes, and acquire a company or use the funds in a company that sells, let us say, BMW motorcars. My amendment, however, is aimed at introducing a proviso. Let me first motivate the first proviso of my amendment. I shall then motivate the second proviso a little later.

The purpose of my first proviso is to prevent abuse of a tax privilege that a co-operative has. We have no problem with the co-operative having that tax privilege. The relevant tax privilege is that the cooperative can pay a bonus. A company, however, can only pay a dividend after it has paid tax, but a co-operative can pay a bonus to its members before it has paid tax. I have explained in previous debates that this can make a difference of as much as 11% on the rand earned by the co-operative and paid to its shareholders as compared with the rand earned by a company and paid as a dividend to its shareholders. This is what I have previously labelled the 11% option.

It is very possible indeed, in terms of the legislation before us, for the co-operative to syphen its profits through from a company before tax, by way of paying directors’ fees or administrative fees, all of which come off the taxable profit of that company. They would therefore not have to pay tax on it. By charging large administrative fees or large directors’ fees they can syphen those profits through from the company which is a subsidiary into the hands of the co-operative which can then pay it out to the shareholders in the co-operative in the form of a bonus. The net affect would be that no tax would be paid until the money ultimately arrives in the hands of the farmer, which overall gives him an 11% advantage over a shareholder in a normal company. I think that is perfectly clear. That is the intention. I fully accept that in all probability a number of cooperatives would not do this, but it is a possible tax-evation route, and I know—as the hon. the Deputy Minister must know—that the hon. the Minister of Finance likes to legislate so that tax evasion is not possible.

The second proviso relates to clause 54(3). Clause 54(3) spells out the insider/outsider trading ratio. Therefore the purpose of this proviso is to prevent a co-operative from circumventing the purposes of clause 54(3) by acquiring a company and doing a lot of outsider trading through that company, far more than it is actually entitled to do in terms of the provisions of the legislation before us. This revenue does not get added to the co-operative’s turn-over and in this way it can find a way around the provisions of this legislation. I think that makes the intention perfectly clear.

Mr. Chairman, there are actually two objections to the amendment that has been moved. The first objection has a bearing on the first section of the amendment. One reaches the conclusion that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is proposing that the subsidiary may not compensate the mother company, the co-operative, for all the services that are generally rendered by the co-operative in practice. This includes services such as accommodation that is made available, as well as other services that are rendered to the subsidiaries. When the subsidiary then pays the service fees, we do not consider this an evasion of the payment of income tax. It is, in fact, a common practice that applies to all co-operatives. We do not consider this to be an offence at all. Now one wonders why there should be this restriction. As I said, they are services that are being rendered, and we therefore feel that this restriction cannot be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I am really sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is really being obstreperous in thinking that a co-operative would do such things. After all, there are auditors who examine the books of companies and see that no malpractices occur.

It is not a malpractice. It is guile.

This is really not a very sound amendment. As far as the second portion of the amendment is concerned, it seems to me as if the hon. member became somewhat confused. It actually means that the business carried out by a subsidiary, is added to the member-business and will increase the 5% non-member business. This amounts to breaking the package deal. I do not think the hon. member gave the matter enough thought beforehand. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I can see the point which the hon. member Mr. Theunissen made, and I think it is a valid point. However, I also think one can see that this particular situation can be abused. We realize that it is normal when one carries out an administrative function on behalf of a subsidiary company to charge them for that service. It will, however, be very difficult for the Registrar of Cooperatives or for the auditors to determine whether a fair price has been paid for those administrative services.

And in the instance of private companies?

I beg your pardon?

In the instance of private companies?

They are taxed at the same rate.

Private companies are taxed. My objection is …

No, where is the difference?

… purely in terms of the fact that co-operatives receive a tax benefit, which I do not query at all. What I am suggesting is that, because they have this tax benefit, they can move the profits through from a subsidiary company to the co-operative and thus escape paying tax. In the case of a private company where can it move the profits to? It can move them to another company, but then the other company has to pay tax at the same rate. So the company situation is actually perfectly controlled and whether the profits are in a subsidiary company, a holding company or any other company, they are taxed at the company rate of tax of 42%.

So is the co-operative.

At a different rate.

It is not taxed on a bonus. A co-operative can pay a bonus to its members, which comes off its profits before tax and not afterwards. Only profits that are retained in the co-operative are taxed. If it passes the profits on to its members, they are not taxed in the hands of the co-operative.

They are then taxed in the hands of the recipient.

Mr. Chairman, let me try to explain it once again for that hon. member’s benefit. Let us say he is a man who earns more than the maximum marginal rate, i.e. more than R40 000 per annum. He then gets paid a bonus of R100 which has been earned in a company, passed through to a co-operative and paid out to him as a bonus. He gets that R100 before tax and he pays R50 on it. The private company will have to pay 42% on that same amount of R100. It then pays a dividend of the balance of R58 to the shareholder who pays a dividend tax on it less a third, so that he ends up paying another R19. Therefore, the total amount paid in tax on the R100 is R61, whereas when the R100 is passed directly through a co-operative to one of its members, it amounts to only R50 on an equivalent basis. That is a difference of 11%.

You are perfectly right, but are you fighting for the farmers or for the Minister of Finance?

I am trying to help the hon. the Minister of Finance. In fact, maybe if he received more by way of taxes, he could subsidize the price of bread to a greater extent.

I can see the problem the hon. member Mr. Theunissen has with the amendment. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance is in the House this evening, because I think he should be aware of the fact that this provides a tax evasion route which could be utilized by co-operatives…

Will be utilized!

… which have shares in subsidiary companies and which can get their profits through to the subsidiary companies.

What about private companies?

Whether it is a private company really does not make any difference.

In any event, it is fairly obvious that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept this amendment. I do not think he is right as regards the second leg. The intention of that is quite clear from the amendment itself. The turnover of the co-operative and the turnover of the company are put together, the trading that was done with its own members and the outsider-trading are correlated and if the co-operative has then overspent its allowable quota on outsider-trading, it has overstepped the mark. That is the intention and meaning of that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central deals with a co-operative obtaining interests in a private company, a juristic person or a partnership. As I understand the amendment, it appears to me that the hon. member is concerned that, as a result of the co-operative’s interests in the private company or ordinary company, the co-operative will be able to enter a field of business apart from its own and do business with people who are not members of the co-operative.

Yes, that is the second leg.

That is correct. In his Second Reading speech the hon. member said (Hansard, 2 September 1981, col. 2698)—

It is therefore in consequence of this.

In order to combat this, the hon. member now proposes that no such company or other juristic person or partnership may pay moneys in the form of management fees or directors fees. The hon. member is not completely au fait with the provisions of this particular clause. In the first place, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that clause 49(1) provides expressly that the co-operative may obtain such an interest only if it may reasonably be necessary in order to carry out its objects. Therefore, it is not as the hon. member put it in his speech during the Second Reading debate, viz. “that he can go into any field of business”. He is limited …

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member tell us how it is possible then for co-operatives to get the BMW franchise? That has happened.

Mr. Chairman, after all, the law previously provided that co-operatives could obtain interests in private companies. Such a company is a company in terms of the Companies Act, and is therefore also subject to all the obligations placed upon it in terms of the Companies Act.

Now I also want to deal at once with the allegation regarding the siphoning off of moneys in the form of directors’ compensation. The ordinary company follows that same procedure—surely the hon. member is aware of this too—of declaring director’s remuneration to directors. That director’s remuneration is just as deductible in the hands of the company as the bonus is deductible in the hands of the co-operatives. After all, the hon. member knows that this is being done. [Interjections.]

He does it himself, man.

And on a large scale too.

The other aspect is the following. The books of each company or co-operative must be audited by a qualified auditor. After all, the Act requires this, as the hon. member ought to know. The obligation rests with the auditor to report every discrepancy that he encounters in those books. In terms of the Income Tax Act, the Receiver of Revenue has the right, if he suspects anything that appears to be a system of tax evasion, to investigate the books of the company and to tax it on the difference between the true expenditure of the company and that which was put forward as the true expenditure.

Therefore, I really do not believe that there is any substance in this amendment by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill provides for co-operatives —depending on the type of co-operative—to do a certain percentage of business, to base a certain percentage of turnover on trade with non-member companies. That is a restriction which is placed on co-operatives, a restriction in that they are only allowed to do a certain percentage—and no more than that—of business with non-member companies. During this debate hon. members opposite—and we do understand that—have often referred to that restriction.

On the other hand because there are these specific restrictions, it has also been stated that co-operatives should have certain advantages. One of those advantages is that co-operatives are allowed to pay bonuses to their members, something which in fact results in a lower taxability of the organization concerned. Because of the right which co-operatives have to buy into private companies, for example, they are being placed in a position in which they can do business with non-members to a greater extent via their subsidiary companies than they would in terms of what is intended by the existing Co-operatives Act.

When companies do business with non-members to a substantial degree, it is going to be a temptation, if I may put it that way, to filter profits back to the co-operative to be paid out to the members as bonuses. In addition, it is not illegal to do so. In terms of the law one can pay directors, fees or holding companies a very substantial liaison fee. Therefore, what we are doing now is that we are creating a situation in which co-operatives through their subsidiaries can circumvent the intention of the limitation which is placed on them in terms of the amount of non-member business. The amendments that my colleague has moved are simply to prevent that from happening. If the hon. the Minister really intends applying the co-operative principle fully, as hon. members opposite state, then he should accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last statements that were made here, I think there must be a misunderstanding. The co-operative’s activities are not simply confined to business with members as such. One of its objects is also the marketing and manufacture of products. As soon as one comes to the marketing and manufacture of products, it must in the nature of things arise that those products must also be sold by the co-operative or a subsidiary of the company, to people who are not involved in agriculture and who are not only members of the co-operative. As soon as one wants to add that quantity of business to the percentage of non-member business in order to restrict it in this way, there is in fact a tremendous restriction of the total business which the co-operatives can transact for the objects that it lays down. If one looks at this aspect, we cannot allow this amendment to be accepted, because then we would be restricting the cooperative as well as the process of taking the total product through to its logical conclusion.

There is also another matter which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised and to which I want to refer. It deals with the first section of the clause, viz. directors’ fees as such. Then it deals with administrative fees that may be paid. Then he includes any other fees. I want to ask hon. members in principle: Is it right to expect a director of a co-operative who is selected ex officio to put time, knowledge and everything else into a private company or any other company without being renumerated for it?

But the director may be paid.

No, it says here no directors’ fees. The amendment reads—

To the co-operative, not to the person.

Surely this is not logical. It is not the co-operative that is a director; it is the individual who is a director. After all, they appoint an individual as a director of a company, not the co-operative. The co-operative is not a person who can render services in the sense of a director. It is not fair.

A further point deals with administrative fees. I can see the point and I accept that the hon. gentleman has a good argument in saying that it can be used to siphon off profits that are made by the company. This is correct. It is a problem that one must face. However, if one looks at the fair administration of justice, then it is also true that in any other private initiative company it can also happen that a company that makes a profit can siphon off moneys to a company that has suffered a loss and the company that has suffered the loss is not subject to taxation because of its losses. So that possibility exists there too. That is why I do not think that this is a matter that should be dealt with in this legislation on the subject of cooperatives. It is a matter which should rather be looked at by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the hon. members of the PFP say that it presents the opportunity for tax evasion in private companies and public companies and that one should look at it. However, provision should not be made for it in this co-operative legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member who has just sat down shows very little understanding indeed of what happens in these circumstances. [Interjections.] He said first of all that a person who becomes a director of a private company, through his directorship of the co-operative or perhaps through his employment by the co-operative, should be paid for the amount of work he does for that company. I want to point out, Sir, that normal commercial practice is that if a person is a director of a main company and because of that person’s directorship of the main company, he becomes a director of its subsidiary, any director’s fees paid by the subsidiary company get paid into the main company and not in fact to that person direct. A director receives only one director’s fee for his services to the holding company and the group.

In fact, one waives one’s fee.

Yes. As the hon. member for Durban Point has said, in most cases one waives one’s fee under those circumstances. Secondly, if one is an employee of a company and one becomes a director of one of its subsidiaries or of any other company, one will find as an employee of the company or perhaps even as a partner in a legal firm, that any such director’s fees are paid to the company or to the legal practice itself. I am sure the hon. member for Mossel Bay will agree with me. If one becomes a partner in a legal practice or an employee of a company and one is appointed as a director of another company which has nothing to do with one’s legal practice or the other company, then any director’s fees payable are normally payable directly to the legal practice and become income for the legal practice.

It depends on the partnership agreement.

Yes, it does depend on the partnership agreement but that is in fact normal practice. Therefore, I think that that point that the hon. member made is not a valid one.

In terms of the second point that he made I just want to say to him once again that the difference lies in the payment of bonuses which are available to a co-operative whereas a company has to pay a dividend.

Mr. Chairman, I think the official Opposition’s slip is showing with this amendment. [Interjections.] Throughout the Second Reading debate, as well as this afternoon and this evening, they have been using the theme of no discrimination in favour of co-operatives. However, with this amendment they are moving something which amounts to blatant discrimination against our co-operatives. [Interjections.] What does their proposal amount to? It amounts to the fact that although a cooperative may render management services to its subsidiaries, it may not be remunerated for this.

They hate the farmers!

He may not be remunerated for it. Together with this, the official Opposition is casting a serious reflection on the integrity of the co-operatives in South Africa. What have they been telling us the whole evening? They said that the boards of directors of our co-operatives are essentially a lot of rascals. According to them they would abuse possible procedures of evading the payment of income tax.

Disgraceful!

This is what they have been telling us the whole evening. This evening I want to deduce that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is quite an expert in the sphere of “tax avoidance”. I do not want to use the word “tax evasion”.

Order! I do not think the hon. member may use those words. I think he should withdraw them.

Mr. Chairman, tax avoidance is not a crime.

The hon. member may proceed.

It is quite legal.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is completely in favour of the fact that a non-co-operative company may render management services to a subsidiary, be remunerated for it and use that method of avoiding taxation.

How can they? All companies have to pay tax.

The hon. member is a past master at it.

*That possibility may not even exist for a co-operative. I, as a member of a cooperative, do not believe that any cooperative in South Africa that is a cooperative in the true sense of the word, is out to evade tax or avoid tax. [Interjections.] However, I can think of no reason why the right should be denied to a cooperative which has another company as a subsidiary, to grant management services to that subsidiary. If we were to accept this amendment, it would mean that one was actually prohibiting or preventing …

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

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

Mr. Chairman, just allow me to finish my sentence. I do not know whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central understands my Afrikaans so well. However, I just want to complete my sentence.

You must always be insulting and scornful. [Interjections.]

Oh, I wish the old General would be quiet now. He does not know what we are talking about. [Interjections.]

If one places a prohibition on a body, in this case a co-operative, being able to receive remuneration for the services that it renders to a subsidiary, surely in essence it amounts to preventing that body from rendering any services whatsoever.

Have you finished your sentence? [Interjections.]

The official Opposition showed their true colours with this amendment. Their slip is showing. They do not have the interests of the co-operatives at heart. They do not have the interests of the farmers at heart. The hon. member for Wynberg must not take it amiss now …

No, I shall not.

Over the past weeks he has learned a great deal from certain bodies. He is like a trained racehorse with regard to the Bill. Those bodies that have trained him, did not represent the interests of farmers of South Africa, but other interests.

Mr. Chairman, actually I now have two questions. May I ask the hon. member firstly, whether he has in fact ever attempted to pay the minimum amount on tax that he can pay within the law?

Within the law, yes.

Secondly, I want to ask him whether he is aware that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who, he said, knew nothing about the subject, in fact gave a hallmark decision in terms of co-operative practice in a case before him some years ago. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, accepting the proposed amendment will mean that the experienced official of a co-operative will not be able to be utilized in a subsidiary company. The bookkeeping system of the co-operative will not be able to be used for the purposes of the subsidiary company either.

Nor its computer services.

I am still coming to that. Nor will the computer of a co-operative be able to be used by such a company. Equipment of this type is in fact expensive, and it is not something which is obtained for nothing. Is it the aim of hon. members on the other side to prevent co-operatives from being effective? Is this the way in which the co-operatives must be eliminated?

As far as the income tax of a private individual is concerned, it is easy to ascertain whether he is cheating. His personal expenditure is determined. If the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs were to indicate that his personal expenditure amounts to R500 per annum, I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance would ascertain what was happening there. The hon. the Minister of Finance is here tonight, and he and his department have full control over cooperatives. They will prevent co-operatives trying to evade taxes in an underhand fashion. They simply have to establish whether the monies which the co-operatives claims for the management of the company, are not too large. It is a simple, easy way of keeping a check. The department of the Minister of Finance can check on all the co-operatives throughout the country with regard to that point in a single day. Therefore, what is the problem?

Mr. Chairman, one of the other methods that could be used in regard to deductions by the hon. the Minister of Finance, is mentioned in the Income Tax Act, and it reads as follows—

It is quite possible that a co-operative society would like to pay all its surplus over as bonus, but it would also like to pass over from this private company an amount equal to the loan, so that it avoids paying tax completely. That is not an evasion, it is an avoidance. It is quite possible that if the amendment of the hon. member is met, the fiscus will not lose the tax to which it is rightfully entitled. That is all we are saying. It is just as important for us to protect the Minister of Finance and to ensure that he gets his rightful tax.

Mr. Chairman, let us now take a look at what clause 49 provides—

1. (f) with the approval of the Minister and on such conditions as may be determined by the Minister, in the Republic or elsewhere establish, or acquire interests or shares in, companies or other juristic persons or partnerships, and participate in such companies, juristic persons or partnerships, and finance them subject to the provisions of section 52 …

The hon. member is now moving the following amendment—

1. (i) no such company or other juristic person or partnership shall pay the moneys to the co-operative concerned for management or directors’ fees, or make any payment to it other than dividends …

The fact of the matter is that it is often necessary for co-operatives to purchase shares in companies. It is also often necessary for co-operatives to establish companies, in order, for instance, to market their products. We have various co-operatives that have shares in companies operating abroad in order to market the products that are handled by the co-operative. For instance, there is the karakul industry, and other industries too, where it is in the interest of a co-operative to buy shares in a company, but this takes place on condition that the Minister grants his approval. This is where it is necessary and important for the achievement of its objectives, because it is said—

After all, a restriction is being placed on it and the whole field is not simply lying fallow. Therefore, shares cannot be bought and companies be established or taken over indiscriminately. Suppose a co-operative has such a subsidiary and suppose that it provides management services to that company. However, it does so in the interest of its members. It is an extension of that cooperative, because the co-operative acts on behalf of its member.

If I were to accept this amendment, the co-operative could not request remuneration for the management services that it renders to the company. In other words, if we accept this amendment, that company will not have expenditure with regard to staff and management. It will then show an excessively high profit, because it will not be paying for management services, and it will then mean that the company must be subjected to higher taxation because it must pay tax on an excessively high profit. After all, something of this nature is ludicrous, because it is being overtaxed. After all, then it is also being taxed with regard to costs that are incurred in the management thereof; this cannot be recovered by the co-operative. Surely it is a ludicrous argument.

This brings me to the second point. Surely directors’ fees are normally paid to the directors themselves. Do hon. members really think that co-operatives will deliberately buy out companies and establish subsidiaries, or that I, as Minister of Agriculture, would allow them free rein to do so? Do hon. members really think that they will do this in order, as the hon. member says, to evade taxation in a legal fashion? After all, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can look at a company if he sees that everything is not right there. He can investigate it. After all, there is such a thing as fair and just action. He can make his own judgment.

In view of all these arguments, I am not at all prepared to place this additional restriction on co-operatives in order to curtail their efforts and activities. Therefore, this amendment is not at all acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to the second leg of this amendment. I am aware that I am going to be repeating myself, but the hon. the Minister really did not respond to what I had to say earlier on. It is the intention of this legislation to restrict the amount of business co-operatives do with non-members. There are certain percentages laid down for these various types of co-operatives. The cooperative may buy into a subsidiary company which does a substantial amount of trade. When I say “trade”, I mean where the subsidiary supplies merchandise to the public at large, but the product or merchandise the subsidiary company supplies is not a product of agriculture, for example, BMW motor-cars. It is surely not the intention of that hon. Minister to allow cooperatives, in that manner, to exceed the percentage of business done with non-members by a margin exceeding that laid down by this legislation.

The second leg of the amendment does, in fact, cover that eventuality. I would like the hon. the Minister to respond specifically to that.

This amendment of the hon. member means the opposite to what he intends. The second part of the amendment reads—

Clause 54(3) provides that an agricultural or a special farmers’ co-operative is not entitled to conclude transactions with non-members in excess of the fixed percentage of the business turnover attained by it during the preceding financial year in carrying out that object. The amendment that is being proposed, is that the transactions concluded by the companies in which the co-operative has shares, should be added to those of the co-operative. It must also be taken into account when determining the percentage of non-member business which such cooperatives may conclude. Companies, juristic persons and partnerships are autonomous organizations and they conduct their transactions in their own right and these are not viewed as co-operative transactions. However, should an agricultural co-operative have one share only in a company, should that turnover be viewed as a co-operative transaction, for instance in the case of a petrol company? In terms of this proposal, that company’s transaction must be added to the transactions of the co-operative and viewed as business turnover for the cooperative. Then 5% on that increased turnover will mean more non-member business. This is the meaning of that amendment.

You must also include business with outsiders.

No, it is true. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not need to differ with me. I made a specific point of asking the law advisers, because I could not believe that the hon. member was moving the amendment. The hon. member also moved another amendment which amounts to the non-member business being restricted, but here he is moving an amendment which means that the turnover of the other businesses in which the co-operative has shares, may be added. Surely these are the facts. The hon. member must take another look at this amendment, because it has a different effect to what he envisages.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53:

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

1. (a) the short-term financing of stocks of farming requisites of a durable nature, the manufacturing of any means of production or farming requisites, or the primary and secondary processing of agricultural products or any processing activities other than the processing of perishable agricultural products which cannot be marketed otherwise;
2. (b) the long-term financing of facilities for the processing of agricultural products or for any processing activities other than the processing of perishable agricultural products which are not marketable otherwise, or the erection costs of offices, shops, workshops or storing facilities for farming requisites of a permanent nature.

The wording of (a) and (b) of the amendment is the same wording that is included in the explanatory memorandum as part of the package deal relating to market-related interest rates. The items I have mentioned in the amendment are all items for which it has been agreed in the package deal cooperatives must pay market-related interest rates. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that funds which are borrowed for those purposes, are borrowed from normal commercial institutions, and not from the Land Bank. Therefore it will be possible to utilize the Land Bank funds more directly for the farmers. If one looks at the report on the Land Bank for 1980, one finds that it is stated on page 12—

Co-operatives borrowed this fantastic sum of money, and that was only for short-term loans.

Are you against it?

They borrowed an additional R214,1 million under long-term loans.

Are you against it?

The hon. member must just wait a second, exercise a little bit of patience and he will hear.

The report states further, on page 13—

A little bit further down on the same page it states—

One of the reasons why I have moved this amendment is that the hon. the Minister told us in the Second Reading debate that there was no way in which he could fix the position in this Bill so that co-operatives had to pay market-related interest rates. I submit that this is a way of doing it. If the Land Bank has to borrow funds from other commercial banks, as it is stated in the report, why do the co-operatives not go direct to those commercial banks themselves? I submit that in fact in a lot of cases they do do so. So I do not think I am imposing any kind of hardship on the co-operatives in suggesting that they borrow funds for these purposes from the commercial banks. I think the effect could be that more funds would become available directly for the use of the farmer. I want to ask the hon. member for Barberton whether he is against that.

Of course not.

I thank him. What I am therefore suggesting in terms of the amendment could, I think, actually be of advantage to the farmer in that more funds would be available for farming purposes through the Land Bank. Again, if one looks at the report of the Land Bank, one finds that in a number of instances applications for loans were turned down. Unfortunately the report does not say what the reasons were for turning down those applications, but I submit that one reason could be lack of sufficient funds. I think that this particular amendment would therefore help the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is now starting to intercede for individual farmers. He is now moving away from co-operatives. For his information I just want to say that what is being done for co-operatives, is also being done for farmers. Therefore what the hon. member has said amounts to six of one and half a dozen of the other. Clause 53 in effect relates to the borrowing of money by co-operatives, as the hon. member has also said. The hon. member has now moved certain amendments in this regard relating to certain short-term and long-term financing which must not be obtained from the Land Bank. It is interesting that what the hon. member suggests, is diametrically in conflict with the package deal.

What?

Yes. In his amendment the hon. member refers to certain “short-term financing of stocks of farming requisites of a durable nature” which are not to be obtained from the Land Bank. In referring to the package deal, the White Paper states on page 5—

1. (i) Short-term financing of stocks of farming requisites of a durable nature.

The hon. member is now specifically stating that this should not be granted to cooperatives.

No, no.

I just wish to remind the hon. member of what he said in his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 2 September 1981, col. 2694)—

I now wish to ask the hon. member a question.

Is he a member of a co-operative?

No, that is not what I want to ask him. What I want to ask him is this. The hon. member is now talking about tractors, which are durable goods, and which he contends are goods in respect of which they should not be assisted. Are tractors not implements used in the interests of the productivity of the farmer? The hon. member may as well reply to me. Perhaps he does not understand my question?

No, now he is dumb.

I shall answer when I get to my feet.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must indicate to me now how any grain-farmer can be productive without using a tractor. I think it would be unwise to include in the legislation on co-operatives, provisions specifying what the Land Bank can and cannot do. It would be absolutely ridiculous. It would mean that before it could grant any financing, the Land Bank would have to check a whole series of Acts to ascertain whether they did not contain anything which would prohibit it from doing so. I believe it would be equally foolish to include in the Companies Act provisions stipulating what a commercial bank may or may not do.

I therefore find absolutely no merit in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Namaqualand says I am trying, in terms of my amendment, to say what the Land Bank can do. I do not understand, however, where he gets that from. Nowhere in my amendment do I say what the Land Bank can do or cannot do. I purely say what a co-operative can do.

You want a prohibition to be placed on co-operatives.

That is right. I am not saying, however, what the Land Bank can do and cannot do. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Namaqualand says that I am trying to say what the Land Bank can or cannot do. It is quite clear that I am telling the co-operatives what they can and cannot do.

I must really confess that I do not understand the hon. member’s point about the terms of the package agreement. On page 5 of the explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 4.2(a), it is clearly stated as follows—

That was for the short-term financing of production means and farming requisites, etc. It is exactly as I have it in the wording of my proposed amendment. Those items which are mentioned in subsections (a) and (b) of my amendment are all the items that have to be lent at market-related interest rates.

So, it is now suggesting that the cooperative has to borrow funds for those purposes from normal market institutions. What I am trying to create in fact is a situation in which they will have to pay market-related interest rates.

It is contrary to what is intended in this legislation.

It is not contrary to that at all. It is not contrary to the package agreement at all. It is actually precisely in line with it, because it ensures that, as in terms of the package agreement, the co-operative has to pay market-related interest rates in respect of the financing of these various items. I believe it is absolutely in line with it.

Mr. Chairman, an aspect which I believe is often overlooked in this whole debate is the fact that the cooperative is really an extension of the farmer. This is a basic principle, and I believe that the hon. members of the Opposition will agree with me on that score. It is a principle which we in the co-operative movement accept. The co-operative is an extension of the farmer.

When it is a matter of financing, financing of the activities of our farming community, surely it is self-evident that that which is available to the individual farmer should also be available to the co-operative. Do hon. members of the Opposition agree with me on this? Do they agree that what is available to the individual, should also be available to the co-operative? Let us now talk about Land Bank funds. The Land Bank channels its funds to the farmer via the co-operative. Is that not true? Surely hon. members agree with me that that is so.

They can actually use it for other reasons, but, in the main, yes.

Any farmer can get financing at the Land Bank for the purchasing of the farming requisites mentioned here, namely tractors, etc.

Are you disagreeing with the package agreement?

Once again I quote from the same annual report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa. On page 29 we read—

It is a direct loan to the farmer. The alternative to this is that it makes funds available to the co-operative and that the co-operative actually administers the funds and bears the risk. Let us take a further look at this same annual report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa. On page 47, under the heading “Cash Credit Accounts for the Purchase of Tractors and Implements” we read—

As a result of greater mechanization in agriculture, co-operatives are obliged to carry an ever widening range of articles in stock so as to meet the requirements of members.

That is the view of the Land Bank and that is why they provide these funds.

I think it is foolish that we should want to prescribe to the Land Bank how it is to channel its funds; whether it should do so directly to the farmer or via the cooperative. Three or four years ago, when we had severe droughts in the Western Cape, how did we administer the funds? I personally approached the hon. the Minister and asked that we do it via the cooperatives; i.e. through the Land Bank via the co-operatives. Today there are still outstanding debts for a term we agreed upon. This is being administered by the cooperatives in a very responsible manner. The Land Bank prefers to do its financing via the co-operatives, which are responsible bodies.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we seem to be losing the concept of this debate because we are here tonight dealing with the question of consolidating legislation that has taken place over the years on an ad hoc basis. I think we are now arriving at a situation where people want to give a little attention to and think back on certain historical factors relating to the co-operative movement. The cooperative movement has been a pioneering movement.

What clause is that?

I am talking to this clause, regarding this amendment. The point that I want to make here is that the co-operative movement has in many cases been a pioneering organization which has had beneficial effects right throughout the community and which as a result—and this is coming to the point that perhaps the hon. member is looking for—has earned the support of such organizations as the Land Bank in respect of financial assistance. In consolidating this legislation we are now confronted with a suggestion that some of these rights to which the co-operative movement has been entitled should be whittled away. I therefore want to make it quite clear that we in these benches strongly oppose this amendment. It detracts from the privileges that the co-operatives have enjoyed and which they have deserved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his support in this regard. It is very obvious to me that the hon. member himself is a farmer and that he takes care of the farmers.

*I now want to turn to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

You are just a “boerehater”.

Shame, the poor hon. member! [Interjections.] The hon. member should rather tell us about the time he wrote letters to complain about the Coloureds walking through Pinelands and how he then revealed his racist inclinations.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made great play about the package deal and the violation of the package deal. The hon. member blamed me. He said that I had violated the package deal because we had extended the lien. That is what the hon. member said. Let us look at the package deal. Point A in the package deal of 1979 provides that whereas all Land Bank financing of agricultural co-operatives had up to this stage been at preferential interest rates, the financing of the following will in future be at market-related interest rates. Then follow the points in respect of which, in terms of his amendment, the hon. member does not want the Land Bank to undertake the financing. In other words, it is provided in the package deal that the Land Bank can make this type of activity and this short-term financing and certain long-term financing available to co-operatives, and may do so at market-related interest rates. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central comes along and suggests, because he could not get his way otherwise, that co-operatives may not borrow money from the Land Bank for these purposes. What the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central amounts to is a complete violation of the package deal. I want to ask what is worrying the hon. member so much now? The hon. member was unable to advance good arguments and he now says in a very roundabout way: “No, if the Land Bank does not undertake this type of financing it would be in a position to lend more funds to individual farmers.” The hon. member was only trying to find a good excuse. He reminds me of the fellow who murdered his parents and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. He turned a complete somersault and is now in fact interceding for the farmers. The facts of the matter are, however, that he is bedevilling the situation of the co-operatives by prohibiting them from borrowing money from the Land Bank.

The hon. member for Malmesbury quite rightly said that co-operatives sometimes experience difficult times. There are times when it is not so creditworthy and when it has to carry heavy burdens of debt of farmers. Now the hon. member wants to prohibit co-operatives from borrowing money from the Land Bank. In respect of all the matters I have just mentioned, which are incorporated in the hon. member’s amendment, they will now have to go to the private sector. Let us now consider in what respect the hon. member wants the Land Bank to be unable to lend money to co-operatives any longer. Paragraph (b) of his amendment on this clause reads as follows—

In other words, where one has a young co-operative or smaller co-operatives or where a co-operative is going through a difficult period and where they can therefore only really be assisted by the Land Bank, the hon. member now wants us to use this legislation to prohibit co-operatives from applying to the Land Bank. The acceptance of this amendment will be to the absolute detriment of the co-operatives. The fact of the matter is that all these matters are contained in the package deal and I therefore am totally unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. the Minister and the other members have said what they have said because it has now made my point absolutely and totally clear. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment with pleasure if the hon. the Minister will undertake with his colleague—I think the hon. the Minister of Finance is the man responsible—to have a provision added to the Land Bank Act to the effect that the Land Bank may not lend funds for these items to cooperatives other than at market-related interest rates. Let us just see whether the hon. the Minister accepts this proposal of mine because, if he does, I will then agree that he is trying to stick to the package agreement. However, if he does not accept it, I query his bona fides in respect of accepting the package agreement.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member wants me to believe him, while at the same time he is not prepared to believe me and the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is the point. Who is that hon. member to challenge me by saying that if I enter into such an agreement with the hon. the Minister of Finance, he will withdraw his amendment? Listen to what is stipulated in the package deal. Details of this package deal incorporate the following, and this is a deal which was entered into in terms of a Press statement issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Finance. It is an undertaking by the Minister of Finance, and in this regard the following is specified—

If the hon. member does not want to accept the undertaking of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I am certainly not interested in negotiating on his behalf with the hon. the Minister of Finance for him to amend the Land Bank Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 54:

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

1. (1) On page 38, in line 1, after “turnover”’ to insert “(a)”;
2. (2) on page 38, after line 26, to insert:
3. (b) shall include the business turnover of any relevant company subsidiary and of any undertaking referred to in section 49(1)(f);

The whole purpose of my amendments is merely to provide that the entire turnover of the co-operatives and their subsidiaries be properly defined. It is quite elementary and it is not necessary for me to go into it. I have gone into it very carefully and have added after the word “turnover” an “(a)” and have inserted a paragraph “(b)” which provides that business turnover shall also include the business turnover of any relevant company subsidiary and of any undertaking referred to in section 49(1)(f) which we have discussed before. This is merely to ensure that the whole of the turnover of the co-operative and its subsidiary shall be included in the turnover.

Mr. Chairman, clause 54 of the Bill deals with the restriction on non-member business which, in the case of ordinary agricultural co-operatives, is limited to 5%. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has now …

I have not moved the amendment yet.

No, the hon. member has already moved it under clause 49.

I am only moving (1) and (2).

The hon. member has already moved it under clause 49. There the hon. member said …

We are now dealing with clause 54.

That is right. With regard to clause 49, however, that hon. member moved, inter alia, the following amendment—

Does the hon. member understand this now?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is now proposing that transactions entered into by a co-operative through a company in which it possesses shares, should form part of the non-member business which a co-operative is entitled to do. Is that what the hon. member envisages?

In what amendment?

On the other hand, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout states that that business does not form part of the non-member business, but must form part of the business turnover of the co-operative. These are therefore two conflicting approaches. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central speaks about the restrictive transactions, the 5%, whereas the hon. member for Bezuidenhout speaks about the business turnover.

I now just wish to mention a simple example. A co-operative with a turnover of R100 000, for example, can do non-member business to the value of R5 000 according to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. If, then, there is a company in which this co-operative possesses shares and it does business to the value of R10 000 with such a company, then it means that it has already exceeded its non-member business, because it is only entitled to business to the value of R5 000. On the other hand, the picture sketched by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is as follows: The turnover of the co-operative is R100 000, and this hon. member wants the R10 000 business which the co-operative does with the company, to be included in the business turnover. However, this means that the 5% of this cooperative will not be calculated on the R100 000 but on the R110 000, which gives it non-member business of R10 500. This means that the amount on which the 5% is calculated increases to the extent that the co-operative does business with outside bodies in which it possesses shares. Is that what the hon. member has in mind? The hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that if, for example, a co-operative were to have a single share in a petrol company with a turnover of a few hundred million rands, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would want those few hundred million rands to be included in the business turnover of the co-operative and the 5% to be calculated on that basis. We should of course be doing the co-operative a favour if we were to do that, but that is not in terms of the package agreement, and because that is so and because it is not in the spirit of that agreement either, we say that this is not a good amendment.

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

1. (1) On page 38, in line 29, to omit “higher” and to substitute “lower”;
2. (2) on page 38, in line 33, to omit “higher or”.

The effect of the first amendment would be to limit the agricultural co-operative to 5%, and to limit the hon. the Minister’s right to only to lowering it. The second amendment has the same effect in terms of paragraph (b), which would then read, after the amendment, if it is approved—

This will, I believe, limit the right of co-operatives to do non-member business, which I feel is the object.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept these amendments. In the first place, I am now completely confused because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central are surely making conflicting proposals. The hon. member for Namaqualand is quite right. I have consulted the law advisers in connection with this amendment and the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would be that the turnover of subsidiaries or of companies in which the co-operative has shares, could be included in the admissible turnover on which the percentage of non-member business is calculated. This is in reality what the effect of his proposal would be. The hon. member is almost tempting me to accept it, but I should not like to violate the package deal. We have agreed that the figure will be 5%, and I do not want to violate the package deal. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wants to limit the powers of the Minister to permit more than 5% non-member business.

Or 50% in the other instance.

Yes, or 50% in the other instance. I should very much like to argue sensibly with the hon. member in this connection and, in all reasonableness, call upon him to withdraw his amendment.

Why?

I shall indicate why. I can mention examples of co-operatives which, for example, became involved in projects across our borders. One such example is the maize project tackled in Lesotho. This was done with the aid of co-operatives. We have a number of co-operatives involved in development programmes in the national States, or even in independent States, and in such instances they provide the production inputs etc. However, that business is non-member business. The facts are that this is non-member business. If the amendment of that hon. member were to be accepted, the Minister of Agriculture would not, for example, be in a position to enable co-operatives to exceed the prescribed 5% non-member business. However, there are certain actions which are really carried out in South Africa’s national interest. Must I be limited to such an extent that in such instances I cannot permit a co-operative to exceed the 5% non-member business, for example? For that reason neither of the two amendments are acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I want to place on record the fact that this party is opposed to both these amendments. I think I must also put it very clearly that I do not think that the official Opposition is in fact doing the organizations whose interests they are trying to promote, any favours at all with the series of amendments they have moved. I say this because every single amendment is designed to limit the co-operatives and to restrict their operations, although the wording of two of them cause those two amendments to have exactly the opposite effect, and I am referring here to, amongst others, to the first amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That amendment, in fact, works to the detriment of private enterprise because it enables a greater degree of non-member business.

Quite so.

That was just bad drafting, however, and a lack of understanding of what the effect of the amendment would be. All the other amendments, however, were designed to be restrictive. As I know organized commerce and industry, e.g. Assocom, the Handelsinstituut and the FCI, these are organizations that fight for the interests of their members but they are all honourable organizations. When they make a deal or reach an agreement, they stand by it. I do not think they will welcome the fact that having reached an agreement and having established a package deal to which they are committed, attempts are now being made to break that package deal. I think those organizations whose honour is at stake in maintaining the agreement they have reached, would want to make it clear that they do not associate themselves with the efforts that are being made in various of the amendments to break that agreement. I am sure they would want to dissociate themselves from these efforts as we dissociate ourselves from this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, having just listened to the hon. member for Durban Point it is quite clear to me that he did not have interviews with the private sector before this legislation came to the House. It is also quite clear that the hon. member does not understand the contents of the package deal to which he referred.

Well, I can say that we did have consultation, together with some of your hon. members.

If the hon. member did understand what those representatives of organized commerce and industry had in mind, he certainly would not have said what he said here this evening.

Philip, have you seen the co-operative movement?

Yes, I did. In terms of that package deal and what the representatives of organized commerce and industry were promised would be contained in this Bill, I can tell the House that the scribes of the Bill did not stick to that deal, as I said during the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the amendment. I think the hon. the Minister made out a reasonably good case of certain instances which would enable him to extend the right to outsider trading to a greater extent than 5% or 50%, as the case may be. I accept that. I think the hon. the Minister made a very good point. With the permission of the House I am prepared to withdraw my amendments on this clause, but I should like an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that he will not extend this particular clause without taking it to the liaison committee which the hon. the Minister indicated he would be setting up. Quite clearly the understanding of the House and of the hon. the Minister is that basically these limitations have been included in terms of the package agreement with private enterprise, and they must only be exceeded after very thorough investigation and basically in the sort of instance which the hon. the Minister has described, which is to help countries such as Lesotho and some of the independent homelands that we have created.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is prepared to withdraw the amendment on condition that the hon. the Minister gives him the assurance that he will first discuss the business the co-operative wishes to do with the private sector, and obtain their permission, so that the co-operative can in fact do that business.

That is definitely not what I said.

That is the effect of the whole situation. The hon. member wants the permission which the hon. the Minister must grant, to be subject to a reference to the liaison committee. [Interjections.] Surely it is crystal clear from the spirit in which the liaison committee was appointed that it will be composed of representatives of a number of different bodies which will include the S.A. Agricultural Union. Bodies in the private sector, for example Assocom, will also be involved.

Surely they are not enemies. [Interjections.]

I find it very interesting that the hon. members opposite say that those people are not enemies. They will be in competition with the cooperatives, because this is a matter of competition and non-member business. Are hon. members opposite prepared to say that business can be discussed at that level and that the parties in question will not be in competition with one another as a result? Surely that is a ridiculous statement. I cannot see how it would work if a co-operative that had certain business in mind which could constitute an infringement of the provisions, as a result of which the Minister would be involved, would first have to submit the matter to a body on which competing interests served and thereby put all its eggs in one basket, because that body would then have to give the co-operatives permission to do that business. We cannot accept that.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister and the law advisers’ opinion, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my amendments.

Amendments moved by Maj. R. Sive, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He adopted a sensible attitude here. I just wish to point out to him that part of the package deal reads as follows (paragraph 4.2(c))—

In the legislation this is limited in the case of an agricultural co-operative to—

1. (a) … 5% or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Minister in writing with respect to any particular agricultural co-operative; or
2. (b) in the case of a special farmers’ co-operative, 50% or such higher or lower percentage as may be determined by the Minister in writing with respect to any particular special farmers’ co-operative.

I just wish to state the hon. member’s point of departure very clearly. The fact of the matter is that we regard this as part of the package deal and that is why the 5% is being incorporated in the legislation. That percentage can only be exceeded with the approval of the Minister.

But you are the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries only. That is the point.

Yes, but what is the hon. member asking me now? I have appointed a liaison committee on which liaison between the co-operatives and the non-co-operative sectors can take place. According to the hon. member, that committee must now exercize a supervisory function over the discretion of the Minister in terms of the legislation. Surely it is not reasonable to expect that. After all, the figure of 5% is stipulated in the legislation. Otherwise I should not have done that. It is expressly stated in the legislation that that figure may only be exceeded with the approval of the Minister. If it had been my intention simply to allow it to be exceeded right and left, then surely I should not have stipulated the 5% in the legislation. The hon. member must accept my bona fides. He must accept that I shall use this power with great circumspection. As I said in my Second Reading speech, there is a place for the co-operative sector and the non-co-operative sector. The fact that we are specifying this percentage in the legislation surely attests to our positive standpoint in this connection and to the fact that we respect the package deal. The hon. member cannot subject my ministerial discretion to the control of a liaison committee.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 12.—“Police”, had agreed to the Vote.