I move as an unopposed motion:—

1. (a) Wednesday, 2 June:

   10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.

   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m

   8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

2. (b) Thursday, 3 June:

   10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.

   2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

3. (c) From Monday, 7 June, on Mondays to Thursdays:

   10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.

   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

   8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

1. 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.

   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

Agreed to.

I want to inform the House that the target date for ending the Session is the 19 June, and I am quite sure that with the co-operation of all members we will be able to finish on that date.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Sir, for my own guidance I consulted the Standing Orders and also Kilpin who indicates that at the third reading the House considers a Bill in its final form and “determines whether it ought or ought not to become law”. In the short time at my disposal I want to show why this Bill before us should not become law, and that its effect is such that we on this side cannot possibly support it. I therefore move as an amendment—

Firstly, I would like to say that it must now be clear to everyone that there was never any problem in respect of the existing position which this Bill seeks to alter. At least, this has emerged from what little debate there was on the Government side. If there was a problem, the Minister responsible made no effort whatsoever to explain his case, and the attitude of the Government was most unsatisfactory from the point of view of Parliament. In all my years in this House I have not seen anything like it. In the whole course of the debate not one solid reason was advanced by the Government as to why this Bill was necessary and why it should become law. Instead, the Government indulged in what was obviously a conspiracy of silence. I am sure it was a case of “few love to hear the sins they love to act.” The fact that the Government stubbornly refused to explain why this Bill was necessary, is in itself a major reason why we on this side should refuse to have anything to do with it at all; because far from solving any problem the effect of the Bill will be to create new ones. The nearest the hon. the Minister came to giving a reason for this amending Bill was the following—I quote from his introductory remarks and I challenge anyone to make head or tail out of it—

Sir, confusedness has never been so clear as in this statement made by the hon. the Minister; but if it meant that he was trying to convince us that a separation of elections will lead to a lack of coloured interest in the White man’s politics, and vice versa, then I maintain that exactly the opposite is bound to flow from this Bill, because the immediate effect of this Bill will be that the Coloured elections will now be in the nature of by-elections, and as such they will attract greater national attention and they will invite greater participation by the parliamentary parties or their Coloured allies than ever before. In fact, with no White elections to cater for, the hands of the political parties and the political Press and of pressure groups will now be free to concentrate their attention on these elections more than ever before. One can imagine the state of excitement into which the Coloured electorate would be whipped up if in such circumstances their four members were to wield a political influence in this House out of all proportion to the numbers they represent. We on this side cannot see how this Bill can have the effect of divorcing the political interests of the Coloured people from the political interests of the Whites, for the simple reason that the whole life, the whole future, of the Coloured people is dependent upon the decisions and the policies of the White parties that dominate this country. But if this Bill were to have the effect of isolating the political decisions of the Coloured man from those of the White man, then I say that this Bill may lead to a very serious situation. I want to illustrate this point by referring to the recent political history of South Africa. When war broke out in 1939, the Prime Minister of the time called upon the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and to write out a new election over the question of South Africa’s participation in the war. The Governor-General refused; General Smuts became the new Prime Minister and South Africa entered the war without an election and by a decision of Parliament. Sir, what was the attitude of hon. members now on the other side? They maintained that the electorate had not been given a chance to express their views on a vital issue such as war or peace, and that they were therefore under no moral obligation either to support the war or to join the army. I maintain, that if a similar thing were to occur and if the Coloured people, as the result of this Bill, were excluded from participation, small though their participation may be, in the final decision on a matter as serious as that of war or peace, they would have a strong moral case for turning their backs on the Government and on the problems which face our country. I go further and I say that they might even use this as an excuse, as an argument, for active opposition to the efforts of the Government. I feel that it is wrong to pass any Bill which has the effect of making the Coloured man feel a stranger at the gate of his own land. We believe that no political good can come out of a Bill such as this, the purpose of which is to estrange a friend who is already sorely limited in the scope of his political rights.

There is another good reason why we feel that this Bill should not become law, and that is that it will immediately create two classes of members in this House. As the position stands now, all the members in this House hold the same rights; but at the same time they have the same obligation to seek re-election, if they so wish, when Parliament is dissolved. But once this Bill becomes law, the four representatives concerned, and they alone, will be in the position that they will be able to vote on a motion of no-confidence in the Government; in a particular set of circumstances they may even cause the Government to dissolve Parliament; they may thus force an election on the country, without their own seats and their own position being affected in the least by their actions. This is a most unsatisfactory situation, and I think it is an injustice to the whole institution of Parliament. I cannot state our objections to such a state of affairs in better terms than the following—I am quoting from a debate in Parliament—

Who said that?

Sir, these are the words used by the present Minister of Social Welfare when he was in the Opposition, and all I did was to substitute the word “Coloured” wherever he used the word “Native”. Sir, I could go on and quote leaders on the other side who used even stronger terms than these with regard to the effect of the issue which is before us to-day. Hon. gentlemen over there were even more upset over the effect which such a measure would have on the nature of Parliament when the question came up of the Indian elections being separated from the White elections. They felt so strongly about it, that when this matter was considered in 1946 they came forward with an amendment, which the then United Party Government accepted because their arguments were so good, that the Indian representatives should be elected on the same day as the White representatives. Sir, I say that for leaders of a party which always puts up a façade of consistency to come here and unashamedly to chew up principles for which they fought so strenuously in the past is bad enough, but the fact that they are satisfied to do it without advancing one single good reason for doing it, puts politics in the worst light that I have seen it in for years. In passing I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs that it is no excuse for him to try to suggest that the Nationalist Party was in favour of the abolition of these representatives; it is quite irrelevant to the matter under discussion, and has no bearing on the principle they advocated that all form of representation should be subject to the same parliamentary rules. In any case his facts were incorrect because the policy of that side was to remove the Native Representatives from the Assembly only and to have seven permanent representatives for the Natives in the Senate; they were to be represented by seven White members in the Senate, which is still Parliament.

The Bill before us has another adverse effect, which constitutes one of our further objections. I refer to the statutory fixing of members’ term of office for a full period of five years. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister said that the Bill introduced no new principle into our legislation and that there were precedents for his proposals in our parliamentary history. Sir, that is so, but the irony of the matter is that the effects of these precedents which the Minister had in mind were so harmful to Parliament and to the representatives concerned and to the voters they represented, that the National Party itself called for their abrogation. I have already referred to the attitude they took up in respect of the Representation of Indians Bill, where they insisted that the position should be regularized and that there should be one election for all. But in 1947, when the five-year period of the Native Representatives came to an end, it was again that side that advanced such good reasons as to why a fixed five-year period would be an evil thing for Parliament, that they actually persuaded General Smuts to promise a revision of the situation. One of our main objections is that the very implication of a law which gives representation to people or to any group of people in Parliament, is that those representatives should always be in a position to represent their people when Parliament is in session. If any situation is created where these members cannot attend a session of Parliament, then the representation loses part of its value and its purpose, which is unfair. We maintain that it has been proved that if this Bill goes through and the period of office of members is fixed for five years, instead of their falling into line with the position in which all the other members are, then the occasion might well arise where Parliament has to meet to attend to urgent business at a time when the term of office of these members has expired and they are required to absent themselves to fight an election. Sir, this would certainly derogate from the value of their representation and lead to great disadvantage for the Coloured voters. Hon. members opposite must know that in our political history some of the most important sessions of Parliament have been held in the latter part of the year. I refer, for example, to the session of September 1939 when Parliament had to decide over the war issue. Even the High Court of Parliament sat in the latter half of the year. Sir, not a single hon. member on the other side has tried to disprove our argument that this Bill will at one point or another, and then more often in the future have the effect of depriving the Coloured voters of the right which is implied in the whole principle of representation, and that is that their members should be in a position to be present at every session of Parliament. In fact, one member on the other side—T think it was the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) admitted it—but he assured us that suitable amendments would be effected in time. What kind of guarantee can the hon. member for Kempton Park give us in respect of the future? But even so, what is one to think of a Bill which has the inherent weakness that Parliament can only escape from its ill effects if it relies on its right to amend it? I feel that to give a people a say in our parliamentary process and then to start emasculating it, is to make a mockery of the whole idea. The longterm effect of the five-year fixed period for a section of Parliament is so detrimental that the Government did not stop to give it any consideration at all in 1951 when it originally introduced the principal Act. Only 14 years later, to-day, they are pushing it through without advancing any good reason for their action at all.

Finally, Sir, there are other ill-effects of a wider nature. The people affected regard it as a further tampering with their limited rights, and the effect is most damaging. I think it is a great pity that this Bill should come before the House at this time when we can ill afford the luxury of further estrangement from our closest friends, the Brown Afrikaners. Sir, frankly and honestly we cannot see even one good effect that this Bill can possibly have. The Government itself was in a position where their “guiltiness spoke though their tongues were out of use”. I think it is a bad reflection on our times that the National Party themselves, when they were in opposition, advanced the strongest of arguments against the effects of a Bill of this nature.

To summarize, Sir, we oppose the Bill because it creates problems and solves none. Secondly, it must of necessity at times derogate from the effectiveness of Coloured representation and leave the Coloured voters unrepresented every time they come up for re-election during a session of Parliament. Thirdly, it distinguishes quite unnecessarily between member and member. Fourthly, it leaves the Coloured voter out of general decisions which affect the future and the wellbeing of all and the safety of the State. In the fifth place, it constitutes a further tampering with the political position of the Coloured man which he is bound to resent, and lastly, in the delicate times in which we live, it will do further damage to the image which people among the nations have of the affairs of our country.

I must honestly admit that I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He quotes what members of the National Party are alleged to have said and that they even convinced General Smuts with their arguments. I can only say that those arguments had nothing to do with the representation of the Coloureds in this House, because there was no such Act in General Smuts’s time. I think it would have been more interesting if the hon. member had quoted what he himself said when this set-up was introduced and what his own arguments were before he accused others of making a volte-face and now adopting a different standpoint.

If the hon. member now quotes those arguments of members of the National Party, are we to infer that he now maintains the standpoint which he says the National Party previously maintained? Is he still maintaining the same standpoint he maintained when he voted for the original legislation? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout advanced no arguments to prove that this Bill will make any difference to the right of the Coloured voters to elect four representatives to this House.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) knows very little about the Coloureds. I do not know why he concerns himself with the matter. I prefer to listen to the arguments of the independent members who represent the Coloureds in this House. Just one of them, the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), argued against it. We must reject his evidence because he is bound. I do not say that he is not honestly convinced in his heart that what his party stands for is the correct course, but he is bound by his caucus. He is the only representative of the Coloureds who is a member of a party caucus. He must do what his party caucus orders.

I am interested in what the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said and in what the hon. members sitting behind him said. They have given us the assurance that as the result of this Bill the Coloureds will not be deprived of a single right, but that on the contrary their position will be strengthened by it. There was no particular argument advanced to prove that the effect of this Bill would be deleterious. On the contrary, there was proof that it could be advantageous to them. The hon. the Minister has said that by making this arrangement, viz. that the Coloureds’ Representatives would sit out their full five years, the officials would be relieved of much work. It is surely clear that with a general election, particularly when it has to be held hurriedly, the whole machinery of the Government dealing with elections is overloaded with work. If then, a week before the time, they have to deal with the election of four representatives for the Coloureds, it makes their work so much more difficult. In this case it is really a relief, and the effect of this Bill is advantageous.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) advanced a peculiar argument. She says that if the effect of this legislation is that there will be less work for the officials of the Department, the correct thing to do is to abolish all elections so that they need not work at all. I can understand that she would welcome that, because in the first place it would give her and her party a strong weapon to prove what they cannot prove now, viz. that the Government is becoming a dictatorship. They would very much like to prove that, but they cannot do so. I can quite understand her saying that we should rather abolish elections completely. There is a second reason for her saying so. I think at the back of her head—or should I say her little head—she has the idea that if we no longer hold elections she will at least be assured of a seat in this House for the life of this Parliament.

This legislation has another effect which ought to gratify the hon. member for Houghton. You see, Sir, if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book it will mean that the Coloureds’ Representatives will be here for their full period of five years. There may possibly be a general election before that time. Then the hon. member for Houghton may stand for election in Houghton and she runs the risk of losing; later, when the time of the Coloureds’ Representatives has expired, she can then stand in a Coloured constituency and perhaps have a chance of being sent back to this House. The effect of this Bill is therefore to her advantage. I simply cannot understand how one can fight against one’s own bread and butter.

I just want to emphasize again that no argument was advanced to prove in any way that the contrary of what the hon. member for Peninsula said would be true, namely that there is no proof that this Bill in the least affects the rights, the privileges and the franchise of the Coloureds as such. On the contrary, the effect of this Bill is just the opposite. The matter we are dealing with here is not the right of the Coloureds to vote. In future they will vote in precisely the same way. We are not dealing with the right of the Coloureds to vote for more or fewer representatives, and the position is not that more or fewer Coloureds may vote; they can still register in the same way. The only matter which is before this House is that the Coloureds’ Representatives will stay here for their full five years and, in addition, that they will not be dragged in as party-political pawns by certain White organizations which are interested not in the welfare of the Coloureds but in their seats. Their only object is to try to get hold of those seats; they are not in the least interested in the welfare of the Coloureds. If by means of this Bill we can protect the Coloured population against that, we will do a great favour to the Coloureds and to this House. If one sees that something may be abused or is being abused, then it is the duty of the Government to effect measures to prevent that crime. Anybody who alleges that a Government does wrong by effecting measures to prevent an abuse surely does not realize his or her responsibility in this House. By means of this Bill we will prevent abuses, the Coloured people will retain all their rights, and we will protect them against people who are busy, or intend exploiting the Coloureds just for the sake of their seats.

Sir, I am not going to waste the short time I have at my disposal on replying to the nonsense the hon. member has just spoken except to say that I think he has opened this debate up rather widely. In the course of his speech he said that one of the reasons for introducing this Bill was to see to it that the Coloured people were not dragged into the arena of party politics. He said that this measure was going to prevent that. The hon. member has opened up a much wider field than this debate had covered until now. I might say that he has, to that extent, certainly justified the suspicions that many people on this side of the House have about this Bill, and that is, that it is not the innocuous little measure it appears to be, that it does not simply extend the life of the sitting M.P.s or M.P.C.s to five years but that it is the forerunner of something very much more sinister.

Order! Now the hon. member wants to open the debate even further.

With respect, Sir, may I say that the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) have certainly justified all the suspicions I, for one, have had about this Bill from its inception. Nothing that was said by the hon. the Minister during the second-reading debate or in the Committee Stage has in any way allayed those suspicions, I might add. I thought then, and think now, that this is a cynical measure, introduced in the most cynical fashion by a cynical politician. I still believe that to be the case. What the hon. member has now said, of course, completely justifies my feelings in that regard.

It is perfectly clear that this Bill is the forerunner of other measures which one can expect in the foreseeable future in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that at no time in the past history of the removal of the franchise rights from the Coloured people was it ever envisaged that there should be any divorce of the main body of Coloured voters from the general elections of this country. If one takes the trouble to read the debates of the past, such as the 1951 and the 1956 debates, when the ratification of the first Bill took place, it is clear that there was never any question of those four “winners”, as the present Minister of Finance then put it, being divorced from the main general election to be held for White voters and for the election of a government for South Africa. That is the important point. The four separate representatives for the Coloured people were to take part in an election for the government of this country. There was never any talk, let alone of their being divorced from the political issues of the time, of their being divorced from the election for the government of South Africa.

I must say the hon. Minister’s remarks about the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) at the second reading were quite unintelligible. He seemed to regard it as some measure of disgrace that the hon. member should have been elected under the colours of the party to which he belongs. There has never been any question of the Coloured people not having the right to elect party members to this House or to the Provincial Council just as the hon. Minister himself is elected by the voters of George where he stands as a National Party candidate. Now the hon. Minister uses this as an argument for the need to keep the Coloureds away from the political main streams of thought in this country. What he envisages is something which was never envisaged by Mr. Havenga when he agreed to the Coloureds coming off the Common Roll. It was a clear condition that the Coloured Representatives should not only vote fully in this House, debate fully in this House, but that they should be elected on the general issues facing South Africa. There was no talk about their being separated in any way. By this Bill, Sir, yet another of the solemn assurances, given by the Whites to the Coloured people, is being broken this afternoon. The Coloured people are being made political “bywoners” in South Africa’s political life. That is what is happening to them. The general issues must not bother them; they are a minority group and they must not worry their minority heads about South West Africa, about economic crises, about any of the major issues which are going to be put to this country, to the White electorate as a whole when we go to a general election to elect the government of South Africa. I believe that is another betrayal of the promises made to the Coloured people. As I said earlier on, I believe, that this is a thoroughly cynical measure. What it entails is changing the rules of the game. If you cannot win the game by the ordinary rules you change the rules. This is the first rule that is being changed but I am prepared to stake everything I have that it is not going to be the end of the story. It is only the first of the rules to be changed. We will have other and perhaps even more important rules being changed.

Order! I must ask the hon. member not to refer to those things; she must come back to the Bill.

Very well, Sir. I have really covered all the ground I wanted to touch upon. I advanced my major arguments during the second reading. I have not changed my mind one iota since then. I just want to warn this House and the country at large that it is not only the Coloured voters who are going to be affected by this. I believe that a Bill like this, forerunner as it is to other measures, will strike at the very basis of constitutional democracy in South Africa.

Order!

Before dealing with my own particular speech, I would like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member who has just resumed her seat. I regard her remarks as highly misleading from the Coloured people’s point of view, and creating a great deal of mischief in the minds of these people. The hon. member concluded her speech by saying that she viewed this Bill as not conferring upon the future Coloured Representatives the free right to vote fully and freely in this House. I want to ask her where in this Bill is there any such provision.

I never said that.

She went on to say that she had always thought that the Coloured Representatives in this House would have the right to participate freely in all debates. Where in this Bill are we prevented from doing that?

I never said that.

Well, I wish you could read your Hansard and you will see what mischief you may have created in the minds of the Coloured people. I want to leave the hon. member for the present and deal with this matter as objectively as I possibly can.

My two colleagues and I have already declared our views on this Bill. We have intimated that, by reason of the possible suggestion that has been made and is likely to be made, that we may have a personal interest in the outcome of this Bill, we did not intend to vote on this measure. But at the same time I made it clear that in our view there was no justification for opposing the present Bill. I want to say immediately that despite the vehement criticism which my two colleagues and I have received from political parties interested in this measure and from a handful of new so-called leaders of the Coloured people, my colleagues and I do not intend to deviate one iota from our decision.

Brave!

Order! I think the hon. member for Houghton must keep her peace now; she has had her say.

Thank you, Sir. We arrived at this considered conclusion after consultation with various old and tried leaders of the Coloured people who, in our view, constitute the most representative cross-section of their community. I will give you some of their names at a later stage, Sir. They felt, as we did, that this Bill in no way impinged upon the already meagre electoral rights of the Coloured people. It may well be that this Bill may be the first step in a so-called major plan which the Government may have in mind in dealing with Coloured elections and the Coloureds’ franchise rights. At this stage, however, this major plan has not been intimated; nothing has emerged from any of the discussions which have taken place in regard to this Bill in connection with that major plan. At this stage we feel that we are obliged to take the Bill at its face value, in the interests of the Coloured people, and that it would be quite wrong for us to look for hidden ulterior motives which may or may not materialize. A lot of the discussion in regard to the opposition to this Bill has been in the seeking of these ulterior motives. If and when a proposal is put forward which in any way adversely affects the already limited franchise rights of the Coloured people we would be prepared to fight such measure with every weapon at our command. For the present, however, we feel that there is no justification in opposing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, what does this Bill provide? It provides that the representatives of the Coloured people in Parliament and in the Provincial Council shall hold office for a fixed period of five years and shall not be subject to the whims of any government which may wish to dissolve Parliament during that period. That is all that this Bill provides at present. We cannot see how this Bill in any way constitutes a deprivation of rights or a diminution of rights. To our mind there is no curtailment whatsoever in this Bill of any of the rights of the Coloured people. Their representatives in Parliament and in the Provincial Council will remain the same as it is at present with one exception, that they will be there for a fixed period of office, namely five years, and that their term of office can only expire by the effluxion of that period of time. They cannot be affected by any interim decision on the part of the Government calling for a general election. What objection can there be to any such measure?

It has been suggested in the course of this debate that, as a result of this Bill, the Coloured Representatives may well hold the balance of power in this House. That is a suggestion which has come from the Opposition side. How can they reconcile that argument with the other criticism namely that the Bill constitutes a diminution of rights. On the one hand that we may be holding the balance of power and on the other hand we are told that the Coloured people’s rights are being diminished ! Surely if there is any substance in the argument that this Bill may well bring about a position where the Coloured Representatives will hold the balance of power in their hands then I say it is the bounden duty of the Coloured Representatives to vote for this Bill. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member was here when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke. He and other members spoke about the grave danger of the Coloured Representatives holding the balance of power in this House. If, in fact, it is possible for the Coloured Representatives, as a result of this Bill, to hold that balance of power it is our bounden duty to vote for it. It would give the Coloured people a tremendous say in the highest legislative body in this country. If this argument of the balance of powers is correct how dare one of the Coloured Representatives vote against it? I suggest that this argument of the balance of power is a complete vindication of the stand which my two colleagues and I have taken in regard to this Bill.

It has also been suggested that the Coloureds will, as a result of this Bill, lose contact with the Whites on the political front. That has been the refrain right throughout the debate:

They will lose contact with the Whites on the political front and will have no say in national issues. Let us test this, Sir. The Coloureds are already on a separate voters’ roll. Their elections already take place at different times from the White elections. What say have the Coloured people got in any of the national issues being, as they are, on a separate roll and having to take part in separate elections? This is the existing law. The only time when the Coloured people will have real contact with the Whites on the political front and will have some say in national issues will be when they are restored to the Common Voters’ Roll and when they will have the right to elect to Parliament as their representatives White or Coloured persons of their own choice. Only then will they have some say in the national issues of our country. As long as they remain on a separate roll they will have very little say in the national issues of this country unfortunately. This appears unfortunately to be the attitude of both major parties. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has indicated in this House and outside that the Coloureds will remain on a separate roll with their present form of representation. From statements made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who speaks on behalf of the United Party in this regard, I believe, it would appear that the United Party is now considering forsaking the restoration of the Coloureds to the common roll and proposes to compensate them by allowing them to elect members of their own race group to Parliament. [Interjections.] Well, you read the statements made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as reported in the Sunday Times. I want to say that this is not what the vast majority of the Coloured people wish. They want to be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll with the right to send to Parliament, as their representatives, White or Coloured persons. Nothing short of that will satisfy the vast majority of the Coloured people. The earnest desire of the Coloured people is to be given full status of citizenship in their own country. They have no wish to continue in this relegated role, as they are at the moment, in terms of our law, of being second-class citizens in South Africa. They will have no part in the compromise proposals suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far.

I shall leave that alone, Sir. In conclusion, in regard to that aspect of the matter, I just want to say that in the aspirations which the Coloured people have they will have the wholehearted support and cooperation of my colleagues and myself. I repeat that we cannot see how this Bill in any way diminishes the already limited franchize rights which the Coloured people have. My colleagues and I have taken a stand on this matter which we honestly believe to be the correct one. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the unjustified criticism of political parties who are looking at this matter purely from a political point of view with the idea of gaining some political advantage.

I want to deal with a personal note, Sir, which I hope you will permit me to do. I propose to treat with absolute contempt the unworthy suggestion made in this House during the course of the second-reading debate by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who saw something sinister behind this Bill and who, in as many words, stated that my two colleagues and I had taken part in a preconceived rehearsal with the Government in relation to this Bill. I would like to say to him, in no uncertain language, that there is not the slightest vestige of truth whatsoever in his unfounded and unwarranted allegation.

Read my Hansard.

I have your Hansard here; I have read it; you read it and see whether you should not get up and apologize. I say there is not the slightest foundation whatsoever for this unwarranted allegation by the hon. member for Green Point. I want to say unequivocally that I have not been a party to any so-called rehearsal with the Government in regard to this matter—nor have my colleagues. The only persons with whom we have discussed the principles of this Bill are some Coloured leaders whose documentary evidence I am going to read to the House presently. The hon. member will be ashamed when he hears that.

I did not refer to them.

The hon. member referred to “the member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and his two colleagues”, and I repeat that the only persons with whom we discussed the principles of this Bill were responsible and respectable Coloured leaders, some of whose names will be disclosed in due course. I am also not concerned with the prophecy made by the hon. member for Green Point that my colleagues and I by reason of our attitude on this Bill will never see Parliament again. Does he deny that he said that?

I said that.

I think this House and the country know already what value can be placed on prophecies made by the hon. member for Green Point. We have some experience of those prophecies. I recall very well the prophecy made by the hon. member for Green Point to General Smuts and the United Party in 1948, when the hon. member gave us the assurance that he would win Bredasdorp with a smashing majority because he had the Coloured people 100 per cent behind him.

Where did I say that?

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

I think the hon. member must take what is coming to him. We took it from him.

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

Sir, I will. I was referring to the hon. member’s prophecies. We all recall how at that time a young, almost unknown farmer, by the name of Dirkie Uys, wiped the floor with the hon. member.

Order!

There are other prophecies I recall, but in deference to your ruling, I will not proceed with that. In any event, I want to give this assurance to the hon. member for Green Point that if my two colleagues and I were to leave this House to-morrow, there would be little comfort for him and the United Party in our departure. If he thinks that our successors are likely to be United Party supporters, he is gravely mistaken. In this connection I want to remind the hon. member that the Coloured people have not forgotten a statement of United Party policy, made on behalf of the United Party, and which appeared to be the policy of the party, and this is what the spokesman of the party said in this connection—

The spokesman obviously spoke with the authority of the United Party, and I am sure that this House would like to know who that brilliant spokesman was. It was none other than the hon. member for Green Point, Maj. P. van der Byl, who made this statement at the Cape Congress of the United Party in Port Elizabeth on 19 October 1964. I want to remind him that the Coloured people want to know from him what 20 per cent of the apartheid laws of the Government the United Party propose to retain, and what segregation laws they propose to retain in order to keep political control of the country.

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

I want to add that as far as I am concerned, I would like to give the assurance that I have no self-interest in this matter whatsoever. I have already made it clear, some two years ago, that I did not intend to seek re-election to this House after the expiration of my present term of office. I have not changed my mind, and therefore I have no personal self-interest in this measure. I look at this purely from the point of view of what is in the present circumstances in the best interests of the Coloured people, and having discussed the proposals with old Coloured leaders, we came to the conclusion that it would not be against the interests of the Coloured people that their future representatives should have a fixed term of office and should not be subject to the whims of the government of the day—and that applies to any government. Nothing that has been said in this debate has made us change our mind, and it is for this reason that I have been at pains this afternoon to reiterate our considered opinion. In view of the fact, however, as I said, that it may be suggested that we have a personal interest in this matter, my colleagues and I will continue to abstain from voting. But in fairness to my colleagues and myself, I want to read to this House extracts from a lengthy statement handed to me to-day, about two hours ago, and signed by some of the Coloured leaders whom we took the trouble to consult over this Bill. It is a lengthy statement and I propose only to deal with the salient portions.

Is one of them Dollie?

No, not Dollie, no members of the Progressive Party, no ex-communists. Respectable Coloured leaders in this area. I am reading the extracts—

In view of the unjustified attack by the United Party upon the action of three independent Coloured Representatives in Parliament in abstaining from voting against the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Bill and expressing their views in favour of the Bill, we feel that in fairness to these gentlemen, we should make public our own views on the matter, as these Representatives sought our views prior to making their own minds up.

I am leaving out the personal matters affecting my colleagues and myself—

Then they made a personal reference to me, which I do not want to read to the House.

They go on again—

I would like the hon. member for Houghton to remember that. They continue—

And that is the crux of this Bill—

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

Sir, I am dealing with the Bill—

Order!

Sir, I am sorry that you cannot allow me to read another extract, because this is the crux of the matter.

You said all this at the second reading.

The Coloured people are speaking for themselves here. They go on to express the hope that the Coloureds will not fall for this manoeuvre and they make an appeal here—

No, the hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, they then deal with the attitude of the United Party and they make an appeal to them not to follow the same lines as the Progressive Party, and they finish up by saying that the Coloured people would far rather support people who have no political affiliations to any political party, and they advise us as their representatives to use our discretion and not to vote against this Bill. And, Sir, this is signed by Coloured people, some of whom my colleagues and I consulted over this matter. It is signed by: W. D. Collins, an ex-member of the City Council of Cape Town and present executive member of the Hazendal Ratepayers’ Association, a respected Coloured businessman; Mr. I. U. Stober, general secretary of the Coloured Peoples National Union; Mr. J. Brikkles, treasurer of the Coloured Peoples National Union, who was one of the litigants in the case against the Government when we fought the Separate Representation of Voters Bill; Mr. P. P. Joshua, principal of the Alexander Sinton High School at Athlone; Mr. H. J. Wilton, a director of the Spes Bona Bank, by Mr. Edgar A. Deane, general secretary of the National Union of Furniture and Allied Workers of South Africa, by Mr. George J. Golding, principal of the Ashley Street Primary School; Mr. S. E. Frans, a leading member of the Moravian Church; Mr. H. O. Kruger, a Coloured sports administrator and director of companies. These are some of the people whom we consulted. These names I have mentioned are the names of people whose considered view is contained in the memorandum from which I have read extracts. They represent the views of the moderate cross-section of Coloured opinion. Each signature to this memorandum is of a highly respected and responsible Coloured citizen, people who have played an important part in the affairs of the Coloured people. I leave it to the House to judge whether their views should be respected.

I cannot state the case of the Coloureds better than the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) did, nor do I intend to try, but I should like to come back to what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I am a little concerned about it. She said that this was a cynical Bill, introduced by a cynical Minister and emanating from a cynical Government.

Yes.

She is repeating it here. Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton herself knows what she said, but when we consult the dictionaries we find that the words “cynic” and “cynical” are derived from the Greek word “kunikos”. That means “like a dog”, and in the language of the people, according to the Oxford dictionary, it has become “a person disposed to rail and find fault with everybody else”. I wonder whether these words do not apply to her. But it means further—

Now I ask whether I would be saying too much if I told her that she was a cynical person, as she has to-day revealed herself to be in this debate. Because what have we, and what has the hon. the Minister done to deserve this testimonial from her? He did absolutely nothing to deserve it. This Government and this Minister and this side of the House did not deserve it. What have we done? We have simply separated the election of the Coloureds’ Representatives from that of the White Representatives, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and the hon. member for Houghton regard that as a deadly sin.

You leader also regarded it as such.

No, not at all. What is the essence of the manner in which we are governed, our democratic method? The essence is not that of the clichés of the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, together with all those others who believe in such clichés and slogans, viz. that the essence of democracy is to give consent to Government. She has never given any consent, as far as I know, in respect of the Acts we passed here, but nevertheless she has to obey them; nor have any of her supporters given such consent, not even to mention the United Party, but in spite of that they have to obey these laws. It is absolutely untrue that the essence of democracy is that one must agree with the Acts passed. That is something that emanates from medieval times. It simply is not so any longer. The essence of democracy is the right of criticism without danger.

Order! The hon. member may not develop that argument.

No, Sir, I merely ask what the hon. the Minister has done. Did he offend against the elementary method of Government in our country? And I say the elementary method is the right of criticism every individual has who sits in this House, the right of criticism without running the risk of landing in the Bastille or in the Tower of London or in any other prison. We did not offend against that, nor did the Minister, nor did anybody on his side who defended this act.

What about the right of the voters in a democracy?

The right of criticism is the essence, and whether we hold the election five years from now or five years from another date, if the voters get the opportunity to get rid of people who have to state their case, then we have complied with the essence of our method of government, and whether they receive that opportunity now, or together with the rest, or on a different occasion, makes absolutely no difference, as the hon. member or Peninsula has already said. There is nothing in this measure to justify the testimonial of the hon. member for Houghton that this is really a measure which is on an equal basis with the reaction of a dog. It is not that. What have we done? We have not deprived the voters of the opportunity to express their opinion as to what they think of the deeds of the Government. They can still always have that right to judge which they now have, and they can express that judgment either by sending these representatives of theirs back to Parliament and saying: “What you have done was well done”, or they can refuse to send them back and say “What you have done was badly done”. That is the right of the voters, and we have not deprived them of that right; they still have it. The only matter we have deprived them of, and I make no secret of it, is the benefit of the propaganda which is made during elections for one or other group; they cannot cash in on the propaganda which in any case is made for or against the Government. But is that such a wrong thing? Do we not have too much propaganda as it is? Is it not much better to hold an election in a peaceful atmosphere so that people may judge of the merits of a case? We are, however, not depriving them of the right to make propaganda themselves. All of us know that when there is an election emotions are swept up and eventually it is no longer merits which count but the atmosphere which has been created. That is one of the disadvantages of democracy, and if we now effect this measure and partially remove one of those disadvantages is that a reason for any right-thinking person to get into a state of inverted ecstasy like the hon. members for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and Bezuidenhout.

Does the same not apply to the Whites?

I do not know what the hon. member is saying.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will the hon. member explain to us, if he thinks it is so advantageous to have separate elections for the Coloureds why he does not suggest that the White elections should also be held four by four after one another?

That is a ridiculous question and the hon. member knows it. She has not done her homework, because the essence in this country is still further that we have different groups of people and one can only have a Parliament which functions successfully in any country if the people have so much in common that they can afford to quarrel. The important matters, the real matters, are always the same, no matter on which side of the House one sits, but when we are in the position in which we are, having different population groups, it is simply impossible to have a Parliament in which the people have so much in common that they can afford to quarrel with one another. That is why the Natives’ Representatives are no longer here.

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

Sir, you will allow me just to explain that this is not a cynical measure but one which flows from the essence and the facts of the composition of our body politic. The essence is that here we have a group whose values are not 100 per cent the same as those of the Whites.

That is the main point of difference.

They stand nearer to us than the Bantu, but they are not quite the same as we are. That is why they are on a separate voters’ roll. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wants to keep them on a separate voters’ roll.

The whole discussion is now going too far.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Houghton put that question to me and I am now replying to it.

The hon. member should not allow himself to be diverted by the hon. member for Houghton.

I shall come back to the Bill. If you say that this is irrelevant, Sir, I readily accept your ruling and offer my humble apologies. But I want to say in regard to this measure, where we are separating the election of the Coloureds’ Representatives from that of the White representatives, that we are just being true to ourselves, and that is the reason why we have them on a different voters’ roll, and whether we hold the elections at the same time or not makes no difference, and it a big difference if we hold the elections four by four on our own side, because this is one political body whose values are propounded in this House, and it is either the United Party with their views and all those who agree with them and their values, it is the views of the National Party and what it stands for. That is why we are elected at the same time. But as far as the Coloureds are concerned, they have values which agree with ours, but they also have values which do not agree, and if we do not diminish their powers to get rid of their representatives if they feel like doing so, and if we do not limit those representatives in the criticism they voice of either side of this House, then we are doing absolutely nothing which is cynical, and it is certainly not true that we have ulterior motives and that thereby we are “disposed to rail or to find fault, disposed to deny and sneer at the sincerity and goodness of human beings”. That is not the case at all.

In dealing with the Bill before the House, and having listened to the speakers this afternoon, neither the great play, that has been made around the word “sinister” or “cynical” by the last speaker nor arguments have impressed me.

“Cynic”.

We have heard this afternoon what certain members of Parliament said on previous occasions, a sort of Roland for every Oliver. Now let us read something from Hansard, Vol. 75, of 1951 in the Separate Representation of Voters Act debate (Col. 4567)—he was referring to old Afrikaners in this country—

Some apparently got lost, some are still lost—

Now, Mr. Speaker, who said that: Dr. Jonker, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

His eyes were not yet open then.

I have said before, and I repeat, that this Bill is intended to diminish the rights of the Coloured people. I do not propose to traverse the subjects covered by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), except to say this: Methinks he protesteth too much. I do not think that persons, who are in opposition to the Government—and we are in opposition to the Government on matters affecting the Coloured people—should entertain themselves with references to those others who are in opposition, whatever their political differences may be. The Minister has said that the Coloured man should have no say in our national affairs, and under this Bill he will have no say. At a general election, which in the ordinary course of events is held to examine the policies of the Government, he would have a say. On the separate roll he will now be remote from the day the White electorate goes to the polls to decide on national issues. The situation is now, that in regard to economics, as it affects him, and foreign affairs and defence, he can have no say, and of course in the most important thing of all, which is his own destiny, namely the question of the Coloured legislation of the Government, he has no say. I want to speak from experience and tell you, Sir, the type of election which will result from this Bill. This is the type of election the Government wants. They do not want the Coloured man to have a say. It is all very well for the hon. member for Peninsula to protest that there is no diminution. This is all part of a plan starting in 1951, after which various Bills were passed to stop up the loopholes in that legislation when other sets of circumstances arose. When the Coloured elections took place in 1958 Nationalists stood against United Party candidates. Three of them—the United Party ones —are to-day Independents. The fourth man is deceased and I am his successor. The Progressive Party at that time took no interest in the elections. When the by-election took place on the death of the then member for Karoo, one candidate was a Nationalist. He kept it very quiet, but did not deny that he was a Nationalist, and he had the support, although it is denied, of the Nationalist Party, and he had staff. He did not have to worry about getting himself nominated. I refer to this because the Minister has said more than once that I was forced on the Coloured community. That is untrue. I was requisitioned by hundreds of Coloured voters to stand and they knew that I was a United Party man, had been one all my life and will always remain one. I will not leave my party. Now it is said that I was forced upon the Coloured community. I fought a straightforward election under the control of the Government, against a man who had Nationalist Party support; they worked for him and they cannot deny it.

Order! The hon. member is now digressing too far from the Bill.

But the Minister referred to it. He said I was forced on the Coloured community, because I am a member of a political party. But, I won an election because more people voted for me, than for the other man, and I took my seat in Parliament.

It has been suggested that this Bill is to the benefit of the Coloured people and—I will use the correct word—that there is nothing sinister in it. It is however a strange thing, that the hon. the Minister, speaking at George in August last year, warned the Coloured people against the Progressive Party. He is entitled to his opinion and he can issue his warnings, but the Minister, who protested in his second-reading reply against White persons meddling in Coloured politics, came to Kimberley himself in March this year and he was a supporter speaking in a White by-election for Parliament, when the hon. member for Kimberley (North) was elected. It had nothing to do with that election, what was going on concurrently in the Provincial election, where the candidates at Kimberley were a Progressive and a United Party man. There again the Minister warned, not only the Progressives this time; he included the United Party—

He did not say “the Government”, but “the Whites”.

No, that is totally wrong.

It was not denied. I would like him to deny this, although it is not germane to the debate. It forms part of the same report. He said—

Not “safety”, but “destruction”.

Then he uses a White platform to give an injunction to the Coloured voters, who were fighting an election in which his party had no candidate and the heading is “Botha’s Warning to City Coloureds”. Then he gave the warning I referred to. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) referred to “misdade” and “misbruike”. I want to know what sort of “misbruik” is meant, if that is the reason for the legislation? Because, these are not the reasons given by the hon. the Minister. I would like to know what the malpractices were, to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) referred more than once, in his protest on behalf of the group for whom he was speaking, to the “meagre rights of the Coloured person”. That brings me to the point I started with, that this Bill diminishes the rights of the Coloured person, and it is done by design. There are unquestionably a few Coloured people, though not many, who believe that they have been knocked about so much by the Government that they had better just let things go. The vast majority however, resent the suggestion that they should be involved in a second-class election. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) referred to a difference in values. There are no differences in human values or in election values. Without any shadow of doubt, that is what this legislation will lead to, and there is a reason for it. The Government, which has been in power for a long time, has been steadily introducing legislation from 1951 . . .

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

I am trying to establish that this is not such an innocuous amendment.

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

Well, I am at the Bill, because the rights of the Coloured community have been steadily diminished and the intention, listening to Government speakers, has been to divorce certain matters on which only the Whites shall have a say, and which may vitally affect the Coloured person. The further the Coloureds get away from the White election, the less their opportunity to have anything rectified. The Coloured cannot possibly, in any election for four men taking place at a great distance of time from the White election influence anything. He can only reject the application of Government policy. Here I want to say that the hon. the Minister wrote me a letter in which he said that if I did my job properly, I would recommend to the Coloured community that they should accept the amenities offered by the Government—in other words, I must be an agent of the Nationalist Party or of the Government.

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

It was said that men like myself are here to administer: in other words, the Coloured man must except without any argument or comment the laws which are passed following on a White general election. That is the meaning of this Bill. His election will take place on a date far removed from the White election and the whole intention behind the Bill, in my opinion, is sinister, and I repeat that, because the intentions all the way regarding the Coloured people have been sinister. They get material things, but it is the duty of the State to provide them. There is no question that because a man is Brown he should now get a house; he should get it because he is a person. Those are fundamental rights. If he is dissatisfied, what can he do at an election far removed from the White one? We come now to the recent Provincial election when the National Party, with its experience of the by-election in Karoo, put up no candidates. So the election was fought in a vacuum, and this is the vacuum. The one party, having no responsibilities, could offer the world.

Just human dignity.

I have no desire to quarrel with the hon. member for Houghton. I am just quoting the facts.

And in that vacuum the United Party was sucked out.

The fact is that these people were able to offer anything, having no responsibility. The United Party men were sitting members, who had been pleading with the Government and were unable to get any changes made in the legislation, because the Government had made up its mind that that was its policy. Therefore the election was fought in a vacuum.

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

An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. This is practical stuff with which I am trying to demonstrate, what the effect of this Bill will be. I am quite satisfied that this is not an innocuous measure, because it followed on threats from no less a person than the Minister, who is introducing the Bill, and one must take threats seriously. I do not think they are made lightly; I think they are made most seriously. They were intended to be heeded. I would like to ask the hon. Minister exactly what he means by the “retaliation” or the “drastic measures”, which will be taken by the “Whites”? I want to dissociate myself and this side of the House from any suggestion that we share those sentiments, that there is to be retaliation upon the Coloureds.

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

We now come to the matters of national importance. The Coloured voter, in the event of there being a war, may or may not want to take part in it. That would be a national issue, and a decision would be taken and the action of the Government would be confirmed or otherwise at a White general election. The Coloured voter who has been trained to bear arms would have no say, until some distant time in the future. The proper way to test public feeling, whether they are Brown South Africans or White South Africans, is by way of a general election, and I want to kill the canard once and for all as to the real reason why the Coloured elections took place just prior to the White elections. The reason is that because of the size of the constituencies and the distances involved, these election results come out at approximately the same time. These elections have been fought in the past on the issues that affect the country, and those candidates who were opposed to the policy of apartheid won.

Before I resume my seat, may I just say this. Grave anxiety is being expressed by certain people about political parties taking part in these elections. What right has the Government or anyone else to decide the political affiliations of any Coloured man? If he wishes to be a Liberal or a Progressive, or United Party, why should he not be? We have even had Coloured men, who were Nationalists. The Coloured man is exactly the same as we are. His wants and his needs and his hates and his ambitions are the same. I say that this Bill is not intended to give him any encouragement. It is meant merely to put him out of the way, so that he cannot express his point of view at a general election, while the Government gets on with the job of making the position more difficult for him as the years go by.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) really made a very peculiar speech to prove what the effect of this Bill would be in future. I could not always follow his argument and I am not surprised that you, Sir, often had to call him to order. I feel, however, that you will allow me to reply to certain allegations he made before I come to the effect of this Bill.

The hon. member referred to a person who is alleged to have stood for election as a representative of the Coloureds on behalf of the National Party. I want to state that to the best of my knowledge—and I ought to know—at no time did anyone stand against him who was nominated by or who stood on behalf of the National Party. Independent candidates stood against him, who fought on their own merits. If he now alleges that somebody stood on behalf of the National Party or with the support of this party, that is absolutely wrong.

In his speech the hon. member alleged that the rights of the Coloureds would be diminished as the result of this Bill. He tried his best, but he did not advance a single argument to show how the rights of those people would be curtailed. He said that they would now lose their say in regard to Coloured affairs.

I did not say that. I was referring to national issues.

Yes, and in that regard the hon. member mentioned Coloured affairs. But I cannot see how they can lose their say in that regard. They still have their representatives in this Parliament. The hon. member says they will not have a say in the event of a declaration of war. But was that hon. member not a member of the United Party which, during the last war, declared war, and when the then Prime Minister asked that the people should decide in regard to the war they said that the people had decided through their sovereign Parliament? The representatives of those people will sit in this House and vote on such a question, but he says they will have no say. Have they not elected people in whom they have confidence, and have they not given those people a mandate? Then how on earth are they disfranchised in this House if a vote has to be taken, simply because they were not elected at the same time as the White representatives? The hon. member’s whole argument is hollow. It seems to me that this matter is being argued to-day just to waste time, because hon. members opposite said that they would fight to the death. I must say that this fight to the death has not impressed me much up to now.

The hon. member said that threats were also used here. Precisely how that will affect the implementation of this Act in future I do not know. I should like to know from him what the nature of those arguments are. The Coloureds’ Representatives were not threatened. The fact that three of them support this Bill, or at least are not opposed to it, and that he alone takes exception to it, really does not convince me that this Bill constitutes a threat to the freedom of action of those people in this House. The hon. member cannot point to a single respect in which the actions of those people in this House have been threatened. It is a serious allegation he made and I think the hon. member should act a little more responsibly. No threats were made which could in any way curtail the democratic freedoms of those people.

But what will in fact be the effect of this Bill in future? It will merely free a little further a group of people who in the past were simply used by certain persons as a political football of those White political parties which now obstinately want to retain those people as their political football. We have seen today that those people simply will not abandon that very convenient old political football. I think the hon. member who represents Coloureds here has a greater task than to cling to this thing. I think the effect of this Bill will be to give those people a new political approach because it will remove them a little further from the ordinary White politics, and it will make them more conscious of their own political set-up in this country. It will give them a little more self-respect and a feeling of adherence to their own group, something which they need and which I think it is a crime to break down by telling them that if they cannot be an appendage of the Whites they will be deprived of everything in life. Surely there is such a thing as valuing one’s own, and I think this Bill will help to give those people their own political pride, because they will be less of an appendage to the Whites in politics.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) has replied in a very dignified and effective way to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden.) If the hon. member will ponder for a moment on what the hon. member for Namaqualand said—and this also applies to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)—he will not be so inclined to think, nor will the hon. member for Houghton, that they are the only people who have decent motives in the matter of race relationships in South Africa. We have had a contribution here to-day from a young member of this House, one which I think is one of the best contributions made to this debate, because it was a positive and objective contribution towards a solution of the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves. I commend it to hon. members for their consideration.

I want to start with the hon. member for Karoo. I want to say in the first place that he quoted what I allegedly said in Kimberley. Sir, if what he quoted had been correct, then I as the Minister responsible for a large part of the administration as far as the Coloured population is concerned would have been guilty of a very irresponsible statement. I did not see the report in question because I never read this particular newspaper. [Interjection.] Somebody sent the report to me, but usually I never read this particular paper. I just want to say that that is not at all what I said at Kimberley. I will tell the hon. member what I did say there, and this also links up with the reply that I want to give the hon. member for Houghton. What I said was that we were carrying out a positive policy in connection with the Coloureds in this country and that if the Coloureds allowed their votes to be misused and allowed themselves to be persuaded to appoint to their official bodies persons who are out to wreck this positive work, then the reaction on the part of the Whites would be that this positive work should be discontinued. I said I wanted to sound a warning note against it. Well, what is wrong with that? But, of course, as happens in most cases, the person who reported that meeting probably did not understand what it was all about.

It is intimidation.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton must stop chattering; I have not even come to her yet; she has had an opportunity to speak. Let her be silent for a moment. The hon. member is in the habit of chattering continually. Sir, if my wife chattered like the hon. member I would know what to do with her. There is nothing that works on my nerves more than a woman who continually interrupts one.

The hon. member for Karoo wants to know what I meant. That is what I meant, and I repeat it here this afternoon. If the Coloured people, when they cast their votes, appoint as their official representatives people whose views are diametrically opposed to the views of the vast majority of the Whites in South Africa, the Coloureds are going to find that there will be a reaction on the part of White South Africa against the good work that is being done for them. I should like to see that good work being continued. And that applies to the Progressive Party; that is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, the hon. member is opposing this Bill for one reason only; she is opposing it because she regards this Bill as a means of preventing the election of Progressive Party candidates as members of the House of Assembly; that is why she is opposing it. Sir, let me say this to the hon. member for Houghton: I am not afraid to repeat what I said outside, if you, Sir, will permit me to do so; and I say this with a full sense of responsibility: If the Progressive Party continues to follow the road on which it has placed the Coloureds it will have to bear the responsibility for any reaction that results from its conduct.

We have the fullest constitutional right to state our attitude to the Coloureds.

The Progressive Party is leading the Coloureds on the road towards disaster in this country. They are exploiting the Coloureds for the sake of party political gain.

Nonsense.

Sir, the Progressive Party has lost the confidence of the White electorate; it has been rejected by the White electorate; it has fallen into disfavour and it has been rejected.

It is like a flea on a dog.

The only way in which they can get a platform in this House is by exploiting the Coloured vote, even if they have to buy his vote.

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

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton accused me of making political bywoners out of the Coloureds and this is my reply to her. She accused me of being cynical and I am replying to that allegation.

I stand by every word I said.

I say to her that I am not cynical; I am not making political bywoners of the Coloureds; I say that she is exploiting the Coloured vote for the sake of party political gain, and I say that her party is spending more than it ought to spend in order to get the vote of the Coloureds; I say that it is exploiting the Coloured and buying his vote.

That is a scandalous allegation.

I want to challenge the hon. member for Houghton to stand up and to ask for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry to go into the funds of the Progressive Party and the way in which those funds are being spent on the Coloureds.

I challenge you to repeat that allegation outside.

If she is prepared to ask for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry, then I am prepared to repeat my statement outside.

There’s your opportunity !

I am giving her a chance.

She will never do it.

Sir, neither she nor her party has the courage to ask for the appointment of such a commission.

Helen, you seem to have been up to mischief!

Order!

I come now to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Sir, I do not want to deal with the hon. member at any length. In this debate he carefully ignored the arguments advanced by him in the second-reading debate. It is not necessary for me therefore to reply to him at length because the arguments which he advanced here to-day are diametrically opposed to the arguments that he advanced in the second-reading debate.

That is nonsense. After all, it was not the same speech.

No, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout usually never makes the same speech; every time he speaks he says precisely the opposite of what he said before. It all depends which constituency he represents.

And to which party he belongs.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here this afternoon that when I introduced this measure I said that this measure would divorce the Coloured Representatives from White politics. But the hon. member then went on to say: “In point of fact the Coloured Representatives will now be dragged to a much greater extent into White elections and they will get much more attention from the White voters.” That is what he said here this afternoon. What I said was that they were being divorced from the politics of the Whites, but the hon. member contends that as a result of this Bill they are now being dragged into White politics to a much greater extent.

That will be the effect of it.

That is what the hon. member said here this afternoon; but what did he mention the other day as one of his objections to this Bill? The other day he said that his main objection to this Bill was that it would isolate the Coloureds from the White man’s politics. Sir, that was just a few days ago; he then said that this Bill would isolate the Coloureds. Last Thursday this Bill was going to isolate the Coloureds from White politics. To-day his objection is that the White political parties will bring the Coloured elections into the limelight to a much greater extent. Sir, the hon. member should first go and learn the elementary principles of conduct in this Parliament.

You misread my speech.

No, I listened to the hon. member’s speech and I wrote down what he said. He said the other day that this measure was tantamount to a further meddling with the rights of the Coloureds whose destiny is linked with that of the Whites; he said that it amounted to a diminution of their rights and that was why they were opposing the Bill. To-day he comes along and says that this Bill may place a decisive power in the hands of the four Coloured Representatives.

I did not say that.

He says that when Parliament is dissolved the Coloured Representatives will not even have to seek re-election; in other words, they are being placed in a privileged position over other members. This afternoon he says that this Bill will increase their rights; on Thursday he said that it was diminishing their rights. Somebody apparently got hold of the hon. member during the week-end.

The hon. member went on to refer to the attitude allegedly adopted by this side of the House in connection with the Bantu and the Indians when we were in opposition. But, Sir, the circumstances were entirely different; because in those days this side of the House adopted the attitude that no representation should be given in this House to the Bantu and the Indian. The circumstances there were entirely different; they bear no comparison at all with the present circumstances. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and the then member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) adopted the attitude at the time that those people should not be given representation in this House. Sir, has this side of the House ever said that the Bantu and the Indian should be given representation here? It was always the attitude of this side of the House that Bantu Representation in this House would be abolished, and that is precisely what we subsequently did.

That is not relevant.

Of course it is relevant.

He also mentioned it in the course of his speech here.

The hon. member advanced a further argument here; he said that I had stated that there were precedents for this measure. But, Sir, I made no reference at all in my introductory speech to the precedents to which he referred here. [Interjection.] I did not mention them; here I have the report of my speech. I said that the precedent to which I was referring was the precedent established in the case of the composition of the Other Place, where the term of office of the senator who has to look after the interests of the Coloureds was divorced from the period of office of other senators, in consonance with the principle contained in this Bill. That is the precedent to which I was referring.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member over there should rather give her attention to the question of asking for a commission of inquiry.

You should learn better manners.

Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing further to say. I think the arguments which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advanced here five days ago, cancel out the arguments that he advanced here to-day, and vice versa. The independent representatives of the Coloureds, through the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), have dealt adequately with some of the fallacious arguments advanced here by members on the other side.

I want to conclude by saying that I am aware of the fact that certain forces are being unleashed in this country to wreck the efforts made by the Government to build up harmonious relationships between the Whites and the Coloureds. We shall continue, to the best of our ability, to maintain and to improve those relationships. It is in the interests of the country that we should seek to bring about better relationships. But this Government will not shirk its duty; it will do what it considers to be in the interests of South Africa. If certain forces, for selfish reasons and with ulterior motives, are out to misuse the votes of the Coloureds, they will come up against the united will of a Government which seeks to govern South Africa in the interests of all race groups in this country.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes —90: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.: Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes —44: Basson, J. A. L.: Basson, J. D. du P.: Bronkhorst, H. J.: Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I should like to move—

The hon. the Minister has indicated his agreement.

Agreed to.

On Clause 3,

This clause sets out the objects of the Board. The Minister will recall that in replying to the second-reading debate he indicated that in many respects he had not followed the exact terms of the draft Bill contained in the report of the Hotel Industries Commission, where the objects of the Board were set out quite differently. This clause provides that the object of the Board is to foster the development and improvement of accommodation establishments, but in the draft Bill contained in the Commission’s report, the emphasis was rather laid on the fostering of the development of the hotel industry, and the clause contained in the draft Bill then goes on to talk about maintaining the highest possible standard of services in the hotel industry. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will indicate why he has accepted this much wider wording rather than the more limited wording as contained in the draft Bill included in the report of the Hotels Commission.

There is no particular ulterior motive . . .

I did not suggest that.

The original Bill submitted by the Commission was called the Hotel Industry Bill; this Bill is called the Hotels Bill. There is not a great deal of difference, but in the original draft Bill reference is made to the hotel industry in setting out the objects of the Board. In this clause we refer to the development and improvement of “accommodation establishments”. If the hon. member looks at the definition clause he will see that “accommodation establishment” is defined as meaning “any premises wherein or whereon the business of supplying lodging and meals for reward is or is intended to be conducted”. There may be accommodation establishments which are registered with the Board and there may be others which have made application to the Board for registration. The object in wording the clause this way is to enable the Board to deal with all sorts of accommodation establishments, either hotels or establishments which make application for registration as hotels. The hon. member will see that later on in the Bill we limit the activities of the Board to accommodation establishments which have made application for registration as hotels.

Those who have made application, or those who have in fact been registered?

Both. If a man has an accommodation establishment and he makes application for that establishment to be registered as an hotel, that application may or may not be granted; his establishment will not be regarded as a hotel until such time as it has been registered as such. The idea here is simply to enable the Board to deal with accommodation establishments which have not yet been registered as hotels but which may apply for registration as hotels.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to move—

I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree to this.

I cannot understand why this clause should necessarily stand over. I know that the hon. member asked for the definition clause to stand over and I was quite agreeable, but I do not know why Clause 4 should stand over.

Clause 4 deals with the functions and powers of the Board and Clause 5 with the constitution of the Board. As the hon. the Minister knows there are conflicting points of view regarding the functions of the Board as far as licensed and unlicensed establishments are concerned, and there may be a difference in functions depending on the constitution of the Board. That is our difficulty. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can accept this motion.

I do not see the point but I am prepared to agree to this clause standing over.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

I do not wish to cover the ground covered in the second reading except to say that I think the hon. the Minister is aware, judging from his reply to the second-reading debate, of the importance of the non-liquor establishments as far as the whole of the hotel industry in South Africa is concerned. I think there are probably as many private hotel establishments as there are licensed establishments. It is clear that where a board is to be established which will have such wide powers in the hotel industry as this board, it is highly desirable, if that board is to achieve its objectives, that as wide a representation as possible of the industry concerned should serve on that board.

During the second-reading debate the hon. the Minister explained to us at great length the negotiations he had had with the two existing hotel associations, the one representing non-licensed hotels and the other representing the licensed hotels. He told us about the difficulty he had with these two bodies to reach some unanimity. The non-liquor establishments argue that the liquor establishments do not have a full appreciation of the problems the non-liquor establishments have to face in their trade and the non-liquor establishments feel that, as the clause is worded at the moment, there may be an imbalance on this board in that their interests may not be truly and adequately represented. We on this side of the House feel very strongly that if this board is to achieve its objectives there should be a fair balance of representation as far as the hotel industry is concerned.

I hope, therefore, that in the light of what has been said in the second-reading debate and what I have just said, the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment. I shall not deal with the first part of the amendment which seeks to make it obligatory on the part of the Minister, before appointments are made, to have consultations with the organizations representing the industry as the Minister may from time to time recognize, because I believe the Minister has already given that undertaking to the hotel industry. Then we go the further step in asking that the Minister be committed to make at least one appointment to this board who will be representative of the non-licensed establishments.

There is another aspect with which I want to deal briefly because I think it should be emphasized. It is clear from the subsequent provisions of this Bill that before any accommodation establishment will have the right to call itself an “hotel”, it will have to obtain registration and that that registration will be granted on the basis of the grading laid down by the board. If a grading is to be laid down, it is reasonable to say that the board will be responsible for the classes of grading. How can a board, which is not representative of these interests, lay down a grading which will affect non-liquor establishments when they apply for registration as hotels? I hope the Minister appreciates that point. I hope the Minister will not use the same argument he used in the second-reading debate that he does not know who will apply for registration among the nonliquor establishments. I do not think that is at issue at all. The fact is that the application must come before the board and, if this board is to be of any benefit to the hotel industry at all, it is to be anticipated that all reasonable establishments, whether licensed or unlicensed, if they attach any value at all to the use of the word “hotel”, will apply for registration. I think there are sufficient figures available to the Minister to show that an adequate number will apply to the board for registration. I hope the hon. Minister will accede to the amendment I have moved.

I want to support the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) on this question of representation on the board. We saw representatives from all sides, Sir. It was strongly felt by the nonliquor hotels that they should have representation on the board for reasons I shall not again advance. Those reasons have been put very clearly by the hon. member for Turffontein. I do hope the Minister will accept this amendment because, as has been said during the second reading, the non-liquor establishment is a totally different type of business from the liquor establishment. Where as the licensed hotels rely mainly on the sale of liquor for their income, the non-licensed hotels rely on their table and the accommodation they give. If the non-liquor establishments were to have a representative it would be possible for them to make the board realize their difficulties and their points of view. That will save a lot of trouble in the end because, as I said during the second reading, although they can appeal to the Minister, if their case is put before reasonable men the others will support them. I therefore strongly urge that the non-liquor establishments should have representatives who can put their case clearly because theirs is a unique type of hotel as opposed to the liquor hotels.

I hope the hon. the Minister will not move the amendment which is printed in his name but rather accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein. The Minister’s proposed amendment covers two of the three hotel industry appointees. Of the seven members of the board three will be persons with a knowledge or experience of or special knowledge of some or other aspect of the hotel industry. Those three will be a minority on the board but they will be persons who will provide the experience which will be needed by a board of this nature when dealing with the many and intricate problems which will face it. The other members of the board will be people who do not have that intimate experience. They will be persons whom the Minister has appointed for other reasons. One is specifically excluded from having any connection with the hotel or liquor trade or the accommodation industry. One is almost certain to be from the Minister’s Department and one almost certain to be from the Department of Justice. In other words, the knowledge which this board will have of the detailed intricacies and day-to-day problems of practical hotel-keeping will have to come from these three men. The Minister’s amendment as printed states that he will consult with the organizations which he recognizes and other organizations or persons in regard to two of the three appointments. He does not commit himself that he will accept those recommendations but he will consult with them. The third one will be appointed from a panel of names submitted by such organizations as the Minister may recognize. All we are asking is that the Minister should go that one step further. He is accepting the need to recognize practised and experienced persons with knowledge of the industry as essential to the working of the board. That board has to deal with two types of hotels and within those two types of hotels you get a multiplicity of interests, from the de luxe down to the hotel serving the needs of the public in some small town or village. Therefore the wider the experience and knowledge is spread the better. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and give the assurance that, in the initial year at least, when the regulations and conditions under which hotels may be registered, will be discussed and debated, the views of liquor and non-liquor hotels will be heard and that the Minister will appoint all three of their representatives. We shall be very interested to hear whether the Minister will consider this very small concession which is asked of him.

I support this amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I do so perhaps from a slightly different point of view. If there is any contentious clause in this Bill it is this one which deals with the composition of the board. One might say it is almost the whole crux of the Bill. If this is going to be a workable board it will depend on how it is constituted. It has been said quite rightly that four of the members will be non-hoteliers. They will obviously be people who will have an impartial point of view, people who will be able to assess the position. But you do need people who are undoubtedly experienced in the hotel trade. I believe they should be drawn from those sections of the trade. We have the licensed trade in this country which is the greater section of the trade in some respects and we have the non-licensed section. Consistently, since this Bill has been before this House, there have been representations by both these bodies that they should have representation. If the Minister would provide that they could be represented without any shadow of doubt I think he would be going a very long way in creating a great measure of confidence in what was happening on the board.

Through their associations they will have direct representation on the board and what is done will be done by people who are experienced in the trade. They will have the opportunity of putting their point of view and discussing it fully. There is also a vast difference of approach to the industry between the licensed hotelier and the non-licensed hotelier. They are two different classes of business. They ply the same business; they have a great deal in common but there are a number of differences that will come forward when it comes to grading and grouping.

I say that where a new authority is being created for the first time the hon. the Minister must create the greatest measure of confidence in it. He can do that by accepting the amendment before the Committee.

I realize that hon. members have supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein after careful consideration. I want to tell them that this very matter has received very careful consideration by myself and my Department. I want to give hon. members, as I have already done, the real background to the whole position. The Hotel Commission has produced a very valuable report and the representations made to them by the two hotel organizations were to the effect that they should draw the names of the hoteliers from the organizations. This is not a question of an imbalance of representation. Three hoteliers are to be appointed. As the clause put it: Three shall be persons actively engaged in the hotel industry or possessing such special knowledge and experience, etc.” So these people have to be hoteliers and actively engaged in that industry. The commission considered all the representations made to it and came to the conclusion as set out in paragraph 2 (5) on page 38—

The commission knew what the representations of the organization had been but, even appreciating the importance of the hotel industry so much so that they even called their bill the Hotel Industry Bill, the nevertheless said no, these people must be actively engaged in the hotel industry but their appointment must not be directed by the organizations. I have spoken to members of the commission about this very point. It is obvious that if they thought that they should be drawn from panels submitted by the organizations they would have said so in their draft Bill. But their attitude was that the hoteliers who served on the board, the board which was going to be responsible for the hotel industry, the board which was going to have certain financial power, the board which was possibly going to lend money, must not serve on the board because they were nominated by an association but because they were nominated by the State President. The whole basis of this idea is sound. They are not there as representatives of an organization but as representatives of the hotel industry as such. I discussed this point with the organizations before this Bill was presented by me and they pointed out to me that they considered that they should have representation. Having heard their point of view I was prepared to concede that one of the three hoteliers one should definitely come from a panel of names submitted by the organizations. In actual fact, in terms of the amendment I shall move just now, I shall consult them with regard to the other two members. That was never envisaged by the Hotel Commission. So I have gone a long way to meeting the request for direct representation of the hotel organizations.

I would also point out that the Hotel Commission recommended that there should be eight members to the board of which only three should be hoteliers. I propose seven members of which three are still to be hoteliers. I have consequently not diminished the representation of the hoteliers.

I have listened to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) speaking in support of this amendment and to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). I have no doubt in my own mind that the board will have a liquor man and most likely a nonliquor man.

Why not say so?

For this reason that I don’t know yet to what extent representation for the two groups will be warranted. Once I put it in the Bill, even if not a single non-liquor hotel is registered, I would have to appoint a non-liquor man to the board. I think that is unreasonable. I accept that, in the ab initio stage of this Bill, I should see to it that I get the maximum support from the hoteliers. The Commission point out in their report that FEDHASA, for instance, represent 70 per cent of the liquor hotels; 30 per cent do not belong to any association. If I am bound to hotel organizations entirely I may perhaps not be giving proper representation to those hotels which do not belong to any organization. My object is to get panels of names from each organization and I shall definitely recommend a member from one of those panels. On the face of it, although it is not stated in the Bill, one could say I presume that that name will probably come off the liquor organization’s panel. That means, as hon. members have said, that the non-liquor industry will not be represented. I don’t necessarily want to draw a man from a panel of names submitted by the non-liquor people; I want to have a man on the board who is in the non-liquor hotel business, a person who may not perhaps be very high up in the organization, but a person who knows the basis of a non-liquor hotel. I want to make sure that when I recommend him he will be a man who is actively engaged in the non-liquor hotel business.

This resolution does not tie you to a panel for the non-liquor man.

But it ties me to an organization.

No.

The hon. member says one should be from the nonliquor establishments.

With a knowledge of the nonliquor trade.

Yes. My object will be to appoint, say, one non-liquor man to make sure that I get the co-operation of the non-liquor section. That will also act as an inducement to non-liquor people to run establishments which conform to the standards which will allow them to be registered. I want the sort of man, who will know what is required, to serve on the board. He will be able to lay down the conditions.

Another hotelier has to be appointed. It may be an hotelier who does not belong to any of the organizations or he may belong to some organization. But the basis is that they are hoteliers. I maintain that our differences are very small. The original idea was that the organization should not have a say in the representation. Not only have I conceded in respect of the one. But I have conceded that I will consult with them and hear their views as I shall hear the views of other people in regard to the other two. If I accept the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein I must only consult hotel organizations . . .

Recognized by you.

There are only two organizations which are recognized. There are many who don’t belong to organizations. According to the hon. member’s amendment I must only consult the hotel organizations I recognize. That is a limitation. I say the clause, as worded, meets the whole position. I am obviously anxious that the board should function properly. If I get the right man from the non-liquor establishments I want to see that he functions on the board. If I think a liquor man must be appointed from the panels of names it will be a liquor man. The third man may be appointed from any of the others. This does not alter the fact that all these people are hoteliers and that the hoteliers are represented. The only difference is in the method in which the names are drawn. To judge from the discussions I have had with the associations themselves and to judge from the discussions we have had in this House the whole idea is that this board should function effectively. Once I limit myself by saying in this Bill that I must appoint a non-liquor man I shall have to put him on the board, even if no non-liquor establishments are registered, which will mean that the Board really only controls liquor establishments. In the ab initio stages this is naturally a matter which I shall treat most sympathetic ally when I consider the names as far as the non-liquor people are concerned.

Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (3) Two of the said three members shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the organizations referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) and such other organizations and such persons as the Minister may deem fit.

Sir, all we are asking for is that one of them shall be a non-liquor hotel man. That does not tie the hon. Minister down to choosing any particular individual or anybody recommended to him. If the hon. the Minister says he wants to choose a man who is not high up in the trade but who knows all about the trade, in order to get the cooperation of the non-liquor industry, that does not stop him from choosing somebody high up provided he is a representative of non-liquor Trade. The amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein only seeks to establish that he should be a bona fide hotelier in the non-liquor trade. I cannot see how the hon. Minister can get the co-operation of the non-liquor trade if he does not consult the people in that trade. Surely they know who will represent them best. In the case of farmers they choose the person to represent them on an organization. Why should these people not be allowed to do the same? I cannot see the difficulty of the hon. the Minister’s. All we are asking is that one of them should be a person representing the nonliquor trade. It is for the Minister to choose him. The trade won’t tell him whom he has to recommend but his profession should be that of non-liquor hotelier.

We have heard an awful lot this afternoon about the man who is a nonliquor man. I wonder if the hon. Minister will give some consideration to the non-liquor woman who runs an hotel. Laughter. It is not a laughing matter at all. In fact there are hundreds of women in South Africa who run private hotels and these hotels may very well be registered under this Bill. Women may, in fact, run hotels that have licences. I would recommend to the hon. Minister that he should give very serious consideration to appointing at least one woman onto a board of this kind. There are a great many women who are extremely knowledgeable in this particular field, and I would like to remind the hon. Minister, what he no doubt knows already, that there are various women’s organizations in this country which have approached him on this subject, and I know for a fact that the name of one person in particular—there may be others— has been submitted to the Minister. There are women who have been responsible for inspecting hotels overseas as well as in this country in various capacities before. So it is not a question of there not being anybody competent to do it, and whereas I am not here specifically to plead the case of the women only, I would submit that the Minister might give this matter serious consideration, particularly in view of what the hon. members for Durban (Point) and Green Point have had to say about a nonliquor representative. There are hundreds and hundreds of establishments, very well run establishments too and establishments in good standing that may register with the Minister in terms of this Bill, establishments run by women and women only in South Africa. I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether he is prepared to consider the matter of the appointment of a woman to this Hotel Board.

This is, as far as I recall, the first measure the hon. Minister in his capacity as Minister of Tourism is handling, the first Bill where we are to any extent attempting to improve a Bill in respect of which we all co-operate and which we wish to see placed on the Statute Book. Therefore I hope that the hon. Minister is going to show a degree of statesmanship in regard to what is obviously a very important measure. I hope the hon. Minister will meet argument and will leave his mind open to reconsider amendments which we are submitting. The hon. Minister bases all his arguments primarily on the report of the Hotel Commission, but the hon. Minister must not take comments of the Hotel Commission out of their context and use them to bolster his arguments, which is what he has done, because the Minister refers only to the draft Bill submitted at the end of the Commission’s Report on page 38, which clearly states—

Right. That is in the Clause. But what does the Board actually recommend? That is the issue. Because the emphasis of this commission’s report gave an entirely different emphasis to the whole Hotels Bill. It lays the responsibility for the Hotel Board in regard to the liquor trade in the draft Bill contained in this report. This commission did not consider a distinction between a non-liquor house and a liquor house as far as accommodation establishments are concerned. But what did it actually say on page 5 of its report in dealing with the composition of the Board—

And here we have clearly in the Bill that the hon. Minister has brought forward a different emphasis, an emphasis which recognises, as the Minister was at great pains to tell us in the second-reading debate, the difference and the distinction between an accommodation establishment selling liquor and an accommodation establishment which is not selling liquor. Therefore all that we ask in terms of the board’s report is that a distinction be made in keeping with the principle of the Bill and what the Minister himself recognizes, in regard to the representation of the industry on the board itself.

But there is another important aspect. It must be recognized, and the Minister does, that this Board if it is going to have any success in its operations must have the voluntary support of the hotel industry as such. It is given one whip, the whip of proprietorship in respect of the word “hotel”. But unless it gets the support and the co-operation of the industry, it cannot function adequately to perform the main objectives of this Bill. Therefore if the Minister seeks to support the hotel industry, he must by the same token say “in the Board that I constitute, the hotel industry must have full confidence”. That is the point. But I am worried when the Minister says that he is not going to be bound when he makes an appointment of a non-liquor person that it may be somebody outside the association. If the hon. Minister argues that way, then he is going against the direct recommendation of the report of this Board as well, because what is one of the main principles on which the Board hinges the development of the hotel industry. It hinges it on the recognition of adequate hotel representation as employers, and it even goes so far as to recommend the formation of hotel employee organizations in order that there should be a complete and adequate balance in developing trading conditions in the hotel industry. So with respect to the hon. Minister, I don’t think that his argument holds water when he uses the Board’s report alone to bolster up an argument to refuse a provision in the Bill that non-liquor interests should receive direct representation.

Then I want to come back again to the last argument used by the hon. Minister. The Minister says: I can make an appointment to the Board of a non-liquor man, because I really don’t know when the Board is established how many non-liquor establishments are going actually to apply for registration or in fact take part in the workings of the hotel industry and the activities of this Hotel Board. The Minister says that he does not know. But surely that is rather a negative approach. If the hon. Minister wants this to function, it is clear that he cannot ignore practically on the figures over 50 per cent of the accommodation establishments in this country. We were told that one of the prime objectives of this Bill is the development of the tourist trade, but non-liquor accommodation establishments, on the figures, handle in fact almost as high percentage of the tourist trade, even from overseas, as licensed establishments. So if the hon. Minister wants to develop the industry on the broadest possible basis, the way to do that is to get the co-operation of the non-licensed accommodation establishments who form such an important part of the industry. The best way to get that is to give them representation. If the hon. Minister wants them to register, he should say to the non-licensed hoteliers “Look, I put one of you chaps on this Board, your interests are protected and in all the grading and steps that will be taken to develop the hotel industry in South Africa, your voice will be heard directly in that Board”. Surely that is a small thing to ask when .you are dealing with a Bill whose main object is to function to a very large extent on a voluntary basis. Therefore I hope that the Minister will heed the arguments I put to him.

I do want to reply to the hon. member. My Bill says quite definitely that the Board shall consist of seven members appointed by the State President, of whom three will be persons actively engaged in the hotel industry. “The hotel industry.” But now the hon. member ties up the hotel industry with organizations, and that is the difference. The hon. member says I must read my Hotel Commission’s report. Let me tell the hon. member that they never referred to organizations. They speak of “three members of the hotel industry”. Their suggestion was that the people must be persons actively engaged in the hotel industry. That is what I have done. I have limited myself: These people have got to be in the hotel industry. But now the hon. member says that I should tie that up with representation of organizations. That is where we disagree. I quite accept the other part of the hon. member’s statement that in the appointment of this Board there is a responsibility on me that the industry as a whole should be represented, and if for instance, as I said to him, a liquor man is appointed from the panel, I would say that if I want to cover the industry, I will have to seriously consider the appointment of a nonliquor man also. I completely accept that. I am not going to pick out a man who is in some other trade, I am picking out a man who is in the industry. But it could be a non-liquor man.

In regard to the Minister’s statement that it must be somebody in the liquor industry, does that not require an amendment to state that definitely?

I did not say that I must appoint somebody who is in the liquor industry. I say that I must appoint one man from a panel of names nominated by a hotel organization which I recognize. The only hotel organizations which I know at the moment are Fedhasa and the Federation of Non-Liquor Hotels. Therefore those two will submit panels of names. I recognize them as organizations. That is not what the Hotel Commission said. They said that we must recognize the industry, but not specific organizations. I say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned, I have conceded the point that one will be a nominee from an organization. The other two may or may not be. I also concede the point that if I appoint one who is from the liquor organization, I would consider seriously that one should be a non-liquor hotel man, to get full co-operation. The only difference is that I do not tie myself in the Act, and I do not tie myself in the Act for perfectly good reasons. I do not bind myself because I have got three choices, and those three choices I must exercise very carefully. There are many hotels which do not belong to any organization. I have got to consider them. So I come back to the point that I do believe that in relation to the first draft Bill submitted by the Commission, that I have gone out of my way to meet all reasonable requirements that have been submitted to me. That I did not meet all their requirements, I admit. But as far as it goes, I feel that I have done what can reasonably be expected from me.

I would say to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) that I am sure she realizes that when it says “man” in the Act under the Interpretation Act “a man is a woman”. So it includes women. It does not necessarily limit me to the male sex. I have also received representations from women’s organizations, but there is no hotel organization of women that I know of. I have received representations from various other women’s organizations, but not from an hotel organization, particularly representing women. But it is possible that one of these organizations will recommend a woman. That is their business. I do not know. They lay a panel before me.

The hon. member for Turffontein also said that I have only got a whip in my hand in respect of establishments being allowed to call themselves “hotel”. I do not want any whips in my hands.

I was referring to the Board.

Yes, the Board holds that whip, but the Board will be anxious to co-operate with the hotel industry. In fact, the Board is offering financial assistance and surely that is an inducement. It is not a whip, it is an inducement. I have mentioned previously that . . .

Order. The hon. Minister must confine himself to the clause.

Thank you, Sir. I would say that the hon. member should allow this Board to go through as it is in this clause. The persons who will be nominated on this Board are persons in-respect of whom I appreciate hon. members can eventually criticize me, but as far as inserting additional clauses into this Act, other than the one I have moved, which says that I shall consult these bodies with regard to the other two members, I think hon. members should leave it at that. I consult -them to make sure that I get the proper co-operation from all interested bodies, the organized bodies particularly. In those circumstances I feel hon. members must realize that I have gone out of my way to meet the position.

I wish to suggest a possible compromise to the hon. the Minister. He seems to have clearly made up his mind that he does not wish to bind himself. Now as the clause with the Minister’s proposed amendment stands he is binding himself to one member to be selected from a panel and -two members to be selected after consultation. I would like to ask the hon. Minister to accept in sub-section (2) (a), where he says that one shall be selected from a panel, to state “at least one” shall be selected from a panel. The reason why I suggest that is that that will leave the Minister free. Let us assume that he has received a panel of names from Fedhasa and he has had a list of names from -the non-liquor association, and he finds that the very people that he as Minister had in mind to nominate on the Board—all three of them—are included in those panels. He in fact had intended to appoint them whether they were nominated or not, or he decides that there is a first-class person included in-the Fedhasa panel and a first-class person in the non-licensed panel. As the clause stands now, the Minister would not be able to appoint both those persons. He would only be able to appoint one of them because the law says that one of the three said persons shall be from a panel. Although they may be perfectly satisfactory nominees, the Minister would not be able to nominate them because he is bound to only one nominated from panels.

I could nominate a second one from a panel.

No, the hon. Minister could not, because this lays down specifically that one shall be selected from a panel. If he selected two people who happened to be on a panel, he would be breaking the law, because then there would be more than one person selected from a panel. Now if the Minister accepts the words “at least” then he can make it one or he can make it two. He will not be binding himself to more than one, and he is not binding himself to two, he is merely making it possible for him should such names be submitted, and should -they be acceptable to him, to select more than the one. If the Minister would accept that, he would leave the door open. Then I suggest that the final step would be that we could then accept the Minister’s word that he will give consideration to both liquor and nonliquor in-his appointments, because then it will be possible for him to consider names on the panels of both liquor and non-liquor organizations. He would not be binding himself, but he would be making it possible to do so, whereas as the clause stands, with the Minister’s amendment, if a name is submitted by an organization, such as Fedhasa and a name is submitted by the non-liquor group, on two panels, although both are acceptable to the Minister, he could only choose one, because he is bound to take only one person from a panel and two by consultation. This would often the door, it would retain the Minister’s freedom of action and his freedom of choice. It would not limit his choice. It would leave him free, except that it would not tie him down to a minimum number. It would be at least one but more if he so desires.

Then I would suggest to the hon. Minister that since he has the power to appoint members for three years and his concern is that the non-liquor hotels may not be interested in registration, or may not apply, that at least for the drawing up of conditions and terms for qualifications and the regulations of the Board, he should appoint a non-liquor person for say, one year. By the time that year has expired, the Minister will then be able to see to what extent non-liquor hotels are going to apply, and if it is clear that they are not, then the need for that person would fall away. If on the contrary it is clear that they have applied, the Minister can reconsider such a person’s re-appointment, but he would then not be binding himself for three years. He would have the advice of that person in the drawing up of the basic regulations, but he would not be tied to him for the full life of the Board. So I would like to move—

That then would make it possible for the Minister to act with greater freedom and it would make it possible for him to satisfy us on this side of the House.

This proposal to insert the words “at least” was made to me in the course of our discussions.

But not explained.

I must give credit to the hon. member for putting his case well, but it was explained to me. But suppose I choose one man from a panel, it is not only one man that can be chosen. It does not say “only one”. The fact that I choose one from a panel and that then I consult with the organization with regard to the other two members, does not prevent me from accepting another man from the panel if they make such a recommendation. I am not prevented from appointing such a person from the panel.

I think you are. Why then not accept the amendment?

For the simple reason that I say emphatically that one shall be appointed from a panel. The other two I will appoint and I will consult the organizations, they can give me the names which they want to have on the panel, they can submit all the names again, excluding the one who has already been appointed, and if I appoint one, there is nothing illegal in that. So I suggest to the hon. member that the clause as it reads now, meets every reasonable requirement, the only claim it does not meet is that all the representatives should either come from the organizations or that I should definitely stipulate that one has to come from a non-liquor organization. What the hon. member said about the non-liquor representatives at the second reading I agree to it. I agree that ab initio it is essential that the views of the non-liquor people should be considered, and that is my definite object, and I am sure when it comes to the actual constitution of the Board, it will meet the hon. member’s requirements.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Durrant put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Raw put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Tourism put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Clause 6 (3) says that a person who has reached the age of 65 years shall not be appointed or reappointed as a member of the Board for a longer period than one year at a time. I feel that 65 is a bit young. You might have a man with a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience of these matters. Why not make it 70, and then appoint him every year after that. But if you appoint him for only a year, he is very apt to become a yes-man, because he has not the time to establish his views within 12 months and will therefore turn his sails to the prevailing wind. If you give him three years, like you do with any other Board, he can then prove the views he holds. But the clause as it is now does not really give him a chance to show his worth. I therefore move—

I fully realize the point made by the hon. member and the object was not really to get rid of anybody who is past 65. The only point was this: After a man reaches the age of 65, his appointment should be for one year. I think that is not unreasonable, the point being that obviously many people in public life in South Africa are well over 65, but in the event of a man being over 65 and he has still three years to go, it may happen that in the later years he is quite incapable of carrying out his duties as a member of the Board, and then he is there for three years, whilst under this provision one would only be committed to one year, as he would have to be reappointed from year to year. I would say that that completely meets the position because it does not mean that automatically you will get rid of a man of 65. If I am not mistaken this point was raised in the Commission’s report and they mentioned “70”, but then he should no longer be a member. My point was that a man should continue even after reaching the age of 70, year by year, if capable of carrying out the functions as a member of the Board.

Amendment proposed by Maj. van der Byl, put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I want to explain that this amendment is as the result of the discussions I had with the hotel organization. Originally the Bill read “is directly associated with the hotel industry”. The amendment is to the effect that he has a direct interest in an accommodation establishment or the liquor trade. They consider that it should not be only an accommodation establishment, but also the liquor trade. The chairman should have no direct connection with either of these interests.

I should be glad if the Minister could be more specific in regard to his interpretation of what a direct interest would be in this case. Does the Minister say that a direct interest would even apply to the appointment of a chairman who may have a shareholding or a financial interest in any hotel establishment? Because there may be no direct interest in the sense that the chairman may not be actively engaged in the industry, but he could have a direct interest by holding the majority of shares and influence the affairs of the accommodation establishment.

Obviously a majority shareholding would be a direct interest, but I would say that just holding a number of shares would not be a direct interest. But a direct interest in either an accommodation establishment or a hotel with a licence would debar the man from being appointed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I merely rise to point out to the Minister that he lays down the actual disqualification in respect of membership of this Board. I draw the Minister’s attention pertinently to this matter, because in a later clause we will deal with other matters where the disqualifications are to be laid down by regulation.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I have an amendment standing in my name, but I am satisfied now, on studying the Liquor Act, that an on-consumption licence in fact includes the meal-time wine and malt licence, and therefore I do not intend to move this amendment.

I would like to move the amendments standing in my name—

To omit all the words after “the” in line 6, page 10, to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) and to substitute “accommodation establishment complies with the requirements determined in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 15 for any grade of hotel in any group for which provision is made in terms of this Act and in which such establishment is capable of being included”; in lines 10 and 11, to omit “business intended to be conducted at such” and to substitute “accommodation”; and in lines 13 and 14, to omit “be of such a standard that registration would be justified” and to substitute “comply with the requirements determined in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 15 for any grade of hotel in any group for which provision is so made and in which such establishment is capable of being included”.

These also meet with the requests that have been made.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 30 after “for” to insert “registration or for”.

This sub-section (2), as amended by the Minister’s amendment, will now provide that the Board shall, by notice in the Gazette, determine the requirements which shall be complied with before an hotel can qualify for any particular group or grade. It seems to us that one should not limit these requirements to a particular group or grade, but that one should go to the whole basis of the Act and deal with the question of registration as well. In other words, if there is going to be a determination of the requirements for grouping or grading an hotel, there surely should be requirements for the registration of that hotel. It is true that an hotel as defined in Clause 14 (a), i.e. one that has a liquor licence, is automatically able to register, but in regard to hotels which do not fall in that category, or hotels which are projected and for which application may be made on the plans, they will have to apply for registration; and in the same way as people will know what the requirements are for grouping or grading, so we feel that these requirements for registration should likewise be known and published in terms of this clause.

I would point out to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) that Clause 15 only deals with groups and grades, and Clause 14 deals with the registration, and there he will see that the very point he made is included in the amendments I moved and which have been accepted, namely that the accommodation establishment complies with the requirements determined in terms of Section 15 (2). So in fact the registration is included. I went into this point and I can assure the hon. member that it is covered.

I would have appreciated the point made by the Minister there in respect of the clause as originally quoted, but in view of the amendments now moved by the Minister it is clear that there will be different grades for different groupings: e.g. you may have four actual groupings. You may group a liquor establishment as tourist or non-tourist, and you may group non-liquor establishments depending on whether they will cater for the tourist trade or only for residents, so you may get four different gradings. Before, it was on a very simple basis. The Minister devoted a great deal of his time in the second reading to tourism, but I think there is no question whatsoever now that you can get a group, in terms of the Minister’s amendments, of that nature. Therefore I think there is even more justification for the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown, that the provisions should also be laid down for registration.

If the hon. member looks at the amendments which have already been passed, it refers to accommodation establishments which have to comply with the requirements in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 15 for any grade of hotel in any group for which provision is made in terms of this Act and in which such establishment is capable of being included. So obviously in Clause 15 it lays down that it has to be gazetted, the grades and the groups and the specifications, and in Clause 14 it says that registration must comply with the grades and groupings in Clause 15. So the point is met. Registration is also completely covered by the previous clause.

I think the change which the Minister has made in Clause 14 by removing the words “registration is justified” and substituting “a grade into which an hotel can or will fall” slightly changes the picture. Had it not been for that, you could have had the position where an hotel was registered but in fact not graded. I submit to the Minister that that position, although it no longer obtains in Clause 14, is still possible. It is still possible that the Board may register an hotel pending its classification within the grade. In other words, it examines the hotel and says there is some doubt as to the exact grade into which it will be placed. There may be some improvements suggested which the owner promised to do to put him into a certain grade. Surely the Board would be entitled in such a case to register the hotel pending its ultimate classification into a particular grade or group. In other words, it qualifies for registration and is accepted for registration but it is not yet graded. The grading may take some time, but there is no question in regard to its right to be registered. All that the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown does is to make it clear that if in any such case an hotel is registered but not graded the minimum qualification for registration as such shall be determined and published. I cannot see that it does any harm to have that addition in it. It may not be absolutely essential, but it does no harm to provide for that possibility. The Minister has talked on other occasions of not wanting to be tied. Here we are merely appealing to him not to tie the Board beyond what is absolutely necessary, and by accepting these words proposed by the hon. member for Park-town it gives that extra leeway to the Board to specify minimum registration conditions in such cases where an hotel has not yet been graded. I put it to the Minister in regard to a suggestion which was discussed with the Minister of Justice in regard to the licensing and classification of hotels, a suggestion which may well yet materialize, a suggestion that the present classification system might exclude so many hotels from licensing that there may yet be an ungraded seventh grade of hotels, a grade of hotels under the Liquor Act which does not qualify for the present one star because it does not have the requisite number of bathrooms or the requisite floorspace for the bedrooms, but in all other respects it qualifies. There have been suggestions that that group, otherwise able to qualify, but unable to do so because of physical limitations, can be classified in an unstarred group. What if the Hotel Board accepts the same principle? It would be entitled to do so. It would be an ungraded group of classified and registered hotels which for physical reasons were not classified and graded into the one-star group. All this does is to give that scope to the Board, which the Board may not want to use but which makes it possible for the Board to have an ungraded, registered section of hotels if it wished to do so. They may say: We will register you as an hotel, but you do not qualify for a star. Then it would have the right to do so. I am only asking the Minister to give the Board that option by accepting these words. It cannot do any harm. The Minister must in any case approve the regulations, so this power which we ask should be given to the Board cannot be abused.

On further consideration I find that I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by Mr. Emdin as it is not relevant to the Clause before the Committee.

I understand your ruling, Sir, for the simple reason that this clause deals with groups and grades and the previous clause deals with registration, but I should like to point out to the hon. member that in actual fact the grading is left entirely to the board. I do not know what the board’s grading will be. It may be one star or two stars or three stars. It can also have a no-grade. It may be forced to register a licensed hotel, but it may decide not to grade it as a one-star hotel. So that is covered. The board has the right to declare its grade. It does not have to start off with a one-star grade.

Then an hotel may have a registration without a grade.

That can happen. What the hon. member has mentioned is something I went into. I was also told that if the hon. member looks at Clause 18 he will see that there is a basis of exemption. These are things which the board itself will use to overcome the practical problems which may arise from time to time. I am quite satisfied from the discussions I have had that the very point which the hon. member for Parktown has mentioned and which the hon. member for Point has enlarged upon is completely covered under the board’s functions and powers. It can conduct itself exactly as the hon. member has indicated.

I am sorry, but the Minister is not being frank with the House. He has been given information which he now puts to the House and which does not mean what he has just said. He may under Clause 18 have an exemption. We are asking that in the determination and the publication there shall be a right for the board to accept registration.

Order! I have ruled that amendment out of order.

On a point of order, Clause 14 deals with the actual registration of accommodation establishments. This clause we are now discussing determines the manner in which the board has to make public the basis of its determination. This is a sort of publicity clause for the actions of the board and we are asking that the registration condition should also be made public, and not just the determination.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept it. The hon. member should have moved an appropriate amendment under Clause 14.

Has the Chairman given consideration to Clause 14 (3) which allows registration without classification, without any grades?

The hon. member should have moved amendments with regard to registration under Clause 14, and I cannot accept the amendment which he has now moved under this clause.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Tourism put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

This clause deals with accommodation establishments which do not comply with the determined requirements, which are the requirements laid down by the Hotel Board and in that sense give the board an exemption right to register such establishments. I take it that the provisions of this clause are intended to deal with places which, one may say, have become nationally known, although they do not necessarily use the word “hotel” in the conduct of their business, and they fall into all the categories of necessary service, cuisine, etc., offered to the travelling public which entitles them to a registration. What I should like to know from the Minister is this. How does he read this clause in relation to the subsequent clause we will deal with where the Tourist Corporation as such is entitled to do precisely what the Board is entitled to do as far as these exemptions are concerned? I shall be glad if the Minister will give us some clarity on that issue because we will face the problem again when we come to Clause 37.

This clause is purely an exemption clause. I do not see how the hon. member ties that up with Clause 37.

The exemption is for an hotel which does not comply with the requirements. What are those requirements? Those laid down by the board?

The board must decide on what basis it exempts. This is an enabling Bill. The board must decide what it wants to do. That is why it has the hoteliers there to advise it. It is not for me to tell the board how to operate.

The Minister misses the point entirely. I realize that it is an enabling Bill, but the Minister must not keep shielding behind that. He is the responsible Minister, even though it is an enabling Bill, and the Minister will be responsible for what the board does, and the reports of this board are tabled here under his Vote. He is responsible for all the regulations made by the board. So the Minister must not keep on escaping the issue which I put to him pertinently in order to get complete clarity as to what this clause means. After all, the clause is quite clear. It gives an exemption to establishments which do not comply with certain requirements. Those requirements are laid down in Clause 15. In other words, these are establishments which claim an exemption from the board because they fall outside the scope either of the grading or the grouping which will be laid down by the board. We know there are numbers of establishments which are even internationally known in our country and which may not fall directly under the gradings laid down by this Bill and by this board. The question is how does that tie up with Clause 37, because the Tourist Corporation previously had this responsibility. I may not discuss Clause 37, but I ask the Minister how he envisages that this exemption clause will operate as far as the activities of the board are concerned. If the Minister knows anything about the Bill, surely he can give a straightforward answer to this direct question of mine.

The hon. member for Turffontein always thinks he has the right to be unpleasant. I have been very patient with him. He started off by saying that I would show my statesmanship if I accepted his amendment. Now he is trying to be unpleasant. Well, that is his privilege. This clause means exactly what it says. The Board can exempt certain establishments and therefore they can be registered as hotels. It says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained the Board may, if in its opinion special circumstances exist which make it desirable to do so, with the approval of the Minister, register as an hotel an accommodation establishment which does not comply with the requirements determined in Section 15 (2).” It can do so; I cannot do it. I can only do it if it is recommended to me by the Board. The conditions under which these exemptions are given is a matter for the Board to decide. It is initiated by the Board and not by me. Therefore this is an enabling power given to the Board, and not to me.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I do this because I realize that in fact at the present time there could not be any basis of prescribing disqualification for an ordinary hotelier. The proviso is that only these disqualifications may be made where the Board itself has a financial interest in the hotel, and then it can impose certain conditions under which it is prepared to accept an hotelier to run that hotel. I think that covers also the point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis in his second-reading speech. I trust this will meet the position.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) asked me to move the amendment printed in his name, but on consideration of the Minister’s amendment which he has just moved I feel that this covers the situation and therefore I will not move the amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This would appear to be an omission. In Clause 26 (c) the Minister has stated a proviso which restricts the investigation to matters germane to that investigation. In other words, if books and documents are demanded for production they must be books which are required in terms of that investigation. That proviso was omitted from Clause 26 (1) (b) and I move that it be inserted in order that an inspector may not without reason ask to see, e.g. the private bank balance of any person where that information is not necessary for the purpose of his inquiry.

I have checked the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I wish to refer the Minister to sub-section (1) (a), which deals with the finances of the Board and which empowers it to impose a surcharge. What I should like to know from the Minister is whether the wording of that clause, taken in conjunction with Clause 34 (1). where the regulations are made mean that before these levies are fixed by the Board the Minister will approve of them, and that they will be prescribed by regulation?

The hon. member is correct. Both of these will have to be prescribed by regulation promulgated by the Minister.

In other words, it is quite clear that before any of these levies will be fixed by the Board, the prior approval of the Minister will have to be obtained.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider amending this clause to read as follows—

I want to motivate this proposed amendment as follows. This board is being constituted to control private hotels and companies, which are all private institutions, which have nothing to do with the State as such. Where the board controls private institutions its books and accounts have to be scrutinized by a private auditor. The function of the Controller and Auditor-General is to scrutinize the books and accounts and to report to this Parliament. Parliament is not going to vote money for this board as such . . .

Yes, it will.

Parliament will not vote so much money that it will be necessary for the Controller and Auditor-General to audit the books and accounts of the board. The funds of the board will come mainly from the levies imposed. Clause 29 (1) (b) provides that the board may from time to time lend sums of money for the purpose of—

The Government may advance the money and the board must repay it. We also have a further provision here that the Government may guarantee it. If we want to be consistent, we should also provide that where the Land Bank lends money to farmers, the Auditor-General should audit the books of the farmers. I do not think that we should take this work out of the hands of private firms of auditors. There is also another argument in favour of my proposed amendment, and that is that we are putting too much work onto the Controller and Auditor-General. Where there is such a tremendous shortage of man-power, and where the Auditor-General already finds it very difficult to do all his work, I think it is unjustifiable to put this type of work onto his shoulders also. I think this work should be done by private firms of auditors. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider such an amendment.

I quite realize that the Auditor-General may call in private auditors to conduct and audit under his supervision, but I disagree with the hon. member when he says that this body is entirely separated from the Government as such as far as financial measures are concerned.

Not entirely, but to a great extent.

No, not even to a great extent. This Hotels Board when it comes into operation will draw its finances for administrative purposes by way of levies. When it comes to loan moneys to hotels, these loans are admittedly going to be made through private institutions but under some Government guarantee, otherwise they would simply not be able to raise the money. Under those circumstances it is not unreasonable to provide that the books and statements of account of the board shall be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. I know that in practice he hands out the work to private firms but that work is done under his supervision, and he will have supervision over any moneys which are voted and supplied by Government authorities.

He has the final responsibility.

Yes. he has the final responsibility. He has to report to the Public Accounts Committee of this House. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

In line 1, to omit “in full”; to omit all the words after “supplied” in line 2 up to and including “liability” in line 4; and to omit all the words after “account” in line 7, up to and including “made” in line 9.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 33,

I move—

I understand that the hon. the Minister has no objection to it, and I will therefore not delay the Committee.

I quite agree with it.

I want to talk to subclause (2) (a) which deals with the use of the term “hotel”, “motel”, “hotel”, or any other designation or term which the Minister may specify. It is clear that without this clause this Bill would be just an emasculated measure, because this clause in fact grants proprietary rights to the Hotel Board to the use of the term “hotel”, but it goes beyond that and it is on this point that I want some clarification from the hon. the Minister. The clause goes on to say that apart from the designation or term “hotel”, the Minister may grant protection to any other designation on the recommendation of the Board. The wording of this sub-clause is very wide, because apart from giving a proprietary right to an hotel, it gives a permissive right to the use of any other designation which the Hotel Board may from time to time discover is becoming generally accepted by the public as far as accommodation establishments are concerned. The way this clause is worded it may, in my opinion, place an added power in the hands of the board in that there may be well-conducted establishments which will not apply for registration, which do not have to apply for registration; they may say that they are not going to subject themselves to the red tape of the board, that they are not going to go to the trouble of registering as hoteliers and that therefore they are not going to be applied. It may be against the board’s interest to say: “We don’t want these establishments not to be registered because in that ease we shall have no control over them.” How does the hon. Minister intend to use this additional power? Failing a satisfactory assurance from the Minister in this regard I intend moving for the deletion of this additional permissive right the Minister is given. We are giving the board wide powers in respect of its function. There is the question of finance and other aspects dealt with in Clause 4 which is still to be put to the Committee. But this is going very far because there is no end to the control the board can then exercise if the Minister is prepared to play ball for it in respect of any other derivation. The board may say: We are taking the right to the use of the word “Inn” or the word “Tavern” or any other word the ingenuity of a proprietor may permit him to describe a place. Then the Minister must also remember that there are many well-known establishments to-day that do not use the word “hotel”. The Minister knows when he goes to Durban he does not talk about the Edward Hotel but only of the Edward; or if he goes to Port Elizabeth the Minister does not talk . . .

It it above my income group.

I would like to believe that. I am sure a non-liquor establishment would consider it of great prestige value if the hon. the Minister were to grace it with his patronage; it would soon qualify for registration, apply for it and use the word “hotel”.

It is a very wide power and one which I think we should take a second look at and one in respect of which the Minister has thus far remained silent. The Minister has made the open admission in this House that this clause is the whip over the hotel industry in South Africa.

You said it not I.

Of course I was bold enough to say it openly in the House and the Minister was frank enough to admit it. It admitted that this was the whip. Without this clause the Bill is worthless and the Minister knows it. But now there is this other wide power and I would like to know how the Minister intends to use this power. Has he any other ideas of granting to this Hotels’ Board the proprietary right over any other description of accommodation establishments in future?

The very designation “hotel” by itself limits me. We talk about hotel, motel and hotel. The only power that is given here is when some person does not register because he does not want to or because his standards are not adequate and called himself a “motel” the board will have power to act. But if he calls himself an “inn” or a “tavern” or something like that the Minister or the board has no power. The Minister or the board only has power when he uses the word “hotel” or any derivation thereof to give the impression that he is registered with the board. I can assure the hon. member for Turffontein that that is the limit to which this clause will go, namely, to prevent anybody from using the word “hotel”, “motel” or “hotel” who is not registered.

What is a hotel? I have never heard of it.

It is a floating hotel; not a bottle!

I am glad to have that assurance from the hon. the Minister and I am sure the hotel industry will also be glad. The Minister will admit that the way in which this clause is worded it is not quite clear because it says—

It does not say any other designation of the word “hotel”; it can be any other designation or term which can be “inn”, “tavern” or anything else. May I ask the Minister to be more explicit. Will the Minister accept an amendment to add after the word “term” the words “of such word”. It will then read “. . . any other designation or term of such word the Minister may”, “such word” being the word “hotel”. That will make it perfectly clear. The way it is worded at the moment leaves no doubt whatsoever that the board may claim the proprietary right to any word other than the word hotel.

I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this clause also refers to grading so the second portion “or any other designation or term which the Minister may . . .” can apply to other factors. This can only apply when the board recommends it and the board consists of hoteliers. Surely they won’t make foolish recommendations. The clause as it stands is quite satisfactory and should not cause any suspicion in the mind of the hon. member.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Raw, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 34,

I move the second amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty)—

To add the following sub-section at the end of the clause:

1. (4) The Minister shall, whenever this is possible, circulate to any organizations recognized by him as being representative of the hotel industry a draft of any regulations he may intend to make in order to afford an opportunity to comment thereon.

I may mention that the first part of the amendment falls away in view of the Minister’s amendment in regard to disqualification of hoteliers. In view of the amendment to Clause 23, the first part becomes unnecessary. The proposed sub-section here merely lays down that where practicable, where it is possible, the Minister will circulate draft regulations to recognized organizations so that they may make their comments before their regulations are finally promulgated. I understand it is the Minister’s intention to do so, and this merely says so in the Act, for clarity.

In actual fact the matter will be handled from a practical point of view even further than suggested by the hon. member. First of all, representatives of one of the organizations will be on the board, and such a representative will obviously be in a position to convey to his organization any ideas they have with regard to regulations, or subscriptions, or matters of that kind. So they will definitely be informed.

But not only that, I would suggest to the hon. member that the other two hoteliers will also be concerned with anything to do with hotels. Moreover, in actual fact, I would say as the Minister, that if there are any matters of great import to the industry as a whole, these regulations might have to be gazetted well beforehand so that all interested parties, not only the organizations, will be aware of what the intention is, and this will be the manner in which it will be handled in practice. So I would say to the hon. member that in actual fact this proposal would only give me the responsibility of seeing that the organization will be informed by circular, but I think I am going very much further, as explained by me.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 36,

I move—

In line 50, to omit “deletion of paragraph (u)” and to substitute “insertion in paragraph (u) after the word “premises” of the words ‘(other than licensed premises registered as an hotel in terms of the Hotels Act, 1965)’”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 37 put and negatived.

On Clause 39,

This is the clause that amends Section 9 of the South African Tourist Corporation Act, and it is consequential to the passing of this Bill. But the powers in this clause have never been exercised by the Tourist Corporation, as the hon. Minister knows. They have never taken steps to recommend, as far as I am aware, any hotel or accommodation establishment in South Africa as part and parcel of the tourist facilities that we offer as a country. They have never exercised that right, and here the Minister is giving an exemption as far as the powers of the Tourist Corporation are concerned in respect of accommodation establishments which are registered as hotels under this Bill, quite obviously because one of the functions of this Hotel Board will be to publicize the hotel that is registered. Now my problem is this: What hotels will the Tourist Corporation here grade, register, classify and issue certificates of registration to? It seems to me you are going to have the anomalous position that the Minister as Minister of Tourism is responsible for the hotel industry and one of his functions will be to propagate hotel establishments for the tourist trade, and on the other hand, you have the Tourist Corporation which will also now be exercising this power and drawing up their own special list of tourist accommodation establishments. It occurs to me that that would be an anomaly, and I would like to know from the hon. Minister how these two independent powers, exercised by two independent bodies, are going to be dovetailed so far as the activities of the Department of Tourism are concerned. Is it the Minister’s intention that the Tourist Corporation will draw up its own list of establishments which will not apply for registration under the Hotel Bill? How are these lists going to work? I think the Minister should offer some clarification in regard to these issues before he asks the Committee to pass this clause.

The South African Tourist Corporation was amended, I think, last year, whereby the Minister could designate certain powers contained in the SATOUR Act to himself, to his Department, or to the provinces. Here it talks about “accommodation establishments” and accommodation establishment could be for instance caravan parks and the Minister may decide to either allow SATOUR to register caravan parks, or more likely the provinces to register caravan parks. They are accommodation establishments, and I just give this as an example. But SATOUR or any other body, including the Liquor Board will have no jurisdiction in respect of hotels registered under the Hotels Act as far as registration and grading are concerned, and this is now excluded specifically from the SATOUR Act.

The hon. Minister mentioned the provinces, but one of the functions allocated to the Tourist Corporation was to publish a list of such establishments.

It was also amended to say that the Minister could designate that to other bodies, like the provinces, or his own department. So it does not necessarily lie with SATOUR.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses I and 4 standing over.

Clause I put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

In lines 3 and 4, page 4, to omit “accommodation establishment” and to substitute “hotel or of an accommodation establishment for the registration of which as an hotel, application has been or is intended to be made”; to omit paragraphs (i) and (j) and to substitute the following paragraphs:

1. (i) to hire, acquire, let or sell any movable property, and, with the approval of the Minister—

   1. (i) to hire or acquire any immovable property, other than hotel property; and
   2. (ii) to hypothecate, let or sell any immovable property;

2. (j) with the approval of the Minister—

   1. (i) in order to protect the financial interests of the board, to hire or acquire any immovable hotel property in respect of which any money has been lent or advanced in terms of paragraph (b);
   2. (ii) to hire or acquire any immovable hotel property which the board requires for the purpose of exercising its powers under paragraph (e);
   3. (iii) to acquire any existing hotel business which is conducted on any hotel property hired or acquired in terms of sub-paragraph (i) or (ii), or to establish a new hotel business on any hotel property hired or acquired in terms of sub-paragraph (ii); and
   4. (iv) to conduct or dispose of any hotel business acquired or established in terms of sub-paragraph (iii);

I will not repeat what I said in the second reading, but I feel there should be somebody to deal with the fruit in these hotels, who is an expert on this subject. In most hotels you go to you find that the fruit served is a disgrace to South Africa, and it should be one of our showpieces. I should therefore like the Minister to recommend that to the board. In regard to the question of service, no decent hotel can be run unless the servants are properly trained and they are allowed to be on the premises. The Minister must therefore try to protect the hotel-keepers, who are trying to run decent hotels, from other departments which interfere and chase these servants off the premises.

I do not wish to debate the question now, but I would like the Minister to check on this and if necessary deal with it in the Other Place. There is a distinction drawn between immovable property and immovable hotel property. He takes the power to sell any immovable property, and then in a separate clause he takes power to purchase immovable hotel property. The question is whether immovable property which the board is entitled to sell includes immovable hotel property. I ask the Minister to check that in case there is a clash there.

There is one point I briefly want to put to the Minister. The powers contained in his amendment are quite wide. It says that the board may protect its financial interests. May I just put an example to the Minister. The board may have made an investment in a certain hotel to assist its development and subsequently another hotel opens up across the road.

My amendment clarifies that position.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of Bill put and agreed to.