Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

I should like to take this opportunity to place on record my personal appreciation and that of the Administration for the commendable manner in which my predecessor conducted affairs during his term of office in a period when South Africa was experiencing its worst economic recession since the depression of the 1930s. His devotion to his task has served as an inspiration to us all.

The services that a national transport undertaking of any country renders are of such vital importance that every sector of the economy is today to a large extent dependent on, or at least affected by, those services for its continued prosperity. Although the administrative responsibility is enormous, it offers an inspiring challenge to the ingenuity, perseverance and dedication of Management and staff.

Because of the impact of the national transport system on the economy in general it stands to reason that in determining policy in the short and the long term the closest consultation between the Administration and the private sector is a prerequisite for effective co-operation. For these reasons I have, right from the outset, adopted a policy of consultation on a continuous basis between representatives of the private sector, members of the Railway Board and Management and the staff associations. According to the evidence available to me this new approach is welcomed by all concerned and I propose to proceed on these lines in the future.

In view of the fact that the South African Railways is responsible for the transport of some 690 million rail passengers per annum, 94% of whom are commuters in the metropolitan areas, I have deemed it my responsibility to acquaint myself with the problems of the commuters. To enable me to do so I arranged for an inspection on the suburban trains in the Cape Peninsula during September 1979 and I have undertaken to do the same on the Witwatersrand and Durban suburban services.

As I believe that the eventual success of any undertaking, and more specifically one of the magnitude of the South African Railways, is determined by the dedication of the people within the organization, and because I believe that such dedication will only be forthcoming if there is acknowledgement of the services rendered by them, I have made it my personal task to meet the workers at their places of work. I also have regular meetings with Management and the staff associations to discuss such matters as service conditions, the objectives of our organization and ways and means to attain these objectives.

2. OVERALL POLICY AND PHILOSOPHY

1. (a) Synchronization: SA. Railways and State

While the South African Railways is essentially an undertaking that must, and rightly so, provide a viable commercial transport service which will meet all the economic needs of the country, it should not operate solely in that isolated environment. Although it is acknowledged that the South African Railways does not form part of the Public Service it has nevertheless, in concept and function, an obligation to operate in such a way that it serves national objectives, policies and strategies. There should, therefore, be adequate synchronization of policies and action between the State and the South African Railways. This applies in particular as regards economic policies and strategies in relation to growth, employment, inflation and co-ordination of and setting priorities for infrastructural development.

The reason for this lies in the strategic importance of our transport infrastructure. This importance is not based on purely economic considerations but extends to many other areas. In times of emergency, when normally accepted priorities are disrupted, not only the transportation services but also its various associated service facilities, workshop repair, maintenance and manufacturing capacity, and staff who have the necessary expertise to meet specific situations, should be available to assist the other sectors of Government.

The Railways cannot remain aloof when national problems arise from time to time or escape the responsibility of making a contribution towards solving them. I quote some topical examples:

1. (b) Energy situation

Foresight pays dividends. Although the South African Railways embarked on a programme for eliminating steam traction long before the oil energy crisis, it did not rely only on oil for energy. The conversion to diesel traction on lines carrying heavy traffic was considered an interim measure until such time as electrification became economically feasible. At the same time steam and diesel were to be used on those sections and in those areas where electrification could not be justified by the volume of traffic carried in relation to the capital invested.

In the light of the rising costs of liquid fuels and the uncertainty of availability, electric power has now become more cost competitive and a more secure alternative. As a result we are now spending up our electrification programme and at the same time taking advantage of the new developments in alternating current traction equipment as opposed to the traditional direct current systems used hitherto.

The Railways’ direct contribution to the country’s efforts towards reducing reliance on imported fuels is reflected in the fact that on completion of this program some 85% of its gross ton kilometres will be derived from coal-based energy, namely electrification 80% and steam 5%. The cost and strategic benefits to the rest of the country are incalculable.

In its efforts to reduce reliance on imported liquid fuels the Department is, also in collaboration with the CSIR, conducting extensive tests with alternative internal combustion fuel mixes for use in locomotives and road vehicles. Various mixes involving diesel with naphtha, ethanol or methanol, and petrol with ethanol or methanol, have been tested and the results so far have been highly promising.

While effecting economies in fuel consumption, our airline is still maintaining those enhanced standards of safety and service of which South Africa is so justly proud. Apart from the immediate and short-term steps to meet the emerging exigency, such as resorting to steeper climbs to attain economic operating height more quickly; flying at the most economic speed and altitude for the aircraft type; reduction of ground idling time; consolidating and rationalizing frequencies, and many other similar measures, the past and present long-term policy in regard to the fleet composition has paid handsome dividends. Apart from taking advantage of the extra seating made possible by the widebodied aircraft, the accent has also been placed on acquiring aircraft with low fuel consumption, especially with regard to flying performance and payload capacity.

In all other branches of the Service—particularly also in the road transport and harbour services and in the workshops—fuel economy measures are being applied or tested. These range from rationalization of road service schedules to the provision of coal-fired gas producer plants in workshops, and include a reduction in trips of non-revenue-earning vehicles; increasing the carrying capacity of road vehicles; reducing empty return trips; modification of plant and equipment; tuning with closer regard to altitude effects; fitting two-speed control to Voith-Schneider tugs; improved control of all floating craft movements; axle box oil reclamation, and the application of solar energy for water heating in ablution blocks.

1. (c) Inflation and Productivity

The most serious problem affecting the economies of the industrialized countries of the world is inflation. In its domestic context it has a retarding effect on economic growth. Not only is the Railways affected by this problem but it has a material contribution to make in combating inflation. Naturally, this can only be done if tariff increases are kept at lower levels than cost increases. The only way in which the Administration could absorb some of the cost increases is to raise productivity. While the measure of utilization of our capacity is dependent on the economic conditions of the country, the Railways has nevertheless a record of keeping its productivity on a very satisfactory level. In view of the upswing in economic activity we shall be in a much better position to make optimum use of our transport capacity.

As rail transport is the main arm of the Department’s transport services, operating efficiency is of the essence in ensuring greater productivity and reduced costs. Various means are employed to achieve this. These include, inter alia, the use of more powerful locomotives, trucks with a higher carrying capacity and trucks designed to carry specific commodities to best advantage, the operation of longer and heavier trains so as to convey greater tonnages with fewer trains and staff, modern and sophisticated largely automated train control systems, the expansion of the zoning scheme for traffic and the introduction of through working of locomotives. Computerized truck control is also in operation to ensure better use of the entire truck fleet, and efforts are continually made to attain greater safety in so far as the human element is concerned. In fact, since 1975-’76, train accidents have been reduced by 33,2%.

1. (d) Economic interdependence of Southern African States and the role of the South African Railways and Airways

Mr. Speaker, in his opening address to Parliament at the commencement of this session, the State President referred to the contribution of the South African Railways towards ensuring stability in this subcontinent. Although criticism is sometimes levelled at us in this regard, I am sure that all hon. members of this House will agree that sound trade relationships, based on a pragmatic realization of mutual interdependence but without loss of individuality, constitute the key to prosperity, and thus continued peace and security.

A real benefit we can bring to our neighbours in the sphere of transportation is our unique knowledge and understanding of the problems peculiar to Southern Africa. In this we have a proven advantage over those countries in other parts of the world—and here I refer in particular to the Communist countries and their satellites—that have exported their expertise and capital, under the pretext of philanthropy but in reality to further the creed of socialism, and eventual enslavement. The predominant principle is that our dealings with neighbouring States, whether they relate to our export of expertise or hardware, the through carriage of passengers and goods or the interchange of rolling stock and related equipment, must be based on commercial practice and conducted in a spirit of absolute equality. The South African Railways’ policy in this context has contributed in no small measure to the success of the Government’s policy of decentralisation of industries, and thus to the development of our Black States, three of which have already achieved full independence. The rail and/or road transport services in these States are operated, in terms of formal agreements, by the South African Railways until such time as they wish to do so themselves. In fact, a considerable number of citizens of Transkei have already been trained by the SAR and have taken over most of the internal railway tasks. In Bophuthatswana, where the railway lines traverse that territory, and do not terminate there as is the case in Transkei, station staff not concerned with operating matters are being replaced by trained Bophuthatswana citizens.

In the field of air transport, South African Airways has firmly established links with Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, Zambia and Transkei.

However, Mr. Speaker, important as our external relations may be in times such as these when no effort is spared by our detractors to isolate our country from the rest of the world, it can never take precedence over internal peace and stability. Bearing in mind the unique composition of South Africa’s population, it is the responsibility of each and every individual, group, organization, and Government Department to ensure that harmonious relations between the population groups are maintained at all times.

In its dealings with the public the Railways has, in the nature of things, to handle a massive number of people in confined spaces such as station platforms and trains, which can lead to explosive situations. In this connection it may be mentioned that some 650 million passengers are conveyed on the suburban services annually. The prevailing harmonious relations and relatively incident-free working bear testimony to the commendable manner in which the staff have acquitted themselves of their task, often under trying circumstances, and I should like to place on record my gratitude for this.

1. (e) The export promotion drive

Maintaining a favourable balance of payments on the current account is naturally a high economic priority. A major contributing factor towards attaining the present favourable position is the success achieved in the promotion of the export of raw materials, minerals and manufactured goods.

The Department’s contribution to the export promotion drive illustrates its flexibility in adjusting its priorities to meet changing demands on its capital and manpower resources, its traffic patterns and its carrying and handling capacity.

The exploitation of the country’s vast and largely dormant reserves of natural resources—coal, ores and other minerals—obviously had to receive high priority and a highly developed rail and harbour system was imperative to augment the existing transport infrastructure in order to cope with the considerable quantities of bulk traffic that would be generated.

The combined foreign exchange earnings of the Richards Bay and Sishen-Saldanha Bay projects by the end of 1979 totalled no less than R1 650 million. In 1976-’77, the first year of operation of the coal scheme, the tonnage conveyed by rail amounted to under 6,8 million tons while in the first ten months of this year over 18 million tons were recorded—a yearly equivalent of approximately 21,7 million tons. The annual flow of coal through Richards Bay is expected to reach 31 million tons by January 1983 and 44 million tons by the end of 1985.

In 1977-’78—the first year of the operation of the Sishen-Saldanha Bay project as a Railways and Harbours asset—12,9 million tons of iron ore were railed to Saldanha Bay. In the first ten months of the current financial year some 15,2 million tons were conveyed; an annual equivalent of approximately 18 million tons. Shipments through Saldanha Bay of lead and copper concentrates from the Aggeneys area, at an expected initial rate of 165 000 tons per year, commenced last month. The necessary facilities have been provided.

The export drive has brought about an interesting development in the pattern of general cargo handled at South African ports since 1970. Whereas, during the period 1970 to 1975, more general cargo was imported than exported, this pattern has been reversed, and by 1979 exports of general cargo exceeded imports by 65,8%.

3. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT’S ACTIVITIES

1. (a) Economic review

Before I deal with the Department’s activities for the current financial year, a brief review of the current economic situation would seem appropriate.

The moderate economic revival that became evident in 1978, gained further momentum during 1979, thanks mainly to increased exports—mainly in the mining sector—the stimulatory measures flowing from the budgets of the previous year, as well as the other fiscal and monetary measures that were announced in the course of 1979. This all points to a realization of the economic growth rate of 3,5% forecast by my predecessor for 1979-’80.

While other sectors came up to expectations, or fared even better, the commercial sector reflected a positive growth only late in 1979. This was due to accelerated consumer spending, which remained tardy during the first part of the financial year. The result was that the Administration’s high-rated traffic did not come up to expectations. On the other hand the conveyance of low-rated traffic rose strongly, mainly on account of exports of coal and iron ore; the latter the result, inter alia, of supply problems experienced by the Republic’s competitors in this field.

As a result of the world-wide energy crisis and the effect it has on South Africa, steps had to be taken to expedite research into and the building of installations for the production of alternative liquid fuels. Although bringing cost increases in its wake, the energy crisis has brought about a change in the transport pattern in that there has been a shift in the use of the different modes of transport. This led to an increase in traffic for the Railways.

As regards the economic prospects for 1980-’81, it is anticipated that an increase in consumer confidence and spending will give further stimulus to the economic revival. An expected rise in real salaries and wages over a wide front, more freely available credit at reasonable interest rates, and agricultural prospects which are in the main favourable, are all factors that will add further support to the expected rise in consumer demand. These expectations will further strengthen internal business confidence, with the result that fixed investment will gain further impetus during the course of the year, concurrently with a lessening of spare production capacity.

From the foregoing it is evident that the economy is now moving into a full revival phase, which will favourably affect all sectors. Added to this, the prospects for the export of minerals—especially energy providers—and agricultural products are most promising.

It is therefore clear that the balance of payments should not have a retarding effect on economic growth, notwithstanding the increased imports expected to flow from the economic recovery and the present relatively low level of inventories.

The two prime problem areas in the economy are the still prevalent high rate of inflation and the shortage of skilled labour. However, encouraging signs are that the tempo at which inflation has been rising is now slowing down, while a repetition of the fuel price rises of last year is not foreseen for 1980-’81. These factors support the view that the inflation rate might be lower than during 1979-’80. With regard to labour, the Government has already introduced various measures which, with the co-operation of the private sector, should also alleviate this problem.

All economic indicators point to an anticipated growth rate of slightly more than 5% in 1980-’81. This view is confirmed by representatives of the private sector organizations with whom I had discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to give the House a review of the activities of the various services during the financial year now drawing to a close.

1. (b) Main Operational Activities

1. (i) Passenger Services

During the period April to December 1979 the total number of passenger journeys on the main line and suburban services increased by 10,4% to 510,4 million, compared with the corresponding period in 1978.

First class main line journeys advanced by 32,3%, second class by 13,6%, and third class journeys by 12,7%; an overall increase of 13%

It is clear that there has been a remarkable swing towards long distance rail transport since the most recent increases in fuel prices. This trend can be expected to accelerate should the price of fuel increase further.

The same factor was no doubt also responsible for similar increases in suburban journeys which, despite the recent economic slackness, increased by 14,9% and 9,3% for first and third class journeys, respectively.

As a result of the present heavy demand for accommodation on main line trains, a pilot computerized reservation system—to form part of the ultimate computerized passenger reservation scheme envisaged for completion in August—was recently installed at Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. This interim system enables passengers to effect and confirm forward and return reservations at the same time between these three centres.

1. (ii) Goods Services

The total volume of revenue-earning goods traffic conveyed during the period April to December 1979 increased by 13,6% compared with the same months of the previous year. This increase was, however, mainly in respect of low-rated traffic which rose by 15,4%—-due largely to increasing tonnages of export coal and ores—as against 2,1% for high-rated traffic. In fact, high-rated traffic, as a percentage of total traffic, actually decreased from 13,4% during the period April to December 1978 to 12% during the corresponding period of 1979.

While the tonnage of high-rated traffic, amounting to 15,7 million tons, conveyed during the period under review, was still some 3,3% below the anticipated volumes, there are hopeful signs that the downward trend experienced during recent years has been halted. The expected revival in the economy should bring about a further improvement in such traffic in the year ahead.

The increase of 39,6%, from 1 million tons in the period April to December 1978 to 1,4 million tons this year, in the volume of containerized traffic conveyed by rail, indicates that this form of transport is rapidly gaining popularity.

1. (iii) Road Transport Services

The number of passengers conveyed by the Department’s road transport services during the first nine months of the 1979-’80 financial year increased by 31,6%, from 9,5 million to 12,5 million compared with the corresponding period of the previous year. First class passengers increased by 17,3% and third class passengers by 32,7%. This improved support can be ascribed mainly to the rise in fuel prices.

Goods tonnages conveyed over the same periods reflect a small decline of 1,5% to 2 367 244 tons, indicating a halt in the previous year’s trend when a decrease of 3% was recorded.

Livestock traffic, which had reflected a steadily decreasing tendency in previous years, increased by some 26,3% during the first nine months of this financial year.

1. (iv) Harbours

The level of activities at the Republic’s harbours continues to increase. While general cargo landed during the period April to December 1979 decreased by 3,8%—mainly as the result of smaller tonnages of general merchandise imported—compared with the corresponding period of 1978, the tonnage of bulk cargo landed increased by 59,5%.

General cargo shipped increased by 5,4%, mainly as the result of increased quantities of agricultural products and fruit but there was a decrease in the tonnage of general merchandise shipped.

Bulk cargo shipped increased by 32%, mainly on account of the increased flow of export coal and ores.

Although containerization is still a relatively new method of cargo handling in this country, the handling rates achieved at our three main container ports compare most favourably with their European counterparts. The Administration is justifiably proud of the achievements of its port staff.

Although the number of overseas containers handled at the ports during the months April to December 1979 reflects a sharp increase of 32% over the figure for the same period in 1978, the number was still only some 88% of the original projection. The increased activity that should flow from the expected general economic improvement should, however, go far towards closing the gap.

1. (v) Pipelines

While the quantity of crude oil conveyed by pipeline during the period April to December 1979 increased moderately compared with the corresponding period of 1978, the volume of refined products decreased, chiefly due to less naphtha having been imported.

The section of the Durban-Witwatersrand pipeline from Secunda to Alrode will be commissioned during the coming year to link SASOL 2 with the existing pipeline distribution system when that new plant comes on stream. I understand my colleague will make an announcement in this regard. However, by that time the Natref-Sasol marketing area is likely to be extended and the consequent change in the distribution pattern could result in a reduction in supplies to certain inland areas over the longer distance from the Durban refineries with a corresponding decrease in pipeline revenue.

1. (vi) Airways

While Airways revenue for the period April to December 1979 totalled R406,3 million against an original estimate of R376,9 million, reflecting an improvement of R29,4 million, expenditure amounted to R442,7 million against an estimate of R362,8 million, an increase of R79,9 million. The resultant loss of R36,3 million against an estimated profit of R14,1 million represents an overall deterioration of R50,4 million. Expenditure rose dramatically following the excessive rise in fuel prices during the current financial year.

Following discussions with IATA at the end of January 1980 as a result of the latest oil price rises it was decided to increase tariffs on international flights by between 5 and 19%.

The South African Airways’ international operations have also been adversely affected by developments in the key traffic-generating countries, which experienced a slowing down in economic activity, continued acceleration of inflationary pressures, and instability in exchange rate markets during the last few months. Nevertheless, more recent economic conditions in the industrial countries and elsewhere were sufficiently satisfactory and provided generally good support to the expansion, although small, of the South African Airways’ international traffic.

Economic activities in South Africa are now showing the symptoms typical of the initial phase of a fairly strong economic revival. The positive economic conditions to which I have already referred, are reflected in a healthy growth rate in passenger, mail ton and cargo ton kilometres.

On the domestic market, with business and consumer confidence being restored, the prospects for the South African Airways’ domestic operations for 1980 look promising, and increased consumer spending should provide increased demand for air travel.

1. (c) Capital Expansion Programme

While transportation is today, despite the immense strides being made with automation, still a matter of manpower plus machine, vast capital investment is required to provide the necessary physical infrastructure and the related operational equipment. The Capital Budget now being placed before the House for consideration totals some R1 600 million, R965 million of which represents expenditure previously approved for works and acquisitions now in hand, R277 million in respect of new works and acquisitions, and R358 million for the repayment of loans. Details of the provisional sources for the financing of the capital programme are as follows:

It will be noted that in keeping with its established policy of looking to itself for financing part of its capital requirements, some R579 million will be financed from the Administration’s own sources.

Various major railway projects approved in previous years, were either completed during the current financial year, or had reached the stage where they could be taken into use.

Major new railway works expected to be completed during the coming year include the new electrified double line between Nyanga and Strandfontein; the short-term aspects of the scheme to improve the suburban transport facilities on the Cape Western System—this, together with the long-term scheme which should be completed in 1985, will cost some R64 million—track and signalling improvements between Touws River and De Aar; sextupling of the line between Durban and Umgeni; the relocation of Berea Road station, and improvements between Vooruitsig and Newcastle. I may also mention that stage 3 of Durban’s new station, comprising, inter alia, the main line station building and concourses, three main line and two suburban platforms, and a road transport service bus terminal, is expected to be completed in September this year.

Major harbour schemes recently completed, or nearing completion, include the facilities at Saldanha Bay for ore and concentrates exports; harbour and related railway facilities for container traffic at Port Elizabeth; Piers Nos. 1 and 2 at Salisbury Island, Durban, and a tanker berth at Richards Bay to accommodate vessels up to 50 000 tons.

Major new railway works provided for, include the electrification of the lines from Port Elizabeth to De Aar; East London to Springfontein; Bloemfontein to Noupoort, and Pyramid to Pietersburg. The total estimated cost of these schemes amounts to more than R310,5 million.

I have already introduced legislation to provide for the construction of a new guaranteed line to serve the rapidly developing Atlantis area of the Western Cape, at an estimated total cost of R20,9 million. Not only should this give further impetus to that area, but it should comprise a valuable extension of the transport infrastructure of the Western Cape as a whole.

To cope with the increased export of coal through Richards Bay, additional track and harbour capacity will have to be provided timeously. It is proposed, therefore, to embark on a programme of extensive improvements to the Broodsnyersplaas-Richards Bay line, the cost of which is estimated at R255 million. The additional coal berth to be provided at the harbour, together with the harbour rail facilities, will cost a further R32 million.

Although the steps taken in recent years to relieve congestion on the Soweto train service, such as the lengthening of trains and platforms, have served to ease the situation, it is foreseen that the expected economic upswing will result in overcrowding—there are, in fact, signs that this has already started.

Attention has been given to a more radical long-term solution to the problem by constructing a connecting line between George Goch and Kaserne West. An amount of R3,2 million was voted last year for the acquisition of the necessary land and it is now proposed to proceed with the actual construction. In effect the project will provide a circular commuter service from Soweto to Johannesburg, via the Rand mineral line, Kaserne and George Goch, and back via Langlaagte and New Canada.

This scheme, together with the increase in capacity that has become available due to lengthening of trains on the Soweto service, should significantly reduce congestion and enable the Department to cope with further increases in commuter traffic to and from Soweto. The mixed service from the West Rand, which is heavily patronized, will also be improved with the introduction of this line. The cost of the link line is estimated at some R20,6 million.

Coal-fired gas producer installations, as part of the energy saving campaign, are to be provided at the Salt River, East London, Bayhead, Pietermaritzburg, Germiston and Koedoespoort workshops at a cost of R20,4 million.

Two new staff hostels are to be provided at New Brighton, Port Elizabeth, and at the new central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein, at a combined cost of R36,9 million.

New rolling stock including 135 electric and 100 diesel electric locomotives, 150 third class main line coaches and 4 780 goods wagons are provided for in the estimates at a total cost of R319,4 million.

Provision is also made in the estimates for expenditure of R16,4 million on additional road transport vehicles of various types.

†4. MANAGEMENT, MANPOWER AND STAFF

I have taken the opportunity to have a close look at the various facets of this large and diversified organization. It is, of course, axiomatic that any undertaking is only as good as its management. I have been pleasantly surprised at the high standard of efficiency which is apparent at all levels. But it is also clear to me that to maintain a high standard of efficiency, there is a decided need to make adaptations, particularly at management level, to keep pace with developments in order to meet ever increasing challenges. To this end it is my thinking that the managerial structure could be rationalized by a more effectual grouping of managerial functions, and by delegating greater autonomy to the main functions thus ensuring even better co-ordination at top management level. I am at the moment considering proposals in this regard.

As regards the effective utilization of available manpower, various schemes have systematically been introduced with a view to achieving greater efficiency and productivity.

These schemes involve the establishment of realistic productivity levels, adjusted spans of control which are practical and effectual, as well as rationalized organizational structures.

The management development programme continued, and new projects have been launched for the selection and training of supervisors, station masters, police officers and marketing officers, while special courses were also arranged for liaison officers (non-White Affairs).

Continued efforts are being made to increase productivity by refining the selection of personnel at service entry.

The South African Railways is fully cognizant of the necessity for training its staff and is involved in a continuous process of training in a wide range of activities to ensure that the highest degree of efficiency and productivity is maintained.

In addition to the 3 400 servants who received training at the Railway College during 1979, some 3 200 received training at the six branches of the College at Bellville, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Wentworth, Germiston and Koedoespoort.

The Department also serves as a valuable training institution for the training of apprentices for a large variety of trades. The apprentice quota for 1980 has been more than doubled to meet expanded requirements—from 1 361 in 1979 to 2 755 this year.

The number of staff in the service of the Administration in December 1979 totalled 263 466. Of these, 112 904 comprised White and 150 562 non-White staff. With a revival in the economy in sight, the Department has in recent months stepped up recruitments to keep pace with the expected demands on its services; provision is also made for a further increase of the staff establishment to approximately 268 395, comprising 114 556 Whites and 153 839 non-Whites.

Through the difficult years that this country has faced both as regards inflation and the general economic situation, this Administration has made a major contribution towards the efforts in overcoming the country’s economic problems. It is equally true that much of the credit for the Administration’s contribution is due to its staff who have loyally supported the Administration and Management. In the process they have been called upon to make personal sacrifices and have responded in a most responsible manner.

The time has now come to pay the piper his due. After careful consideration it has been decided to do so in the form of a package which, I trust, will contain some welcome surprises.

It has been decided to abolish the holiday bonus paid to White and non-White servants and to grant them a service bonus from the April 1980 paymonth, and thereafter annually at the end of April. The bonus will be one-twelfth of a servant’s annual basic salary or wage applicable on 1 April and will moreover be pensionable.

The bonus payable to the lower income groups will not be less than the holiday bonus that would have been paid to them. The necessary adjustments in salary scales have been made.

The estimated cost to the Administration will be an additional R87 million per annum.

In addition, in order to afford railway staff relief from the burden of escalating living costs, I have decided to grant all members of the staff a general increase in salaries and wages from the April 1980 paymonth. In the case of White staff the average increase will be 12,7%, with the adjustment for the lower-paid members of the staff, that is those earning less than R5 338 per annum, being on average at a slightly higher percentage.

In line with the Government’s policy of narrowing the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites, the salary and wage adjustments for non-Whites will also be at higher percentages.

The overall cost of the improvements for the various grades of staff is estimated at R188 million per annum.

Arising from a decision of the Cabinet to offer recognition to servants of the State in respect of long service, I have decided to give similar recognition to Railway servants with effect from 1 April 1980 in the form of a suitable certificate, plus the granting of additional leave in respect of the actual continuous long service they have completed.

In view of the fact that the basis for calculating pensions was changed as from 1 January 1980, the following adjustments came into effect on that date—

The estimated additional expenditure for the Administration for the remainder of the 1979-’80 financial year amounts to R1,6 million; thereafter it is estimated at R5,7 million per annum.

As previously announced, the following increases were effected in the annuities of certain groups of railway pensioners with effect from 1 July 1979—

The estimated expenditure in respect of these increases for the balance of the financial year 1979-’80 amounts to R6,5 million; for a full financial year the estimated cost is R8,7 million.

It has been accepted in the past that when salary increases are granted, concomitant relief should also be granted to railway pensioners. I have consequently decided to increase the annuities of all pensioners by 10% with effect from 1 April 1980.

The general increase in salaries and wages I have announced will result in a direct increase in the Sick Fund’s income on account of higher contributions from members. This will also necessitate a review of the Administration’s contribution ratio.

A scheme whereby Black staff in receipt of a basic wage of R120 per month or more will be required to contribute a nominal amount of R1,50 per month towards medical treatment, is being introduced concurrently with the general salary increase on 1 April 1980.

It is doubtful whether any other organisation provides housing for its staff on the same scale as does this Administration.

At 31 December 1979 some 25 865 departmental houses were available to the staff throughout the country, while during the financial year 1979-’80 alone some 7 000 houses were acquired in terms of the various house ownership schemes for White staff to a value of some R190 million.

An additional concession has been introduced to the effect that servants who are married or have dependants are now eligible to apply for loans as soon as they contribute to the New Superannuation Fund.

Houses acquired up to now in terms of the house-ownership schemes for Coloured and Indian staff number 590 and 107, respectively.

As regards the acquisition of properties for the Administration’s Black staff, negotiations with the various authorities involved in the provision of land and houses for Blacks have now reached an advanced stage, and it is hoped that the first such properties will be acquired during the coming financial year.

A house-ownership scheme with 10% assistance for all non-White staff was also introduced during the year. This scheme has the advantage that Black staff who are citizens of neighbouring States can also be assisted to acquire homes in their own States.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express a word of congratulation to the hon. the Minister as this is the occasion of the presentation by him of his very first Railways budget. We have listened to him putting forward a budget of close on R6 billion, and when one thinks of the size of this budget, one must appreciate that the S.A. Railways Administration is probably the biggest organization in Africa, with an annual budget which is far in excess of the annual overall budgets of most of the States in the rest of Africa. It is exceeded, as far as I know, only in one or two instances and by our own national budget So the hon. the Minister has a tremendous responsibility in his hands now that he is responsible for budgeting for the biggest organization in Africa. However, I think one has to leave that there, because it is with regret that I have to say to the hon. the Minister that as a first effort I did not enjoy his budget at all. I have to say that the budget presented by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, containing as it does increases which are very substantial, is going to have a retarding effect on economic growth in South Africa.

I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister admitting at the beginning of his speech that the Railways have a material contribution to make in combating inflation. Unfortunately this budget is not going to help the fight against inflation. It is going to have just the opposite effect, in that it will aggravate the inflationary spiral. One must accept that inflation is the biggest enemy of growth, and growth is what South Africa needs at the present time. One must appreciate, and admit, that costs incurred by the Administration have risen sharply. On the other hand, the hon. the Minister has been helped by a number of factors which should have enabled him to balance his budget without resorting to tariff increases. As the hon. the Minister says, we have had an upswing in economic activity in South Africa, and this has already induced a very substantial increase in traffic, particularly as far as low-rated goods traffic and passenger services are concerned. Although the increase in high-rated goods traffic was somewhat disappointing, it is quite clear that a definite improvement can be expected during the coming year. All in all, the Administration has been, and should be further able to make optimum use of carrying capacity, during the coming year and therefore have increased profitability.

Also, the hon. the Minister talked at some length, with what I hope is justifiable pride, about improved productivity which has absorbed some of the cost increases. On top of this the hon. the Minister is to receive substantial assistance from the Treasury, to the tune of something like R241 million in this year as a result of recommendations by the Franzsen Committee, as State compensation to the S.A. Railways and Harbours for the socio-economic component of passenger services. With all this in his favour—and this is a considerable amount: increased traffic, increased profitability, the ability to work at almost optimum carrying capacity and the bonus from the hon. the Minister of Finance, from the Treasury—he still has to raise tariffs.

He has seen fit to introduce a budget of close to R6 billion, over 20% up on last year. Some of these tariff increases are particularly shocking. The 20% increase in domestic air fares can only be described as punishing. I looked at the loss factor and listened with surprise, because it has been my impression as a fairly regular traveller on S.A. Airways that they are very close to optimum operation at the moment. I think we have to look at the operations of S.A. Airways. Later on in the debate on this budget I hope to introduce some quite positive suggestions as to what that hon. Minister might do.

The increase in rail commuter fares—and I am not referring to long-distance operations, but to commuters—is very serious indeed. The hon. the Minister is receiving a great deal of assistance from the Treasury in this respect, and I believe that the increase on that basis is unwarranted, particularly in the case of the 20% increase in third-class commuter fares. The hon. the Minister himself admitted …

I am not increasing that by 20%. Where do you get that from?

If I am correct, it is 15% on first and second class and 10% on third class. I believe the increase in respect of third-class commuter fares is unwarranted in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister is receiving this bonanza from the Treasury specifically because it is fulfilling a socio-economic function. I must tell hon. members that Black South Africans, who are the main users of the third class, are going to be particularly hard hit by this increase of 10%. They can ill afford it at this time, and I believe this is particularly bad in the South African situation at the present time. I want to say that on top of this the increase in goods tariffs is inevitably going to restrict economic growth.

There are some positive aspects in this budget and I must give credit where credit is due. I must welcome the pay and pension increases for Railwaymen and Railways pensioners. I thought that perhaps the hon. the Minister could have done slightly better in respect of the pensioners. He is starting off at a very low base. However, this will at least enable them to try to keep up standards in the face of the rate of inflation which, I should like to point out, is in excess of the increase granted.

The move towards a more cost-orientated tariff structure is to be welcomed. This is something that we on this side of the House have urged over a number of years.

Sir, my first overall impression of this budget is that it is extremely disappointing. The fact that it is 20% larger than last year’s budget seems to indicate that the hon. the Minister has failed to exercise the restraint on spending which is called for in an inflationary situation such as this. 20% is a considerable increase. I think the hon. the Minister, who is looking surprised at my saying this, must admit that a figure of 20% is tremendous.

I am to handle an increase in traffic. What are you talking about?

The hon. the Minister asks what I am talking about. The fact of the matter is that the figures indicate that his budget is up by 20%, which is higher than the inflation rate. It is only when we have been able to look at details of spending in the Brown Book and of revenue, etc., that we will be able to find out exactly where this money is going. However, I want to say that on first impression it looks as though the hon. the Minister has been unable to restrain excessive spending. I reserve more detailed comment for the continuation of the debate next week, but I believe that the hon. the Minister has produced, as his first effort, a budget which places unnecessary additional burdens on the South African community. It was not a good first effort.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to announce today that Sasol has now commenced with the production of its first oil at Sasol 2.

For South Africa this event represents an important milestone on the way to greater independence from imported crude oil.

The achievement of this goal is peculiar to South Africa because nowhere else in the world is oil being produced successfully from coal on a commercial scale.

The results of the experience of more than 25 years of research and development of the original Sasol 1 process has been incorporated in the design of the Secunda project. At present there is no other proven process of this nature available anywhere else in the world.

The fact that production of oil has now commenced at Sasol 2 does not mean that the project is now in full production. The oil that is now being produced is not being refined, and it will still take a few months before the first marketable products will become available for stockpiling and distribution. The oil-producing unit which has now come into operation is but one of seven similar units at Sasol 2. The other units will progressively come into operation at regular intervals in the course of the next two years. It is anticipated that all the units will be operative at the end of 1981, by which time full production at the plant will be possible.

It is encouraging to know that the construction of the plant has to date progressed according to schedule. The cost of completion of the Sasol 2 factory and that of the mine was estimated at R2 500 million in October 1975. It is expected that this project, after four and a half years, will be completed within this estimate. This is a unique achievement of effective cost control on a gigantic project which will hardly be matched anywhere else in the world.

Without the dedication of each individual worker and the excellent team spirit of the workers at all levels, this tremendous achievement would not have been possible at this stage. It is appropriate to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to all the workers, the management, and in particular to Mr. J. A. Stegman, Managing Director of Sasol Limited and Dr. A. H. Stander, Senior General Manager of Sasol Limited, under whose capable guidance all this was made possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the coincidence of debate allows me, with your indulgence, Sir, to refer very briefly to the statement which the hon. the Minister has just made. I believe that the success of Sasol 2 in producing its first sample of crude oil for refinement in South Africa is a very important breakthrough. I believe that we still have a long way to go, but nothing should be allowed to derogate from or to diminish the importance of the achievement which has been brought about by Sasol. I think they deserve the congratulations of everyone in the country. I should merely like to add that the time to indulge ourselves has not arrived. We will still have to practise the utmost discipline in the use of fuel, and the Government will have to exercise the utmost wisdom in the execution of its energy policies. I believe that one swallow does not make a summer. We will have to continue to persevere in order to achieve the kind of energy economy, the kind of fuel economy which will eventually bring South Africa through this very difficult energy experience which is cutting down on the prosperous growth of all countries in the world who are not blessed with their own oil resources.

I do not want to say any more about this at the present stage. I am delighted, however, at the opportunity of adding my own congratulations to those that the hon. the Minister extended to Sasol.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I shall now return to the subject of the present debate. Before the adjournment of the House last night I referred to the disappointment we felt at the stark contrast between the promise held out by the work of the Schlebusch Commission on the one hand and this despotic Bill which the House is being obliged to consider today. The hon. the Minister may well say and may well believe that this Bill is merely a holding Bill, that it is merely a kind of deep-freeze Bill to create an interim situation while the commission, and eventually the Government, go ahead to create a more tolerable kind of constitutional framework in which the people in this country may operate. One is hardly convinced that this kind of legislation was required as a kind of heart-lung machine to keep the Coloured people in political suspended animation until such time as they may be allowed a more generous part to play in the constitutional process in this country. I do not believe that the heart-lung machine will do its work. On the contrary, I believe it will have a crippling effect on the Coloured people, a crippling effect on their confidence and their ability to contribute to the constitutional process in this country for as long as this Bill, once it becomes law, remains in operation.

When one looks back at the constitutional development of the Coloured people one is struck by a feeling of unhappiness and dismay that so much harm should have been done so unnecessarily. One should bear in mind that the Coloured people in this country are not a majority group, that they are not an alien group. They are not a group who could ever dominate any other group in South Africa. On the whole they are people who have willingly co-operated over the years, people who have made their contribution to the cultures of both Afrikaans and English-speaking in this country. They have been so much a part of it that they have felt at home in it.

Nevertheless, it has been considered necessary over the years to destroy that confidence, to break down that co-operation and to humiliate the people concerned. I believe it is a sad moment. I, like some others, had been abroad defending South Africa’s interests through many years, and I can speak with bitter recollection of the disappointment on the faces of the people who had been our friends, people from countries of Europe and from countries of the West, on whose faces could be read a growing disenchantment, a growing unhappiness, a growing disbelief that a country like South Africa, with its high repute, its high prestige, its high reputation, could be going down this road of constitutional destruction of a people which was so close to the ruling classes in South Africa.

One might, at times, have been able to argue in regard to the aboriginal people, the Black people, of this country that a kind of case could be made out for a more systematic constitutional order. There might be a case that could be made out for a new kind of parallelism in our constitutional affairs. This might have been understood on the grounds that one was dealing here with a majority which had a different culture and which could, in some ways, be seen to threaten the existence or the maintenance of a particular kind of culture or way of life. If this had any truth in it, its credibility was destroyed by the fact that the Coloured people wh posed no such threat, either culturally or demographically, were in fact being treated not only in the same way, but actually being awarded the initial treatment, or prior treatment, in respect of these matters. There was the Group Areas Act of 1950, the Population Registration Act of 1950 and the Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1951 which affected all population groups, but it was seen from abroad to be the Coloured people who were hit first and hit hardest by these pieces of legislation. As I have said, it was not only a tragedy, but an unnecessary tragedy, if we look at the trend that has been so typical of our treatment of the Coloured people, and I say “our” treatment because it is not only hon. members on that side of the House, in that Government, who have been guilty. We have all had a share in the guilt about the treatment of the Coloured people in this country.

Yesterday the hon. member for Gardens, in referring to a remark made by another hon. member, said that it was wrong to judge the events of the past, or the errors of the past, in terms of present-day morality, so that a mistake made in 1964, shall we say, could not properly be judged by the morality of 1980. I agree absolutely with him about that So it is unfortunate that soon after he said that, an hon. member to my left happened to refer to a former representative of the Gardens constituency and to quote a remark made by him in 1964, holding this up as an example of what other parties have done in the past. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Gardens that in politics 16 years is a long time and that to hold up the events of 1964, for judgment in terms of the morality of 1980, is very often “stupid”, to use the word of the hon. member for Gardens. I think so too.

Let us look briefly at the history of the Coloured people. In doing so we find that it is a history of retrogression, a history of diminution, a history reflecting the breakdown of a system, the breakdown of freedoms, and restrictions that indicate a backward movement in the political life of this country. The Cape Coloured people had a franchise granted to them in 1853. In Natal the Coloured people were awarded the franchise in 1856. The people of the Cape enjoyed full participation in local government even earlier than that. In 1836, I think it was, the General Municipal Ordinance was passed that accorded to the Coloured people of the Cape full participation, including membership, or let us say candidature plus voting rights, in the local affairs of the Cape. This long-enjoyed privilege was, in fact, terminated by ordinance No. 19 of 1971. Therefore for 135 years these people enjoyed the privilege and enjoyed it well, because as I shall quote in a moment, the Erika Theron Commission examined the way in which they operated in terms of this right, the way in which they employed this right. The Erika Theron Commission found that the Coloured people had always remained in a minority in this situation. They had nevertheless played an active, but limited, role. The ratio of White to Coloured voters, almost throughout that period, was roughly of the order of 2 to 1. The Coloured people, in the elections held in local government in the Cape, usually supported White candidates. According to the Erika Theron Commission there were very few examples of racial bloc voting. In other words, they were 135 years of excellent political co-operation with no threats by majorities to minorities or vice versa. If hon. members look at paragraphs 16.70 and 16.75 of the report of the Erika Theron Commission, they will find the analysis of how this operated. Sir, in spite of this living example side by side with the parliamentary institutions, the White people proceeded to remove bit by bit the political rights of the Coloured people.

Up to 1910 the Coloured people had in fact been enjoying political rights in the Cape and the only restriction which was imposed, if it can be called a restriction, was that the voting qualifications had been raised from time to time. Many people would argue that it is good to raise the voting qualifications, provided they are raised simultaneously for all the people. Sir, in 1910 with the Act of Union, the status of the Coloured people, politically, was retained, except for the fact that they were disqualified as parliamentary candidates. However, from 1910 to 1948 there was a history of further erosion of Coloured rights. First of all, in 1930 there was the enfranchisement of White women—the Coloureds were left unenfranchised. In 1931 the education qualifications for Whites over 21 were abolished, but not for Coloureds. That was obviously a further disadvantage for the Coloured people. In 1936 there was a ray of light. The Wilcocks Commission made certain recommendations. They recommended amongst other things that the Coloured franchise should be extended to other provinces. This was not accepted or ever implemented. In 1945 there was the compulsory registration of White voters—not of Coloured voters—and in 1948 legislation was passed to make the registration of Coloured voters more difficult.

We come to a new phase, the worst, most critical and acute phase of all in the history of the Coloured people. I refer to the phase from 1950 to 1957. That is the period to which I have already referred and I want to do no more than just touch on it now, because it has been well traversed in this debate. There was the Population Registration Act of 1950, the Group Areas Act of 1950 and the Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1951. From 1951 to 1957 a constitutional crisis raged through the land and brought to the attention of those who did not yet know, that South Africa had in fact embarked on a systematic policy of disfranchising people, people who had enjoyed political rights in this country for 135 years.

One could go on to deal with the further restriction of the political rights of the Coloured people. The Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, and the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act were all landmarks in the slow erosion of the rights of the Coloured people. By 1974 the position had been reached where the Coloured disenchantment and reluctance to co-operate had reached a high point. It was then that Prime Minister Vorster went to address the Seventh Council of the Coloured people and in most eloquent terms promised them a new future, new openings, new participation in the political life of South Africa. What did we have instead? We have had, and it would be wrong to underestimate this, a steady erosion of confidence on the part of the Coloured people in any kind of promise or any kind of system imposed on them by White people or granted to them by White people for their own political future. They no longer believe it and they do not want any kind of promise, system or contrivance other than the right to come and sit in this House and to speak for themselves. If hon. members say that the Coloured people have become too impatient and demanding, whose fault is that? What other option have we left them but to demand that they should be allowed to speak for themselves? After all, they have no reason for confidence in the political field that we will do anything for them which they do not seize for themselves.

We have seen possibilities of co-operation by the Coloured people, with the Coloured people and for the Coloured people because of the enormous progress which has been made in the educational and economic fields, and here credit must be given where credit is due. I think Coloured people freely acknowledge, because basically they are a generous, sensible and happy people, that in certain fields, such as education and social and economic development, they have made enormous progress in recent years. I believe that all the more it is a pity that having made this progress the political progress should have gone in the opposite direction. Surely it is logical to assume, to state, that if a people are being given opportunities for advancement, for educational progress, for economic progress and greater social opportunities, they will expect that that should be accompanied by political opportunities as well. How can one grant them these rights, give them wider horizons, greater opportunities and a better style of life and then stifle their political expressions at the same time? It is an impossible thing to do.

It is quite clear that as a people advance, achieve participation in a broader kind of society and a more advanced kind of civilization, they would expect that those advances they have made should be rewarded and be accompanied by the political advantages which go with that enhanced status. They have suffered frustrations in the CRC, and their Hansards, which are there for all to read, tell a sorry tale. I have taken the trouble to read a lot of them and they tell a sorry tale, a tale of frustration, a tale of bitterness and a tale of accusations of betrayal. How could we allow this to happen? How could we drive the Coloured people to the point where their frustrations with the system became such that they rejected the whole instrument in its entirety? Surely there were opportunities for them. Surely there were those who had ambitions to play a role in the politics of their own people. But the nature of the instrument imposed on them was such, the weaknesses were such and reluctance of the Government to remedy those weaknesses were such that it was finally the Government itself which broke the instrument it had created. Now the Coloured people themselves are being blamed. We have heard in the debate that it is the Coloured people who destroyed it.

It was not the Coloured people; it was the leaders of the Labour Party.

Or the Labour Party, if you wish. Who are the Labour Party? The Labour Party consists of a group of politicians who have emerged in response to the frustrations which I have just described.

They are the elected leaders. They represent Coloured people.

They happen to be elected by the Coloured people. It is all very well to blame the leaders of the Labour Party. The leaders are the people who are thrown up by the situation. They are produced in response to a situation. In 1948 there was a particular situation in South Africa, and what the NP came to do in this country was regretted by many people inside the country and outside, but who can deny that they were actually produced as a governing party in this country because of a situation which existed in South Africa? Similarly, the Labour Party, rightly or wrongly, popular or unpopular as they may be, were produced in response to a situation, and that situation was largely the creation of hon. members on that side of the House. They are the fathers of the Labour Party, whether they like it or not. They are the creators of the Labour Party; they are the creators of the resistance and of the hard words that were used in the Union Buildings in Pretoria a few months ago. They are the authors of what happened. We hear from the hon. the Minister that the situation has been reached where these people have asked that the CRC be dissolved. Hon. members on that side of the House say that they are therefore merely doing the will of the Coloured people. What a response! What a hypocritical answer that would be if they meant it at all. How can one possibly say, when one has created a situation which is rejected by these people, that they have asked for this instrument to be destroyed and now we are merely doing what they wish us to do? We know what they wish us to do. It is perfectly clear to everybody in this country who has taken the trouble to follow the travails of the Coloured people through their long political pilgrimage. We know what their troubles are; we know what their hopes are; we know what their ambitions are and we also know what kind of role they could play in South Africa if we gave them half a chance, because of all the other races in this country they are the people who are the closest to us. If we cannot succeed with them, we shall succeed with no one.

I think there is little more I wish to add. I believe that what we have seen in this Bill is an example of the final despotic act brought to this point by the frustrations of the people who have the most to offer in the field of interracial co-operation. It is a despotic act which I think is the lowest point, the nadir of a long and sorrowful history in the political relations between the White people and the Coloured people of this country. Hon. members on that side of the House must accept, if not the full responsibility to history, then a major part of it in the last 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for Constantia did something that was typical of what the old United Party used to do over the years. As was typical of the old United Party, he began with a process of vilification. They began to apply smear tactics to a historic council that was established as far back as 1948. The hon. member must show me one Coloured mayor elected from 1854 up to the time that Coloureds were removed from the common voters’ role. The hon. member cannot, because they always added qualifications for any Coloured who came forward and by so doing gave rise to a feeling of bitterness among the Coloureds. The biggest problem over the years was the duplicity of the parties when they were dealing with the Brown man. I know the Coloured people. I grew up with them. I know that although the Coloureds are superior to others in certain respects, they lack certain things in their political life. Just as we Afrikaners adapted to the economic world with difficulty, it is difficult for the Coloured to orientate himself politically because he had a problematic political dispensation of degeneracy under the system dating from 1854. Show me one member of the House of Assembly from the ranks of the Coloureds from that time up to the present, and refrain from attacking us because we tried to rectify matters. The hon. member reminds me of a tumbleweed being blown along in the desert kicking up sand around it. The hon. member must come back to the facts. When I began to speak I saw the hon. member for Bezuidenhout leave the House. I should like him to come back. I know he can hear where he is now and I should like him to come back. The history and position of the Coloured in South Africa must be handled with compassion. Through the years we and the Coloureds have had a link between us and accordingly we must treat it in such a way that we shall have respect for one another, however much we may differ from one another.

What is the difference? Tell us.

I shall tell the hon. member outside the House. I shall tell him what the difference is. What we have here is childish behaviour from a scholar who thinks he is at school …

Do not run away.

I shall tell the hon. member what the difference is. The majority of Coloureds know that they love South Africa and that hon. member does not know it. The majority of Coloureds have a feeling for South Africa, and that hon. member does not have it. I shall not take the matter further at this point, but I shall deal with the hon. member in another debate.

When the Opposition has to do with the Coloureds or with any population group in this country, it is not done to take out their hate and frustration on other people as a result of their own inability to make a success of their party. From 1854 to approximately 1955 there was not a single member of the Coloured community whom those hon. members could point to as having made progress on a common role. In 1943 those hon. members established the CAC, the Coloured Advisory Council, to look after the economic and social problems of the Coloureds, but those hon. members represented them in this House. They had to elect those hon. members because they could not elect their own people because there was discrimination against them and because their nascent humanity and nationhood was destroyed by way of qualified franchise and the qualifications added to that.

Over the years we as Nationalists have shown honesty in telling these people what our aims are. Our primary aim was their development. The second was an autonomous basis from which they could develop, and, as soon as the development was completed and the product existed, we would be able to live alongside one another and have equal rights.

However, those hon. members tell them that they must start at the top. One only starts at the top if one digs a grave, and in no other case. For that reason a population group must be guided through the various phases of development, viz. local management, provincial management and regional management.

However, hon. members ridicule those people who wish to take part in the process of allowing their own people to progress. They are ridiculed as stooges. The hon. members attack them en masse by way of newspapers etc. in order to undermine them in their community. People who wanted to take up the cudgels for their children and created community facilities for themselves, were ridiculed by you. Every day you disparaged them.

Order! I think the hon. member should uphold the sound Parliamentary practice of referring to “hon. members” instead of persistently saying “you”.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I prefer “hon. members” to “you”. [Interjections.]

I shall make a bet with anyone that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will not return to this House. He is the person who has attended three burials of the Coloureds’ vote at various places. He was in the NP when the Coloureds were removed from the voters’ roll. He voted in favour of it He was in the Afrikaner Party when he said that the Coloureds’ names should be put back on the voters’ roll or that they should be given an equal franchise. When he was a member of the Union Party, he said that they could come back if they wanted to come back, but that he washed his hands of it. At the same time he issued a pamphlet in Otjiwarongo in which he referred to the baasskap of the Southwester and the total apartheid which his Party advocated in South West. Now he is a Prog and is putting forward a policy of “one man, one vote” in Bezuidenhout. What more does one want? Must a total onslaught be launched on the NP because it reacted to the leaders of the Coloureds who said that the CRC was not acceptable to them?

What is acceptable to them?

Yesterday the hon. member for Kimberley North asked those hon. members very politely whether they had consulted the Coloureds, and they said “no”. If they do not know what the Coloureds want, why the allegations? The hon. member admitted that he had not conducted discussions with them but nevertheless he wants to prescribe to us what to do. Until recently the hon. member was still a well-thought of member of the United Party, because there was no one else to think of. [Interjections.] He was a member of the party which tried to have a former member, Mr. Van Eeden, elected as a member of Parliament in Beaufort West. They had to bring Coloureds from all over the Cape to nominate him, because not one of them possessed a United Party card, although they had to nominate United Party members.

Tell about Tom Swartz.

Rather not, I do not want to bring family into this. [Interjections.]

Wrong place, Barnie, You should be in a circus.

Yes, I need some clowns like the hon. member.

*Not one of them can point to one constructive thing that the United Party did for any population group in its day; there has only been condemnation of everything that the Government has done over the years. Yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point launched a tirade against the Government. One can understand why the hon. member for Sea Point makes such a fuss. He must be frustrated. In this House one’s seat is a very important place. After many years some people move forward due to their age, but they very seldom move backwards.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

The frustration felt by these hon. members causes them to attack this measure without discussing it with the Coloureds.

We have.

The hon. member says that they have spoken to them. Did the hon. member tell them that they should resign from the CRC? [Interjections.] The Coloureds no longer listen to the hon. members, and accordingly the hon. members no longer have an influence even on the Coloureds. They do not take any notice of the hon. members and they resigned against the advice of the hon. members.

We in this country, and the NP, are telling the Coloureds at large, people who have served on managements and people who feel drawn to their own people, that the NP is not closing doors. We are not closing doors. The interim measure being submitted to hon. members today attests to the fact that the request that the CRC be abolished was taken seriously by the Government.

There can be reasons why Coloureds do not want to serve in it. However, I think that their actions are wrong. In my opinion the Government is prepared to afford them the opportunity to serve on this new body so as to obtain an opportunity to pick up once again what we on both sides have sometimes, perhaps, lost, and to build a better future for the Coloureds in South Africa. It is true that over the years we have perhaps been too much inclined—the Coloured community in particular—to devote too much attention to the Opposition and perhaps to the newspapers who, in many respects, have attacked everything that the Government has done.

I often talk to young Coloureds because at an earlier stage, while in the teaching profession, I derived a great deal of pleasure from doing so.

Did they listen to you?

Their main complaint is that many of their leaders, as they put it, do not work inwards, but outwards.

Whom did you talk to?

They say that their leaders do not work inwards; they do not know what the young people really want. The leaders work outwards. One can understand that this frustrates many of the young people. It is cause for concern when one sees that in a developing population group like the Coloureds, only 42% have registered to vote.

Why?

One simply cannot understand it, because there are educated people and one expects that when one has the opportunity to vote, one will vote. For this reason one would like to see more Coloureds registering.

Now we again come to the old Opposition method of using the slogan: “It is pointless filling in that registration card because one is not going to achieve anything with the vote.” This is a wrong standpoint. For years the Opposition has adopted a purely destructive attitude. People for whom I had great respect in my lifetime were Bill Holland, Bloomberg and others who sat in this House because in many respects they did good work for the Coloureds. I just want to quote to hon. members what a former Coloured representative in this House, Mr. Bill Holland, said on 15 April 1964 (Hansard, Vol. 10, col. 4319)—

He is referring here to the Coloureds—

Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker, he says it was the fraud perpetrated against them.

From 1948 to 1958. [Interjections.]

No, he says that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the separate voters’ roll. He says that it is the fraud perpetrated against the Coloureds over the years. Just consider the then franchise qualification. Why could Coloured women not vote? Why could only 33% of the Coloured voters be registered in certain areas?

It was you who were responsible for that.

No, wait. What party was in power in 1943? Hon. members of the Opposition are now so afraid that they are virtually denying that they were ever in power. Over the years they had the opportunity to implement in practice those things that they are trying to propagate today. However, they never did so. Who is it who was guilty of the grossest discrimination ever perpetrated ever in South Africa? It was of course the old United Party. They perpetrated the grossest discrimination in South Africa. Do hon. members still recall reference being made at that time to the blanket vote? Do hon. members recall how the old United Party spoke about the Cape blanket vote? Do hon. members recall how franchise qualifications were used as a means of suppression? Yes, I am sure they can remember it.

Marais Steyn was also one of them at the time.

That is why I left. [Interjections.]

If there is one great truth, it is that one has to be honest in one’s politics. Rather let people reject you for your honesty. The Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa may say today that the NP did not always act as they had expected it to. However they must concede that the NP has always been honest in its actions; that it has never done anything out of hate, but that it has done certain things because it believed that they were of importance. The hon. member for Constantia stated very clearly that the Coloureds’ education and economic growth was thanks to the NP.

No, he said it was despite the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the entire political career of the majority of hon. members of the Opposition consists of the distortion of words and of insinuations. With that kind of distortion of words, we are still going to see how they all become Progs. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member say that other hon. members distort words?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I do not say it without good reason.

The hon. member must withdraw it unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. However I just want to repeat what the hon. member for Constantia said here today. He said that the NP had stimulated the progress of the Coloureds, that the economic and social progress of the Coloureds was due to the NP Government and that the Government had a major achievement to its credit in that sphere. That is really a testimonial for the NP. Although, as I have already said, the NP has made certain mistakes—just as every other Government has surely made mistakes—it has never done so with evil intent. The NP has never had any intentions other than to further the interests of people. The opportunity is again being afforded the Coloureds. I believe in this new council, this President’s Council. I believe that the Coloured will come forward and do his duty in respect of the various population groups. Do not ridicule this proposed council. Do not belittle the people who want to have a part in it. Do not come along with the old tactics of the last few years and try to undermine this council and to prevent the Coloureds from coming forward and serving on it. Do not stop these people from doing their duty.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte asked, in one of his more serious moments, whether we on this side of the House could give him the name of a single Coloured member who has ever sat in this House.

In this House.

Yes, in this House. The answer, of course, is that we are not able to do so and that the hon. member is not able to do so either, because for many years there was no legislation regarding population registration in the Statute Book to determine …

What about 1854?

… to what race the persons who sat here, in fact belonged. [Interjections.] The question he should perhaps have put, was how many persons sitting in this House are, and have always been pure White. [Interjections.] If he were to do that, we should be able to conduct an interesting debate on this matter, a serious debate that could perhaps be to the benefit of our society as a whole. However, I do not wish to enlarge further on the remark by the hon. member for Langlaagte. Listening to the debate conducted by hon. members on that side of the House during the past few days, one gains the impression that the discussions here concern aliens and foreigners who do not form part of South African society. One gains the impression that the debate does not concern people who are in fact an absolute, integral part of our society, and who have always been just that. The unwillingness on the part of the whiter group to accommodate the browner group politically, is not a new trend in our history, although its intensity has now reached unprecedented proportions under the NP. Never has a Government sunk to a level as low as that being achieved by this legislation. To 2½ million of our fellow citizens, the political clock is being turned back to a period before the emancipation of the slaves, and in the meantime the time for peaceful change in South Africa is fast running out.

Who is responsible for that?

The abolition of the CRC, and by the same token the removal of an elected political council, brings the entire South African society a few steps nearer to the edge of a precipice. It brings us closer to that period that is “too ghastly to contemplate”. Hon. members on that side of the House are laying the blame for the dissolution of the council on the Coloured politicians, but if one considers the facts, the situation is somewhat different. Towards the end of 1974, the previous Prime Minister, among other things, put into effect the ideas of the late Dr. Verwoerd, namely the conversion of the CRC into a semi-sovereign parliament within the framework of NP policy, something which would of course be altogether impossible within a single geographical area. However, they propagated this line of thinking. He even went so far as to hold out the prospect of a joint Cabinet Committee in which he and other members of the Cabinet would confer with the Executive of the CRC on matters of common interest. The then Prime Minister went so far as to state that through such a joint Cabinet Committee, the Coloureds would indeed enjoy more effective representation than would be the case if they were to obtain direct representation in Parliament.

In consequence of the Theron report, which referred, inter alia, to the impracticability of the Westminster system in our plural society, the then Government constituted a Cabinet Committee to recommend a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa The chairman of that committee was the present hon. Prime Minister. As we all know, that committee came forward with new constitutional proposals which the Government, and particularly the present hon. Prime Minister, tried with great enthusiasm to sell to the public of South Africa. The proposals were not only accepted by the various NP congresses, but they were among the basic points of the NP manifesto during the election of 1977.

The essence of those proposals was that the CRC should be developed further into a parliamentary institution and that that Parliament should have virtually unlimited legislative jurisdiction on all matters within its province. The Chairman of the Executive would, for example, be known as the Prime Minister of the Coloured community, and his committee members would be known as Ministers. That Cabinet would serve with the White and Indian Ministers in a Council of Cabinets under the chairmanship of the President. Furthermore, the Coloured Cabinet would have representation in a Presidential Council which would, inter alia, designate the State President of South Africa.

The intention was clear, therefore, that the CRC should be developed into a stronger institution, and all this was to take place within the framework of the most enlightened ideas in the policy of the NP. However, in terms of that policy, the CRC could never have been developed to a point where the Coloured man and the White man would decide jointly, on an equal footing, on the future of our country and society. Like any other group in our society, the elected Coloured leaders of course rejected these half-baked political rights that were being offered to them. They have done so consistently over the years. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that if you and I and the other members of the House were to find ourselves in that position, we should act in the same way. If those half-baked rights had been offered to us, we should not have accepted them.

That is the historical development up to a certain point. The final breach came when the present hon. Prime Minister conferred with the Executive of the CRC on 9 November last year. It is obvious to anyone who reads or has read the transcript of that discourse, that tempers flared and that the hon. the Prime Minister failed to convince these people of his good intentions. He failed to convince them that there was a new dispensation in store for them. The legislation before the House is an outcome of those talks and is aimed at getting at those members of the Executive. But in this way, the entire Coloured community are also being deprived of the limited democratic rights they have enjoyed up to this stage. The legislation is indicative of an arrogant high-handedness on our part, in that we are ourselves making a decision on the future of our fellow-citizens. In the times we are living in, this legislation is indicative of an irresponsibility that borders on insanity. The legislation indicates that the Government is prepared to impose penal measures on 2½ million citizens of South Africa because it cannot have its way. The legislation indicates that the NP has been taken in tow by its right wing, whereas we know that the majority of White voters in South Africa and certainly all Coloured voters in South Africa, are seeking a new political dispensation in view of current domestic and foreign events. The legislation before the House takes us back to a period during the dark years of Southern Africa, and we on this side of the House cannot but oppose the proposed legislation with contempt.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has not done South Africa a service with certain of the remarks he passed in his speech this afternoon. Before I deal with that, however, the hon. member has, quite rightly, mentioned an unwillingness on the part of the White electorate in respect of the integration of the Coloureds into our political framework in South Africa. He said that there was an unwillingness on the part of the Whites in that regard. He is quite correct, but then he carried the matter no further. One really gains the impression that the hon. member is not representing Whites in Parliament. He pointed out the unwillingness on the part of the White electorate, and that is a reality to take due account of, a reality of which we as a responsible Government do indeed take due account, but not so in the Opposition. For convenience sake the hon. member also lost sight of that in his arguments. I shall come back presently to the further remarks by the hon. member.

During the past few days, members of the Opposition have kicked up a big fuss about the Bill before the House. I think that is a pity, since this is a sensitive matter, something we should have been able to debate at a very high level and without dragging in matters that may create still more problems for us. I think there have been irresponsible attempts on the part of the Opposition to arouse emotions among the Coloured population about the proposed South African Coloured Persons Council. The remarks emanating from the hon. Opposition parties do not contribute to a solution of the problem, and we do indeed have a problem. There can be no doubt about that. I wish to refer to a remark by the hon. member for Green Point when he referred to the proposed new constitutional dispensation. He referred to a situation where a less important position is being allocated to the Coloureds in the most cynical way and a type of “baasskap” situation is being perpetuated at that level. He went further and said that “over the years we have also heard of other concepts that have been atrociously used and abused to win Coloured support of some aspects of the Government’s policy”. The hon. member said, more over “it must be a hat-in-hand situation. It must be a master-servant situation”. The hon. member for Constantia, again, referred to a “despotic deed” the Government was perpetrating. The hon. member for Sea Point said: “It is a shameful measure.” I am mentioning these utterances so that hon. members may take note of the sort of language the hon. Opposition uses. The hon. member sitting over there, who is now so loquacious about this matter, must remember that we are listening to what they are saying, but he must also remember that the public are reading these things. These things arouse people’s emotions. I notice that the hon. member is shaking his head about it. However, he has to take account of these things when he talks about the matter.

The hon. member for Sea Point went on to ask with reference to the Coloured People’s Council: “Is the proposed CPC going to be used to bully and to browbeat the Coloured people? This is nothing less than constitutional blackmail.” Today, the hon. member for Wynberg added: “Nowhere has a Government ever sunk so low as the level to which this Government has sunk.” He said that by introducing this legislation, the Government had sunk to a level and a period that obtained before the abolition of slavery. He further said it brought South Africa to the edge of a precipice. Does the hon. member think that this sort of remark does anybody any good? I therefore contend that he has done neither us, nor South Africa a service by this sort of remark. One does not do South Africa a service; on the contrary, one does a disservice to all of us in saying that legislation which this Parliament passes, “borders on insanity”. These are the words the hon. member for Wynberg used.

It is you who pass the legislation; not South Africa.

We could really ask those hon. members: Are you incapable of ever abandoning petty politicking? Could you not try, for a change, to consider the more important things in South Africa as well?

Such as?

Those hon. members derive so much pleasure from the embarrassment of the Government about the CRC that they are in fact overlooking the important issue altogether. What is important in this connection is South Africa’s interests, which should come first, but they do not realize that at all.

If we ignore the irrelevancies we have had from those hon. members, we see the hard realities that have emerged from this debate. Then we realize that the Coloureds today are a separate ethnic entity—whether we like it or not—and some of those hon. members have fortunately admitted that. It is a fact. We cannot escape or ignore that.

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member for Pinelands now disagrees with that, but he ought to talk to some of those hon. members again, because they agree on this point. They agree that the Coloureds are a separate ethnic entity.

Ask the Coloureds themselves.

He is not taking account of the realities of South Africa. Furthermore, the Coloureds are a minority group whose interests have to be looked after.

We are too.

The hon. member is correct: We are a minority group, but what is that hon. member doing for the interests of this minority group? It is easy for that hon. member to sit and make interjections, but hon. members should hear him when he gets an opportunity of dealing with the interests of this minority group. Then he deals only with the interests of the majority groups in South Africa.

Who are they?

You know very well who they are. A second important aspect that has emerged during this debate, is that provision has to be made for the aspirations of the Coloureds in South Africa at all levels—at the level of political development and, yes, at all other levels. We on this side have long realized that we have to make provision for them.

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

Unfortunately I have very little time.

Consequently, we are trying to do something about the situation. Whatever we have tried to do, we have tried to do in an honest way. We have tried to achieve something in the interests of this separate population group. Now the hon. members of the Opposition are accusing us of only looking after the interests of the Whites. Surely that is not true.

How can you make decisions for other people all the time?

I categorically deny that. That is a senseless argument, and devoid of all truth. We do indeed look after the interests of the White people—that is quite right and I am not ashamed of it—but one cannot separate the interests of the Whites in South Africa from the interests of the Coloureds and other people of colour. What would happen to the interests of people of colour in South Africa if we were to treat the interests of the Whites as of secondary importance? One cannot simply ignore the interests of the Whites and think that the lot of the non-Whites will then improve. That is something the hon. members of the official Opposition are doing, since the official Opposition has adopted a course of surrender. There is no doubt about that. They wish to surrender on behalf of the Whites and the people of colour; in fact, they have already surrendered. I now wish to ask the hon. member for Pinelands who is now sitting and denying that, to tell me where in Africa the policy they are advocating for South Africa today, has ever succeeded?

Your policy does not work at all.

That is no answer. I am asking him where the policy of that party is succeeding. It only succeeds in his imagination; it does not even work in Rhodesia. The hon. member cannot answer me, because he does not have an answer.

Where does apartheid succeed?

Separate development at least has a change of succeeding in Africa, but for the policy of the Opposition there are numerous proven failures. That is what we have to tell one another.

There is a third reality, however, that is obvious from the discussion of this Bill, namely that the CRC cannot continue in its present form. It cannot carry on as it is. There is a great deal of evidence for this. We have the testimony of the Coloureds themselves on this matter that they no longer want this body. Consequently this body does not serve any purpose and I therefore think it is wise of the hon. the Minister and the Government to state that it is a body that is creating friction, that has become an embarrassment and that we should try to replace by something else.

Who made that decision?

It is a pity that this had to happen, because we established this body with great expectations. It goes without saying that we believed that these expectations would be realized to the benefit of all of us living in this country. There was every opportunity for it to succeed and to be of great benefit to South Africa. The evidence in support of that view is overwhelming, since the correct attitude and the necessary goodwill on the part of the Whites did exist.

At this point one may ask why, then, did it fail. It is a pity that things went wrong, and there must be many reasons for that. I think a major reason was that suspicion arose on the part of the Coloureds with regard to the good intentions of the Whites. That is true, is it not? There is distrust between us; it is a pity that is so, and it troubles us. We are, however, going out of our way in an effort to eliminate that.

However, I wish to ask what the hon. members of the Opposition are doing to help us in this respect. What are the hon. members of the Opposition doing to eliminate the distrust existing between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa? [Interjections.] The impression we have, and the impression formed outside this House, is that the hon. members of the Opposition parties are not engaged in allaying and eliminating the distrust existing between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa, but that they are inciting and fomenting distrust. The Opposition parties are by no means helping us to make things easier and to eliminate difficulties. We could continue in this vein. The hon. member for Sea Point stated in this connection—

I am asking hon. members of the Opposition whether this sort of remark contributes towards eliminating the distrust existing between us, or whether it aggravates the distrust? I think it aggravates it.

Surely this responsible Government cannot simply leave matters unchanged, in spite of all these things, while realizing that things are going awry and have to be rectified. That is why we are trying to substitute something for it.

The hon. members of the NRP are now proposing that we should establish an elected body so that its members may negotiate with the Government. Surely there was an elected body, even though it was elected by a minority of Coloureds. What did they do? In this regard the hon. member for Durban Central made the following remark—

What did these negotiators of the Coloureds do when they had to negotiate with the Government? They walked out.

They did not get a chance to negotiate.

What did the administrators of the Coloureds affairs do when they had to administer the funds? They did something even worse. What did they do when there was such an elected body? Did they administer the funds then? What did they do? It is now dead quiet on that part of the House. No, they refused to look after the interests of their own people. And now hon. members are proposing that we should again have such a body elected.

No. Who made the decision about the budget?

Hon. members of the NRP know that their proposal lacks substance.

If you want us to make a noise, we shall make a noise, but you are not worth making a noise about.

If we want to move amendments then let us move amendments that are worthwhile, amendments which this House can debate, and which are well-founded. If we consider the points of view of the elected members of the Labour Party, it is not difficult to appreciate why they cannot and will not negotiate. On 29 December 1979 they passed, inter alia, the following resolution—

How far can one go with such people? Would they be prepared to negotiate with us?

Of course they will. You cannot throw them away.

These were resolutions they adopted; do not deny that. Do hon. members desire that we should again have such a council elected in order to try and negotiate with them?

You will have to deal with them one day.

The NP Government realizes the responsibility we bear. We cannot simply allow these things to continue and drag on, because there are matters to be administered. The hon. the Minister has set out precisely what work has to be done urgently. For that reason, the Government wishes to make an interim arrangement. However, there have been quite a lot of sneering references by hon. members on that side of the House to the fact that it is an interim measure. The hon. member for Durban Central said it took 175 years in France and that it might take just as long here. Such an idea is simply too ridiculous. After all, hon. members know that in the context in which we are living today, and the conditions prevailing here, this cannot happen. After all, we should not be so foolish as to try and pass such remarks in this House.

How long can you tread water?

The Government has introduced a proposal and if we consider it objectively, we will realize that it is in the best interests of South Africa that the administration of matters affecting the Coloureds should be proceeded with in the meantime. At present, a commission is carrying out an intensive investigation of the whole matter of our constitutional dispensation. After it has been properly investigated, we shall be able to produce a report and, in consultation with the Coloured people, try to map out a course for us to follow in South Africa. If there is one message I should like to give to responsible Coloured leaders in South Africa today, it is that they can truly trust this Government, under the hon. the Prime Minister, with their future, that the Government is not going to cheat them and that it is prepared to co-operate with them on the road that lies ahead. We therefore ask them in all seriousness not to lend an ear to the surrender proposals by hon. members of the official Opposition. There is no future for us in any of them. The future of the Coloureds lies with that of the NP on the path of South Africa We appeal to the responsible Coloured leaders to trust us in this matter and to co-operate with us on this course.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg had quite a number of statements to make. In a few respects we were able to agree with him, particularly when he said that the NP had a problem. We concede that.

They have many problems.

We also agree with him when he says that we should put the interests of South Africa first. In that respect, too, we agree with him.

The Progs do not agree.

We also agree with him when he maintains—this idea enjoys support on that side of the House—that the Coloured population and the majority of its elected leaders do not want the present body. That is where my agreement with the hon. member ends, but at any rate, in the course of my speech, I hope to reply to many of the accusations made by him, particularly those against the NRP, which is the best Opposition although we are not the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

†It is a matter of degree. The emancipation of the Coloured people of South Africa, as every eloquent speaker in the House has demonstrated, has over the past two centuries followed a most tortuous and winding path and is still following a very tortuous and winding path for in that interim period of 200 years plus there were many Governments in South Africa and many have tried to find solutions to the political problems facing the Coloureds. There have been many attempts to do this. We admit that. I believe not one of those Governments, including the present NP Government, can really say to their people that they have found a successful solution to the problem. Even more important, I believe it is a tragedy that the leaders of the Coloured population cannot go back to their people either and say that they have found a successful formula. The CPC Bill, before us today, should at best be described as an epitaph or a Bill of mourning over the demise of co-operation between the Coloureds and the Whites of South Africa. It is a clear indication that we have failed to find a proper understanding of the problems facing us in finding a new political dispensation.

The NP has failed.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations has told us, on his own admission in his Second Reading speech, that the NP policy has failed. The hon. the Minister said so. What really epitomizes the hon. the Minister’s stand, is when he told us the Coloured people find the CRC an irritation. That epitomizes the frustration and the anger of not only the elected the leaders, but also of the Coloured population generally, at the NP for not being able to provide them with a vehicle for co-operation, and to find consensus. The hon. the Minister and many speakers on that side gave us a plethora of reasons why the CRC failed. I believe the hon. the Minister and the speakers on that side have merely verbalized the frustration and anger of the Coloureds, for there can be no doubt that the attitude, including that of the vociferous, and possibly under certain circumstances of people who could be described as radical, has been engendered as a reaction to the failure of the Government policy. The so-called request of the ruling party and of members of the Opposition party of the CRC or others, is not the real reason for the failure of the CRC. I wish to venture that the real reason for the failure is Government policy, that of the NP. Their failure to acknowledge the realities of the nature and the dynamics of what a plural society is all about, is the reason.

Has your party ever succeeded?

I shall come back to the hon. member’s question in a moment. We find that one of the fundamental reasons why NP policy is failing is because they fail to understand that, and unless they understand why the CRC has in fact failed, they are going to fail time and time again when they attempt to find a political solution or dispensation in which they seek the co-operation of the Indians and Blacks of South Africa as well. The underlying reasons for the failure of the CRC will also be found in the future failure of the Indian Council and in negotiations which the Government is going to have with the urban Blacks, unless, of course, hon. members opposite learn to understand the real reasons. When we get down to the bottom, to the fundamental causes—not the manifestation of the frustration of the Coloured people—of why the CRC has failed, we can only come to the conclusion that the NP policy caters for the demands of the hardliners in its own ranks and that any political dispensation which flows from that does not cater for the real needs of the Coloured people, the Indians or the Blacks in South Africa. That is the fundamental cause, the manipulation by the Government to produce a system unilaterally, without consultation, without obtaining consensus with the real and elected leaders of each group. As long as the Government designs its policy and its strategy and the resultant structure to cater only for the needs of a very small percentage of the White population, the hardliners, the ultraconservatives in the NP, all their efforts are going to lead to failure.

What is heard often across the floor of this House is the slogan about how wonderful it is to be a Nationalist. [Interjections.]

*Yes, they are studying the unfolding of the policy. [Interjections.]

†What do they find, however, in this unfolding of NP policy? What do they find in the unfolding of the policy in respect of the Coloured people, a policy which has been going on for not less than 16 years? What do we find? As this policy unfolds, at the bottom of it there is a little wisp of smoke and a heap of ash. [Interjections.] That is exactly what is happening here. That is what we see—a little wisp of smoke and a heap of ash. That is what has come of that oft hailed policy, the solution to the political problems of South Africa. Here today the hon. the Minister and every hon. member opposite have clearly admitted that their policy has failed as far as the CRC is concerned. [Interjections.] Failing is not the worst sin, however. It is failing to recognize the reasons for failing that is going to be the NP’s greatest sin. It is interesting to go back in the history of this whole issue. Many other hon. members have also quoted from this very history. If we go back to the debate here in this House on 10 April 1964, what do we find? Interestingly enough the present hon. Prime Minister was then the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I believe that he said something in that debate which now indicates very clearly that this new Bill, introduced by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations, carries in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen very carefully to what his present hon. Prime Minister said on that occasion. This is what he said (Hansard, Vol. 10, col. 3996)—

That was when they were discussing the Second Reading of the CRC Bill. By the way, it is also interesting to note that only the present hon. Prime Minister has survived as a Cabinet Minister from those days.

What was the date of that debate?

10 April 1964.

Just the other day. [Interjections.]

That was during the Second Reading of the CRC Bill. That is the legislation which has now ended up in this epitaph at the demise of the CRC. The then Minister of Coloured Affairs said—

The hon. member for Langlaagte, who is unfortunately not in the House now, also referred to the Coloured Advisory Council. I quote further—

This is what the present hon. Prime Minister said—

There, from the present hon. Prime Minister, are the very words indicating the reason why the type of policy being adopted by the hon. the Minister, in terms of this legislation, is not going to survive any more successfully than the CRC did.

It is a temporary measure.

Hon. members tell us it is an interim measure.

Yes.

May I, however, remind the hon. member for Oudtshoorn that in 1923 income tax was also brought in as an interim measure. These things, however, have a habit of going on and on and on. Let me therefore ask the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and all the other hon. members on that side whether they would not rather deal with the elected leaders of the community than nominated leaders. Where is one’s credibility, in the eyes of the Coloureds, when one deals with nominated leaders? [Interjections.] Many questions have been asked of this particular party.

What is your solution for the interim period?

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Kimberley North has come back in, because I was waiting for him to return so that I could give him an answer. There is a question that must be dealt with. Did we, do we or have we consulted with Coloured leaders? That is the question the hon. member asked me yesterday. My answer is “yes”. We did, we do and we are going to. [Interjections.] May I also point out that we do not only consult with the leaders of the Coloureds, but also with the leaders of the Blacks and the leaders of the Indians. May I further point out to hon. members that we in the NRP in Natal had what is called “a Natal indaba” where we spoke to these people, and more important listened to them. For the first time in the tortuous history of negotiations with other race groups the NRP was able to reach consensus. [Interjections.] We were able to produce a plan that could work … [Interjections.] … and could reduce interface friction, a plan that required and received the stamp of approval, not only of the Coloured but also of the Indian and Black leaders, and those were the real leaders. We obtained their stamp of approval. [Interjections.] What happened, however? We reached consensus with them, we got a plan to implement, but whilst NP policy is crumbling around its ears, whereas we are able to produce a living, dynamic example of what can be done in South Africa, the Government sabotages it all the way. [Interjections.] The Government sabotages it whilst its own policy, after 16 years of trying with the Coloureds, crumbles around its ears. [Interjections.] That is what we are doing. We are negotiating with these people. We are listening to them and we continue to negotiate. One does encounter difficulties when one negotiates with leaders of other groups. The NP should know that. They themselves are having such difficulties at the moment in their caucus. One must, however, continue to negotiate. One must listen to what the real aspirations of the people are. We, in this party, cannot accept that this Bill is the way to solve the problems, between the Coloureds and ourselves, that face us.

What was your solution after your discussions?

What is the use of coming with an illusionary Bill which means nothing and has no power and with which one cannot do a thing?

What was your solution after your discussions?

All they can do is to administer certain funds.

What is your solution?

Let me tell the hon. member for Kimberley North that the solution lies in the way we tackled the Natal indaba That is where it lies. I also want to refer the hon. member for Kimberley North to the submissions we made to the Schlebusch Commission. He must go and have a look at them because there is where the answer lies. One cannot explain that in one word, especially to that hon. member. It is going to take him a lot of time to understand it.

I want to come back to the fundamental reasons why the CRC failed and why the NP is not going to make any progress. They make unilateral decisions, they tell the other population groups what is good for them and what is bad for them, and they then come out with a one-sided and lopsided possible solution to the problem.

Sir, as the hon. the Minister knows, we cannot support this Bill. The hon. the Minister can go back to the debates of 1964 and read the speeches made then, particularly those of Mr. Bloomberg who was the member for Peninsula at the time, to find out why the CRC did not work, because the reasons why that did not work are also the reasons why this Bill is not going to work.

Let me go further. Over 16 years we have progressed to some extent. We must, however, avoid a further failure of policy when the National Party deals with the Indians—I see in today’s newspapers that the Indians are going to ask for the complete scrapping of the SAIC. The negotiations with the urban Blacks and with the homeland Blacks are going to fail for the same reasons that apply in the case of the failure of the CRC. That is something that must be disturbing to every single member on the Government side. It is something that is disturbing to members of the Coloured community, the Indians and the Blacks as much as it is disturbing to us in the NRP, and I am sure I can include the official Opposition too.

*The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said we should help them to facilitate matters, and we gladly do so. We are prepared to do that. In the first place, I want to say that hon. members opposite should not frustrate our endeavours in Natal. They aggravate the matter year after year. They frustrate the people.

Do the Whites of Natal accept it?

Of course they accept it.

That is not true.

Only one person objected, and he was not even the chairman who signed the agreement. The whole thing has to be abandoned now just because of one verkrampte. [Interjections.] There we have proof that the strategy and the unfolding of that party’s policy accommodate the verkrampte members of that party. As the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said, we must put South Africa first, and not the verkrampte wing of the National Party.

†I want to remind the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that the then chairman of the NMA signed the agreement Then there was a change in chairmanship and the new man came along and said he objected. The Government then listened to one man, but it would not listen to the voices of the leaders of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks in Natal. A first step to make it easier for the Government is to let us go ahead with that plan, because we had found consensus with those leaders.

Put it to the electorate.

We will put it to the electorate. The hon. member need not worry. [Interjections.] I want to make some further suggestions. Let the Government come and see how we conduct negotiations. We shall let them know how to do it. We shall make it easier for them. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not interject so loudly.

Thank you, Sir.

*I can speak a little louder if need be.

†Sir, I want to come back to what I mentioned right at the beginning, because I am sure it is a cause of considerable concern to every responsible member of the South African public. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to drop this Bill. [Interjections.] Let us come back from it. There is still considerable goodwill amongst certain sectors of the Coloured population, although it has been eroded by the Government. Let us come back to a point where we can redevelop mutual trust between the different population groups. Let us use the Schlebusch Commission as a starting point for a forum to find consensus.

What about the interim period?

We do not need much of an interim period. The CRC is going to come to the end of its life only at the end of May. All one really needs is a curator bonis to look after the administration, provided one gives hope to the Coloured people. How are we going to give hope to the Coloured people, the Indians, the Blacks and the Whites in South Africa? We can do it by getting around a table to talk and listen to each other.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues and particularly the hon. the Prime Minister that the time has come to get the back-seat drivers’ hands off the steering wheel of the ship of State. It is the back-seat drivers, the ultra-conservatives, the “verkramptes” or whatever one likes to call them, who have their hands on the steering wheel in South Africa and they are driving the Government of South Africa around in circles. That is why we find that after 16 years the hon. the Minister has to come with a Bill based on the principle of nomination, a principle which was rejected by the Prime Minister of the National Party Government 16 years ago. We have made no progress at all and in the interim period we have actually eroded the goodwill of those minority groups.

I want to make the very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to give the Coloured people hope by giving them an indication of the forum by which their elected leaders will be able to discuss their frustrations and their problems with the leaders of the White, Indian and Black groups. That is what they want, and the longer the hon. the Minister and the Government continue with the tactic of frustrating the genuine aspirations of these people—which include a lot of goodwill to the Whites—in the interests of the verkramptes in the NP, the more difficult it is going to be to find permanent, lasting and enduring solutions to the problems of our highly complex society. The hon. the Minister has my sympathy. He has got himself an almost impossible task in launching this Bill through the House, because if it was not for the weight of numbers he has on his side, I doubt whether he would have succeeded in having this Bill passed. [Interjections.] The most difficult job which any politician in any party can face is to take his courage in his hand and do what is right for South Africa, and the right thing to do in South Africa is not to pass this Bill, but to give hope to the Coloureds by indicating to them what the intentions of the Government are to find consensus between the different population groups. That is absolutely priority No. 1. If the hon. the Minister does this, if he takes his courage in his hands and does what is right for South Africa—an appeal made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg—he will be surprised to find how little he and his party has got to lose and how much South Africa has got to gain.

He will only lose Andries.

This Bill is an attempt at face-saving by the Government. They cannot now suddenly stop and just say that they are going to do away with the CRC and leave things in a vacuum. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this Bill is an attempt at saving face. It is going to be of no real value to the Coloured population, and what is more, if the hon. the Minister would only realize it, it will be of no value to the Government either. Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to make that appeal to the hon. the Minister …

*… and to every hon. member on the opposite side of this House. It must have been a terrible disappointment to see …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that although he may use both official languages in the same speech, Mr. Speaker has requested hon. members not to switch over from one language to the other too often, and particularly not in the same sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I shall deliver the remaining part of my speech in Afrikaans, because I know hon. members on the opposite side of this House understand one thing very well, and that is Afrikaans. [Interjections.] The hon. members must have been very disappointed to find that after the NP policy has been evolving for 16 years, it has reached this impasse. They cannot deny that it was a disappointment. [Interjections.] Was it a disappointment? Did they expect it to lead to this impasse? For that reason I tell hon. members on the opposite side of this House to listen to what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said and to do what is in the interests of South Africa and not only what is in the interests of the verkrampte wing of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with the hon. member for Durban North when he asked the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House to take their courage in their hands, to take a bolder line and not to be restricted by their verkramptes. Listening to the arguments from the other side of the House, I think the attitude of the NP has possibly been best summed up by statements from two hon. members. Firstly, we had a statement from the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who admitted that this Bill was an embarrassment and that we were in an embarrassing situation as far as the Coloured population were concerned. He was quite right. We are in an embarrassing situation, embarrassing for all the Whites of South Africa. The other statement was made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who admitted that the NP have a problem as far as the Coloured population are concerned. [Interjections.] South Africa has a problem as far as the Coloured population are concerned, and I think it can be said with a considerable amount of truth that this Bill has finally brought the NP face to face with reality.

Impossible!

The reaction on being faced with reality has been a panic measure, and this legislation can only be described as a panic measure. They are behaving like frightened men, because they have listened to what the Coloured leaders have had to say and they have not liked what they have said. They have panicked.

One must again note that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, like many other hon. members on that side of the House, quoted from conference resolutions of the Coloured Labour Party, and did not like what they said. There are many things that they might have said there that nobody in this House liked very much, but we have to face reality and we have to accept that the elected leaders of the Coloured people will feel that way. We have to ask ourselves: Why do they feel that way? Why do they feel so frustrated? I regret to have to say that they feel frustrated because of the policies of the NP, because they know that within the framework of apartheid one cannot do without discrimination. They know that built into the policy of apartheid is discrimination. The realities of apartheid are discrimination, and I think that one must accept that within the framework of NP policy it is impossible to abolish discrimination. This is what frustrates the Coloured people. This is why almost daily the opinions expressed by the elected leaders of the Coloured people tend to move in a radical direction. We might not like what they say, just as many people in Rhodesia did not like what Mugabe and his followers had to say, but what is the reality of the situation? It is because they refused to listen at a stage when they could have done something about it. Here we are faced with a choice.

It has been very interesting to me as various hon. members on both sides of the House have itemized the record of shame of the NP with regard to political rights for the Coloured people, and it is indeed a record of shame. But there is one thing that I feel is most necessary in order to put the record straight, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would listen at this stage. In his introductory speech he said, and many hon. members on the other side said so too, and we have also read it in the explanatory memorandum, that it was mainly after repeated demands by the leaders of the majority party in the CRC that the CRC be abolished, that it is being done. The hon. the Minister is merely acceding to their request. But one must accept that this was only half of the request. The other half was that they did not want to be concerned with an ethnic council of any kind and that they wanted representation in a Parliament that meant something. It is therefore quite extraordinary to me that members on the other side are able to talk about the Coloured Council itself asking for the council to be abolished without adding the rider. They did not add that the Coloured people want representation that means something and that they want representation here.

Was that a condition?

That was part of the request. Their request was: We would like you to abolish the CRC and replace it with something else which meets our aspirations.

We are doing that.

I am interested to hear that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn says that we are busy doing just that, that we are doing something about it. I should like to know exactly what that is. There is quite an interesting clause which I can perhaps ask the hon. the Minister about, namely clause 4 of the Bill before us. Clause 4(2) states—

That is the date of the institution of the new S.A. Coloured Persons Council, which is not a representative body—

In other words, as I read this clause, and the hon. the Minister might be able to put me right, at any time, by proclamation in the Gazette the Representative Council can be reconstituted.

I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister would convey across the floor of the House whether I am correct in my interpretation of this clause. But I do not think he has been listening. He has been sitting there, looking very bored throughout this debate, which I think is an indication of just how much attention he has been giving to this debate. I shall ask him again. I was referring to clause 4(2) of the Bill, and as I interpret that, it would be possible at any time after the passing of this Bill for a State President’s proclamation to be issued to reconstitute the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

We can discuss that in full during the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister wants to discuss it in full during the Committee Stage, but it has particular relevance, as far as I am concerned, here in the Second Reading debate. I should just like to know whether there is a possibility that, in terms of this Bill, the Coloured Persons Representative Council could be reconstituted.

I am not here to give you the answer …

The hon. the Minister says that he is not here to give me an answer. He is not prepared to give me an answer. Therefore I must continue with my interpretation of the Bill which is before us, which states categorically, as far as I am concerned, that it can be reconstituted at some future date, and I must accept that that is so. This is quite interesting, because to me it conveys exactly what this Bill is all about, and that is straight blackmail. It is holding the sword of Damocles over the heads of the Coloured leaders, and they are told that if they do not behave and do what they are told to do, they will be removed, and the Government will bring in its own people who will do what they are told to do, and who will not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the Coloured community as a whole. They will not be elected. On the other hand, they are told that if they behave themselves and do what they are told, a representative Government for the Coloured people will be brought back, the representative council will be brought back. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg says that that is not so, but it is actually the interpretation that I and many others must give to this provision in the Bill. What I find quite extraordinary in this whole approach of the Government is its inconsistency as far as the broad spectrum of Government policy is concerned. We discussed the whole question of the Indian Council in this House recently, as to whether or not it should be a representative body. Hon. members of the party on my left finally wrung out of the hon. the Minister an undertaking, in terms of the Bill that was before us at that time, that he would have elections for the Indian Council within a period of 12 months, before the end of 1980. It was this same hon. Minister who said that. Now, it just interests me that there is this tremendous inconsistency, that in the case of the Coloured people they do away with a representative council …

Why do you always state the facts incorrectly?

Well, I should like to know from that hon. Minister what the facts are, because as I understand it, he wrote into that Bill that he was prepared to accept an amendment…

I did accept it.

Yes, he accepted it, which means that in fact we are going to have an Indian Representative Council before the end of 1980.

You are quite wrong.

Well, this puts a new complexion on it. That was the interpretation which I am sure the hon. member for Umhlanga gave to his amendment but it now seems that I am wrong about that. Perhaps the Government are consistent after all. Perhaps they are going to do away with any representation in the future for the Indians and the Coloureds. One has to look at this whole question of “tussentyds”—“interim”. How long is “interim” going to be? Is this the sort of blackmail that says that until they behave themselves and put forward viewpoints the Government wants them to put forward, that sword will be held over their heads and no representative council at all will be offered them?

This is the question that I ask. This is what I should like to know. We have had many accusations from the other side of the House about irresponsibility on the part of the Coloured leaders, and particularly of the leaders of the Labour Party. I must say, with a certain amount of pride, that I once belonged to a party, the old Progressive Party, which had, as members, many of those leaders. I was proud to be a part of the same party as those leaders, and I look forward to the time in South Africa when again I shall be able to be in the same political party as those leaders and when I can be in the same political party as leaders of the Indian community, leaders of the Coloured community and Black leaders, because I, as a South African, can, see South Africa as one country, and I regard all South Africans as real South Africans, all of who should have their opportunity in the political scheme of things …

What does your leader say about that?

My leader would agree with that. I am absolutely certain of that. The hon. member asks what my leader says about that. He regards, as do the rest of the hon. members in these benches, all the people in South Africa as people we would be proud to work with because we regard them as South African citizens who should be entitled to all the rights of citizenship they have been deprived of.

I know this way of thought is completely alien to the viewpoints expressed by hon. members on the other side of the House. However, we have to accept one thing. If we are going to ask Coloured people in South Africa to accept the responsibility of citizenship, including, for example, fighting on the borders to defend South Africa, as many Coloured troops are doing at the moment … There are Coloured people defending us at the present time. Do hon. members on that side of the House believe it is fair that those people should fight when they have no representation in any governmental body in this country? They have no say in their future and in what happens in South Africa. What are we giving them to defend? Our White way of life alone?

Apartheid.

They are defending apartheid. I can tell hon. members on that side of the House that they are not going to be happy to do that for very long.

I think I should conclude by giving the very solemn warning to hon. members on the other side of the House that the road they are following is the road to confrontation in South Africa. They are following the road of confrontation politics. We should like them to go and sit around a table at a national convention and to talk to other population groups in South Africa as equals, and not to dictate to them. We, the Whites of South Africa …

Order! Does the hon. member feel that he is still talking to the Bill at the moment?

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do feel that I am speaking to this Bill, because the abolition of representation for the Coloureds has immense importance for the South African situation. The warning I am sounding to hon. members on the other side of the House and to that hon. Minister is that if the Coloureds do not get representation and pretty soon too, there is going to be trouble in South Africa. Hon. members on that side of the House should be warned that as long as they move backwards, back into the laager, and withdraw the rights of representation that Coloureds have had for so very long, they are on the slippery path to confrontation in South Africa. Our party believes that talking and negotiations are better than confrontation. We should sit around a table and talk to other population groups as equals.

Mr. Speaker, as with many other things in life, one can state one’s point of view wisely or unwisely or one can handle a matter wisely or unwisely. I think that one of the basic problems to which attention is being given in most debating chambers of the world is that there is a diversity of people and interests and that many of these things conflict. I think one of the most unwise methods of debating, not only in our country, but in the rest of the world as well, is sometimes to oversimplify a matter. If one then adds a touch of venom to one’s oversimplification, one does not contribute in any way to finding a solution to the particular problem, but one intensifies the reason for tension and conflict. I want to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that in my opinion and that of hon. members on this side of the House, his contribution did nothing to ease the tension and the conflicts which may arise. In discussing and proposing a solution to the problem of the meeting of different people, something which did not begin today or yesterday, but which has a long history, one should display much greater wisdom and understanding. We are living in a time in Africa where we can look back on three to four centuries of occupation by the Caucasian or White race. In the history of the past three to four centuries of White occupation of and withdrawal from Africa, a tremendous number of things happened which will continue to be written about by historians and other scientists for a very long time. One of the unwise things that are taking place in the world today is that all the mistakes that were made in the expansion of the White man are laid at the door of the White man only, as if, in occupying Africa, America or any other territory, the White man brought only calamity and sorrow to those people. I think this is one of the greatest errors of reasoning that is being committed in the world today. We must also consider the fact that the withdrawal of the White man with a feeling of guilt and with an attitude such as the one displayed by the hon. member for Orange Grove is not to the benefit of the White man nor to the benefit of those he leaves behind.

I was not talking about the White man, I was talking about the NP.

The hon. member for Durban Central, who spoke yesterday, began by giving us some historic background. It helps me to understand a problem much better if I can see it in its historic perspective. However, the hon. member for Durban Central made the astounding accusation yesterday that the NP was guilty of colonialism. I want to say that anyone who knows the history of Southern Africa over the last three to four centuries will disagree with the hon. member on scientific grounds, and will prove that the hon. member is wrong. This party is the party which was born of a particular national organism or nation—I am referring to Afrikaans-and English-speaking people—that had cast off the yoke of this very colonialism and of this very imperialism. [Interjections.] It was a long struggle. The history of this party is the history of the emancipation of people. Our purpose was precisely to get away from the fact that in 1948, we inherited the legacy of the predecessors of both parties opposite—they were colonialists and imperialists—i.e. the legacy of ruling over people and nations. This has been the task and the endeavour of the NP since 1948.

The world and the hon. member can say many things about the NP. Of course we have made mistakes along the way, because we are human beings. We have lived in the most difficult world and on the most difficult continent. However, our one endeavour has been to free people, precisely because we ourselves know what it is like to be under a yoke. Then the hon. member comes along in this day and age and interprets history in such a way as to transfer to the NP the sins he is guilty of, historically speaking, as a member of the party. Surely this is a reckless and irresponsible thing to do.

He did not learn that at Potchefstroom.

I am sorry that we are abolishing the CRC, and that we have to do it, but after all, this Government has to govern. We have to govern, and there are two million Coloured people. We cannot simply abolish everything. I am disappointed that the good understanding and the wisdom which we put into the CRC were not accepted by the majority, but is, by the Labour Party, which brought the CRC to a standstill. I am sorry about that, but we are not going to leave a vacuum. We do not want to leave a vacuum, and for that reason the Government wants to fill the vacuum by replacing the thing which we created and which apparently would not work with a council on which the interests of the Coloured people can be looked after.

May I ask a question?

I am afraid I do not have much time left.

Do let us try to place the problems in Southern Africa in some historic perspective tonight. The hon. members on the other side pretend that all the injustice—if there is unjustice—all the problems and all the conflicts we have in Southern Africa began in 1948 with the NP. Surely that is not so. The fact that there is conflict is due to the fact that people from different groups are meeting in time and space. Some people destroy one another, slaughter one another, massacre one another. However, the NP and its predecessors never accepted it as a principle either to conquer or to take things away from other people. The fact that we are here today, the fact that we have been struggling with this for 30 years, is precisely because the presence of the NP is a peaceful presence in Southern Africa. I have told the hon. member for Houghton before—this was a few years ago—that the presence of my people in the Transvaal, in the Free State and in Natal was not the result of an imperialist movement. We trekked away to retain our freedom.

Good heavens, what have I said now?

We trekked to obtain our independence. But now hon. members on the other side want to keep on attacking the history of this group, whose very aim is the emancipation of nations. The only wars we ever fought were wars against those who wanted to deprive us of our freedom. [Interjections.] So hon. members on the other side must not try to protect the history of the Afrikaner on to terrorists and radicals today. [Interjections.]

My accusation against the PFP, and especially against the hon. member for Sea Point, in consequence of his speech, is that they have presented the best actions of the NP with the greatest ill-will to the Brown people and the Black people. [Interjections.] We must not be unforgiving.

That is a very bad thing.

We are not taught to be that. The one great injustice which is being done to my people and to the people of Southern Africa is the result of the fact that there is a small group of White liberals—and I mean this in the bad sense of the word—that is always trying to present the best side of our case to the non-Whites in a poor light. [Interjections.] This applies to the Opposition and the newspapers that represent them. [Interjections.]

They just have to read your speeches in Hansard to convince them of the truth.

I have listened very attentively to the debate up to now. I am convinced that the speeches made by hon. members on the other side are bristling with slogans and turns of phrase with which they are expressing their venomous attitude towards the NP in the strongest possible language. This is not the case at this moment only. Surely this is not a thing that began in 1948. We can go back in history. Those hon. members on the other side, who speak so lightly of colonialism, have only to examine history. They have only to examine the history of Southern Africa and they will find it there.

The one principle that we on this side of the House do not reject is that there is a diversity of peoples in Southern Africa. For some reason, it came about in the history of mankind that the White people possessed certain qualities, certain abilities which enabled them to create certain material and spiritual things. Naturally this turned them into people who could travel by ship or who could produce efficient instruments so that they could practice agriculture. We have those abilities. However, we are not superior to other people for that reason. Providence gave these qualities to us, just as it gave other qualities to other people.

However, one thing which hon. members on the other side fail to do—and hon. members of the NRP are less guilty of this than the PFP—is to grant the White man a place in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] At the same time I may add that they begrudge each one of the nations in Southern Africa its existence. That is their problem.

Why then are you depriving people of their rights?

Let us rather try to get this matter into some historic perspective. Hon. members on the other side are now alleging that the NP is causing all the problems of the Brown people. However, I refer them to the report of the Erika Theron Commission. They have only to consider the history of the development of politics within the Coloured community. During the time of the old British imperialism, it was an accepted principle that Brown people could never obtain any political rights.

But that was just what was wrong. [Interjections.]

However, the views of hon. members on the other side are a continuation of that particular principle. Under the policy of the NP—and for the moment I am now excluding the political facet of the Coloured people—we may look at every facet of the life of the Brown people—the economic facet, the health facet, the social facet, their legal system, the educational facet, etc. In each of these fields we see that there has been enormous growth. Under the NP we have achieved growth, which accepts the diversity of peoples.

Now you are taking everything away. [Interjections.]

Let us take the argument which that hon. member has just advanced. He says we are taking everything away now. What has happened in terms of the law? [Interjections.]

Order!

In terms of the law, a Coloured Persons Representative Council was established, with the best intentions, as we saw it, and with the best intentions it worked until the propaganda machinery of the leftist Press and of the Progs simply dominated those people. I want to make it quite clear tonight that there is no antagonism, hate or venom against Brown people in the hearts of the NP people, not even against the people of the Labour Party who have perhaps addressed the harshest words to us. We do not feel any hatred or venom.

We should like to have discussions with them again, and to repeat them over and over again. Rather have a thousand discussions than no discussion at all. However, the NP has already done this. Hon. members on the other side are pretending that the NP has never talked to Brown people. When we do talk to those people, those hon. members allege that we are doing so in a paternalistic spirit. Surely it is absolutely untrue to say that! If certain relations exist between employers and employees in the Brown community and in the White community as they did a hundred or two hundred years ago, this is a natural kind of process which is taking place. However, the growth among the Brown people has taken place specifically under the NP régime.

There is something I have to make quite clear tonight. If the PFP had come into power in 1948, with the policy they have, the White man, who has a rightful place on this continent, would not have been here tonight. Then the Brown people would not have been in this country tonight either, in any event, not in the position they occupy today. Nor would the Indians have been here, and many of the non-White peoples would not have been here either.

Nor would the Progs.

Because of the diversity of nations in South Africa, there are two things which the NP has consistently realized since its inception, and that is that on the one hand, there is a diversity of nations and that all those various nations have become so intertwined as a result of imperialism that it is difficult to disentangle matters. In our process of disentanglement there were many things we had to take into consideration and there were many things which made matters difficult for us. Those hon. members also made matters difficult for us. The world made matters difficult for us. Nowhere was there any true understanding for the NP in the work it had to do. I have no doubt in my own mind that in spite of the disappointments it will encounter along the way, and the problems it will encounter along the way, the NP will adhere to its principles, which are ethnologically sound, and that the attitude in which we want to handle these matters is a Christian one, with due recognition of the weaknesses even of Christendom, and that we shall eventually win the hearts of people and nations for a Southern Africa in which diversity will be recognized and in which the meeting of individuals or groups will be harmonized and synchronized. I am also convinced that, as the hon. the Prime Minister has predicted, Southern Africa will be a strong and prosperous region which will serve as an example to Africa and to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are now coming towards the end of the debate which has been going on for a very long time, and as the hon. member for Rissik has just said, we have spent a great deal of time intendlooking at the history of the Coloured people in South Africa. So I certainly do not intend going over all that once again. I just want to address a few remarks to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the first place he blames the Opposition, in particular the official Opposition, for putting the NP, the Government, in a bad light in the eyes of the Coloured community. Let me say immediately, however, that he gives us far too much credit. The NP itself has been very successful in putting itself in a very bad light by virtue of the kind of legislation it introduces, in particular the Bill that is before us now. The Coloured people do not have to be told by the Opposition. The one thing they do not want is to be told what is good and what is bad for them.

That is what you are doing all the time.

The fact of the matter is that, in debating any Bill, we are deciding whether it is good or bad for South Africa. That is our responsibility and that is our job.

Sir, the hon. member for Rissik took strong exception to the hon. member for Durban Central accusing the NP and the Government of being contemporary colonialists. He took very strong exception to that and dealt with some of the history of the Afrikaner people in this country—quite understandably. He went so far as to say that the Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa, in order to get out from under the yoke of the colonialists, even went so far as to go to war. That is true. It is part of our history and we acknowledge it. There are then two things we must say to the hon. member. Firstly, why does he not learn from his own experience? Does he not realize that what was done to him one cannot do to others because they will respond in exactly the same way? Secondly, if it is true that the Afrikaner was so desperate to get away from colonialism that he was prepared to go to war, does he not think there will be other people who will be just as desperate? We want that in this country. That is why we say that we must get rid of this contemporary colonialism, because we should know better.

Thirdly, the hon. member suggested that the Opposition have no place for Whites in any of their proposals or arguments. It is because we believe there must be a place for Whites that we argue against legislation that makes it difficult for Whites to continue to stay here. That is the whole point of our argument. We believe the Whites have a right to be here, but that in itself is not going to guarantee our future or even our existence. If we continue with legislation of this kind, it makes it very, very difficult for us to believe that there will be a future, and the responsibility for that will lie at the door of the NP Government.

Fourthly, I should like to say to the hon. member for Rissik as seriously as I can that if there is one thing the Coloured people, or any group for that matter, despise it is the belief that they cannot think for themselves. When the hon. member for Rissik tells the House that what the Coloured people say and do is based on the Press and the Opposition, he is actually insulting the Coloured people, because they can think for themselves. We do not pretend to speak for them. Our responsibility is to respond as creatively and strongly as we can to legislation put before us.

There is one thing one must always accept—and I am addressing myself to the hon. the Minister now—and that is that taking away the elected leaders of the Coloured people and replacing them by a nominated council suggests to them that we are not prepared to listen to the people they have elected. That is the inference they draw. I believe it is very unfortunate indeed that this legislation is before us, because with the introduction of this Bill we see yet another Government-inspired constitutional corpse biting the dust. It will add yet another skeleton to the Government’s already overcrowded closet.

Sir, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said in his speech earlier this afternoon that we are constantly trying to drive a wedge between the Whites and the Coloured people, that we are constantly using terms and expressions in our debates in the House which cause confrontation.

That is what you are doing now.

This is absolute nonsense. What the hon. member forgets is that one cannot avoid conflict if it is present and no amount of covering-up or putting it under the table will get rid of it. We have to face the conflict, and it is a very real conflict, not only between the NP Government and the Coloured people, but between White and Coloured in this country in general. If there is one thing with which I agree in the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens it is that there is no point in going back in history and throwing stones only at the NP Government or at the old UP Government or at anybody at all. The fact of the matter is that the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa have been talking past each other for generations. What we have to do now is to stop worrying about what happened in the past and to try to put it right. [Interjections.] I am actually agreeing with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

Then you should tell that to the hon. member for Orange Grove.

If the hon. the Minister agrees with me then I do not believe that he can have any confidence at all in the legislation before the House, because let us look at the reasons he gave for the introduction of this Bill in his Second Reading speech. He said that this Bill proposes to replace the CRC (Unrevised Hansard, 3 March)—

That is the one reason—

We are told in the Bill itself and by the hon. the Minister that the CRC had asked for the council to be scrapped. Can we remember when they first asked for that? When did they make their intentions clear? It was not only last year, but ever since the Labour Party came into power.

The Labour Party.

Yes, the Labour Party. They were the elected representatives. They won the election. As much as we dislike it, the fact of the matter is that the Nationalists won the election. We do not like it, but it is true, and we have to accept it until such time as we replace it. In the same way, unfortunately, the Government does not seem to want to accept that the Labour Party was elected and represented a percentage of the Coloured people who were registered as voters.

It seems to me that this legislation was conceived very recently, and the decision to do away with the CRC can be very closely allied to something which I want to put in the form of a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. In his conversation with the representatives of the Coloured leadership, there was obviously a difference of opinion. Most of us have read the transcript of that conversation. It seems to me that after that it was decided to take seriously the request of the Coloured leaders to scrap the CRC and to put something in its place. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, and I do not know if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to respond across the floor of the House, but it does seem to me that November, 1979, was a watershed and this resulted in the legislation before the House. However, no matter how it came about, it is ironic that after turning down many requests from the Coloured leaders in many respects, we now proudly say it is because they asked for this that we are now scrapping the CRC. The second point I want to make is with regard to the fact that the present CRC is going to be replaced for an interim period. I am not going to belabour this point by again asking for how long, but I do want to quote from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech where he says that it will be (Unrevised Hansard, 3 March)—

Both these possibilities are contained in the Bill. I believe the reference to a new constitutional dispensation is the crux of the matter. The old dispensation has failed and we are now seeking a new one. How do we go about seeking a new constitution? How do we find a future for the Coloured people in South Africa that makes sense to both the Coloureds and the White people? Because if it does not make sense to both groups, it is not going to work.

By inquiry through a joint commission of Parliament.

That makes a great deal more sense.

And they do not want to give evidence before that commission.

I shall come back to the Schlebusch Commission and its composition in a moment. My point is that it does not help to look towards a new dispensation by simply attacking the leaders of the Labour Party. What we do not seem to understand is that in the total spectrum of the Coloured community the Labour leaders are actually regarded as moderates. This is the point. It is a very strange irony. The fact of the matter is that no Coloured leader, Allan Hendrickse, David Currie or any of these, can set foot on the campus of the University of the Western Cape. They would be thrown off by the young people if they do because they are described as being “too moderate”. These people whom we regard as radicals are regarded as being moderates by a very considerable section of the Coloured community.

Would you be thrown off?

If we are not prepared to negotiate with these who are regarded as being too moderate …

Who says we are not prepared to negotiate?

One is not going to negotiate by just knocking off the small powers that they have. That is not negotiation. I say again: If we are not prepared to negotiate with the Hendrickses, with the Curries and others, we shall in the end have to negotiate with far more tougher, far more militant leaders in the Coloured community. That is a solemn warning.

I now wish to return to what the hon. the Prime Minister said by way of an interjection earlier on. I come to the Schlebusch Commission. This is the commission that is now going to try to find a new constitutional dispensation. But is it not fair for the Coloured leaders to ask whether they should not be represented on that commission if one is really and truly going to negotiate towards a new constitutional dispensation? Whether it be the Government or the Opposition, or both, should they be the ones to make the decision and then arrive at a plan, at a package, and go to the Coloured leaders and say: “There you are; we have now discussed it; we have listened to all the evidence and this is the future for you and this is the future for me.” That does not make sense. What we need to do is to have real negotiation between the Coloured people and the White people of this country on an equal basis. I do not blame the Coloured people for feeling upset when we have representatives there only from both sides of this House. We accepted that because we believed it was a step in the right direction, but we do not believe it is the answer; not at all, and the Coloured people obviously do not think it is the answer. So why do we persist? We are now going to mark time and the Schlebusch Commission is going to come up with an answer. We have heard that before. Other commissions have met, commissions consisting of highly respected and responsible people. Sir, we cannot do it on our own. The time for decision-making by one group on behalf of the others is long past. If we are going to negotiate at all, with whom are we going to negotiate, even when we have our package answer? With this appointed body? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that anyone who accepts nomination has in one very real sense destroyed his whole political future by accepting nomination? What kind of person is he going to get to serve? And because I know this measure is going to go through I hope he gets good, responsible people.

You will be surprised.

However, in the final analysis the history of this subcontinent and indeed of anywhere in the world, is that if people are prepared to accept second-best and the majority of their own people do not wish it, then they themselves are destroyed in the process. That is what we are doing. We are destroying these people for any future potential. Surely there were other alternatives. Let us assume that there was an absolute impasse between the Government and the Coloured leadership. Why not another election? Why, if the Labour Party do not really and truly represent the Coloured people could they not hold another election? Test it to see whether or not, and if it turns out to be that they did have the support, then we simply have to deal with it, whether there is conflict or not. It is far better than simply ignoring it and brushing them to one side and getting a group of nominated people in their place. The hon. the Minister says we cannot afford to have a vacuum. I want to suggest to him that this is a vacuum. This does not fill the vacuum in any way whatsoever. The vacuum remains, and that is the frightening thing about this piece of legislation. There are no legislative powers for this new nominated group, only the limited legislative powers which the present CRC has, and even this is going to be taken away. I ask again with whom the Government is going to negotiate. This is nothing more than a mockery. These are the findings of the Schlebusch Commission: “This is our response; this is what we are going to take to them.” The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, with whom, as I have said earlier, I agreed on the terms of the bankruptcy of accusing people of the past and past mistakes, did not state one thing about which we should be very clear. That is that this does not excuse this Government, which has been in power for 32 years in a rapidly changing world and continent and subcontinent, for compounding the problems and heaping one insult after another upon the aspirations of the Coloured people, who are only asking that they be regarded as South Africans. That is the real essence of their request: “See us as belonging in the main stream of South Africa.” The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, in responding to an interjection by one of my hon. colleagues, said that the hon. member for Groote Schuur did not have the guts to accept and state that the Coloured people must be seen as a distinctive, ethnic community. I now want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens whether he really means that the Coloured people are to be regarded as a distinctive, ethnic community in South Africa, because what are the marks of ethnicity? What are the marks … [Interjections.] I ask the hon. leader of the NP in the Transvaal, who has been very busy signing all sorts of things today: What are the marks? I put this very seriously.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall read the book. Let us have a look at some of these marks of ethnicity very briefly. One of the marks, very obviously, is Culture. History is another. Language is still another one. Religion is another. All these factors are marks which are common to White and Coloured in South Africa.

Will the hon. member say whether he agrees with the theologists in America in regard to the Blacks as a distinctive ethnic community, given the criteria which he mentioned?

I am talking about the Coloured people and their history, culture, language and their worship in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am talking about the Coloured people as a distinctive ethnic community. That hon. member described them in that way and I understand that other hon. members obviously accept that. [Interjections.] He says that there is a separate Coloured group. Of course there is: I accept that, but that is very different from being a separate ethnic group, because one of the marks of ethnicity is a self-awareness, a self-belief. That is what it is all about, and they do not believe that, if you ask Van der Ross. [Interjections.] If hon. members on that side of the House do not want to believe it …

Read the Theron report.

I shall be quoting from the Theron report in a moment to back up my own case. Van der Ross, in particular, makes exactly the same statement. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens even quoted it. [Interjections.] All right. I shall come back to it and then he can tell me what it is all about.

The only real distinction between Whites and Coloureds in this country is the skin colour. That is the real difference. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That is differentiation. [Interjections.] However, in this country the fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, that the darker one’s skin, the more one is a second or third-class citizen. [Interjections.] That is the truth of the matter and that is the tragedy. Unless the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. the Minister and all of us in this House come to grips with that, there is no future for anybody, White or Black, in this country. If we are going to take this as our basis, should we not go further and also say that Afrikaans-speaking Whites and the English-speaking Whites are two separate ethnic groups? Our description of the difference between the Coloureds and the Whites is the same sort of thing. However, we do not do that, because it suits us as Whites to be together and to stand together. There is something I shall never be able to understand, and that is that in terms of the NP policy it would have made absolute sense to understand that the Coloured and the Indian communities in particular are their closest allies, and yet they are driving them further and further away and limiting them at every point. The real failure of the CRC is that in comparison with every other similar, separate and subordinate institution, it is second class primarily not because there is an ethnic difference, but because of discrimination based on race and colour.

I want to quote from the report of the Erika Theron Commission the hon. the Chief Whip has asked me to look at. I quote from page 451—

I think I only have time for another quotation. I quote from page 463—

Just the same for the hon. the Chief Whip and myself.

Read chapter 20.

I quote further from page 463—

I want the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to tell me if I am still talking nonsense. That was in the Erika Theron Commission’s report, and I believe it is absolutely right.

I want to remind the House and the hon. the Minister that delay is the deadliest form of denial to any person or any group. One can delay by appointing commissions and committees or by going back in time, while never actually dealing with the root cause. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that we must stop delaying. Sooner or later we shall have to come to terms with the fact that White and Coloured people in this country have the same history and share the same destiny. If their destiny or our destiny is at peril, both are at peril. I think a final quotation will make this point better than I can. The Erika Theron report on page 519, (iv) states—

So I appeal to the hon. the Minister to move towards a broadening of our understanding, towards a realization that in essence the cry from the hearts of the Coloured people is not “Give me that, or do that”, but simply “I am a South African also; see me as that”. Only when we can do that and not give packaged answers concocted by that side of the House or this side of the House, only when this group of White people and the Coloureds, come together and fashion a joint policy, will they rest content.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Pinelands said at the beginning of this speech, we are now reaching the end of a very long debate on a simple measure. I found it to be an exceptionally interesting debate. The hon. member for Orange Grove is making a mistake if he thinks I was bored. On the contrary, I listened with great interest to the debate because it revealed something to me, and that is that we were dealing here with members of an official Opposition who all adopted a certain standpoint, but not once did one of them affirm that they were speaking after consultation and with the approval of the people who were involved in this measure.

We are not suggesting that you are.

I am very pleased to receive that reply from the hon. member for Pinelands because at least he does not deny what I have said. I suspected as much.

Nonsense!

It also struck me how the Opposition, in what was almost two successive sittings, did not sound convinced in their speeches, with one or two exceptions. Their contributions were made without any fervour or spirit. There are some of us sitting in this House who still remember the great debates of the past on the race and ethnic problems of South Africa. They were exciting debates, in which every member spoke with fervour and conviction, where the night passed and you came back late the following day to a debate which was interesting and engrossing and dramatic. But there was nothing in this debate which I can describe in those terms except perhaps part of the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. I shall react later to the conclusion of his speech.

I want to say that the hon. young member for Durban North was an exception. He made a good speech. In places my hon. friend for Bezuidenhout also made a good speech. Unfortunately he wanted to prey on the problems of Rhodesia. He became so excited about this matter that he became quite confused and went on to describe the “football match” with the Coloureds which was played between the parties. He became quite confused and said that in the match the United Party had scored more runs than the other parties. How one can play cricket with a rugby football I do not … [Interjections.] There was confusion; there was uncertainty and there was an obvious effort on the part of hon. members to look for debating points.

Order! We must first adjourn for supper now.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended before the supper break I was pointing out that with a few exceptions the contributions of hon. members of the Opposition to this debate had been pitiful. From their reaction I can see they feel guilty. They know I am I am telling the truth. [Interjections.] In contrast hon. members on the Government side—and also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who pledged his party’s support to the measure—spoke with conviction. Each one of them spoke in a responsible manner. Each one of them testified to their concern for South Africa and for peace in South Africa. Each one of them expressed the hope that in the thinking of the NP there lay a just solution for everyone and for all their problems. There was certainly a shrill contrast between the contributions of hon. members on the Government side and hon. members on the opposite side of the House.

I want to come back, particularly to the hon. official Opposition, but also to my hon. friends of the NRP. I want to know from them—during the course of the debate we received no reply to this question—whether they consulted the Coloured leaders before they acted as they did here.

Yes.

Very well, they did do so. I am glad they did. If they had adopted this standpoint of theirs without consulting the Coloureds, I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley North that it would have been a flagrant case of paternalism, presumption and arrogance. Now I accept that they did consult the Coloured people.

Now I want to know whether the leaders of the Labour Party confirmed that they have been insisting for a long time that the existing CRC be abolished.

Yes.

Very well. Then why did hon. members of the Opposition not make that standpoint clear in this debate? If they were really speaking through the mouths of the leaders of the Labour Party, why did they not then testify that the Government was acting on the request and on the insistence of the leaders of the Labour Party? Why did they not also confirm that other parties had also been forced, by the actions of the Labour Party in the CRC, to ask for the Council to be abolished? [Interjections.] Either those hon. members deliberately ignored the true feelings of the majority of the CRC members, or they were advised by the leaders of the Labour Party—and this I do not believe—to conceal the true state of affairs and not to tell the truth here in this House. I really do not believe … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he submitted the Bill to the Coloured leaders and, if so, to which of them he submitted it.

I want to give an immediate reply to that question. I did consult the Coloured leaders on the abolition of the CRC.

That is not an answer to my question.

No, just a minute. I consulted them on the abolition of the CRC. [Interjections.] Shortly after I became Minister I went out of my way to meet the Executive of the CRC. I held talks with them. I was willing to negotiate with them. I made myself available to them for negotiations. I did in fact negotiate with them. I received certain concession from them. A few days later they repudiated the concessions they had given. I then asked them what was going on and whether they still—these are the leaders of the Labour Party—wanted the CRC abolished. They emphasized that that was in fact what they wanted. They want the CRC abolished.

That is correct, but that still does not answer my question.

Please wait a minute. I was present at the discussions when the hon. the Prime Minister consulted those same leaders towards the end of December last year.

That is where it all began.

No, it was only afterwards. When the hon. the Prime Minister, after things had gone wrong as a result of the actions of the Labour Leaders, asked them whether they still wanted the CRC abolished, their reply was: “Yes, the sooner the better.” [Interjections.] So do not ask me whether I consulted them. I did consult them. I was present at the consultation and I personally heard it from their own mouths that they insisted that the Council be abolished, and after it became known that it was being abolished, they once again confirmed on the occasion of their congress from 26 to 29 December that they wanted the Council abolished. Now my hon. friends are saying that I should have consulted those people on the future. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why? After all, they made themselves functus officio. They refused to negotiate with the hon. the Prime Minister and myself. I shall come to that again. This is the major, material, relevant fact which those hon. members ignore completely. They are ignoring the fact that attempts to negotiate with the majority leaders of the CRC failed time and again as a result of their recalcitrance and the fact that they were unwilling to be seen negotiating with the Government. This did not appear anywhere in the contributions of hon. members opposite either, something which forces me to believe that they participated in this debate either out of ignorance or with a deliberate supression of the facts which were known to them. [Interjections.]

There are certain aspects of this matter which I do not wish to discuss in detail. I do not wish to discuss in detail—other hon. members have done so—the anti-South African attitude which the leaders of the Labour Party have adopted. I do not want to do so because I honestly believe that in this attitude they are not representative of the vast majority of the responsible Coloured persons of South Africa. I believe they are out of step with their own people and their public opinion. Therefore I want to say nothing about their refusal to allow a cadet system to be introduced in their schools. I should also prefer to keep quiet about their refusal to make available opportunities and amenities which are available to the Coloured youth who, in their thousands, wish to join the S.A. Defence Force as volunteers to help defend South Africa. They refuse to give the Government amenities which they had at their disposal, and which were available, for that purpose. Consequently we had to take steps to acquire them because they were on our property. [Interjections.] These two things emerged clearly again during an interview with the hon. the Prime Minister. I also do not wish to mention the fact that during the congresses they held beforehand, they openly identified with the actions and goals of the PFP and ANC in South Africa.

Will this legislation put a stop to it now?

I also do not wish to mention their attitude to boycotts against South Africa, something which will harm their own people the most. I do not wish to comment on that either. However, I must tell hon. members what the enemies of South Africa think of the actions of the leaders of the Labour Party in the CRC. I have here an extract from the May 1979 edition of a publication entitled Sechaba. I am not certain of the pronunciation. This is the mouthpiece of the S.A. African National Congress, the ANC. With reference to the congress of the Labour Party in December 1978 they state that it was the watershed in the existence of the party, since the Labour Party of South Africa was now beginning to adopt a more militant attitude. They went on to refer to speeches made by Reverend Allen Hendrickse, by the leader of Acsa, by Mr. Norman Middleton, by the deputy leader, and others. According to the ANC organ, Reverend Hendrickse said—

And perhaps the hon. the leader of the PFP holds the same view—

Oh, nonsense!

I shall quote further—

According to this publication Middleton summed up the position in the following words—

How does the ANC interpret these events? They describe it as proof of the growing popularity of the ANC among all population groups in the Republic of South Africa. It is also regarded as a sign of inavertible confrontation with the South African Government. I wonder whether the hon. member for Pinelands read this article, shortly before he made his speech in this House today.

No, I have not, but lay it on the Table. I shall read it later.

Order!

Sir, I am still in the initial stages of my speech. [Interjections.]

It can only improve.

Order!

Sir, in the old days members on both sides of this House expected great things of the council, and those great expectations were confirmed by the action of responsible leaders of the Labour Party before the present hierarchy entered the picture and took over. To prove this I should like to quote from evidence given before the Muller Commission on Improper Political Interference in South Africa. This evidence was given on 17 January 1967 by a very highly respected Coloured leader, Dr. Van der Ross, who is at present the principal of the University of the Western Cape. On behalf of the Labour Party he said—

On what date was that?

It was on 17 January 1967. I shall quote further—

This is the Labour Party—

That is why we expected great things from the council. Those who went before were responsible people. However, the attitude changed.

Why?

It changed particularly after 1978, as is also apparent from the article in the official organ of the ANC from which I quoted.

How has the attitude changed under Reverend Hendrickse? Firstly, he did exactly what Dr. Van der Ross said they would not do because they were not children. Reverend Hendrickse said that they would do it, probably because they are childish. He said that they would serve on the council simply to prove that the council cannot work, and to cause it to fail. This was confirmed at the congress of their party in December last year. They went further and refused to pass the budget of the council for the administration of the Coloured affairs that had been entrusted to them.

That was irresponsible.

It was extremely irresponsible. That is just the point I want to make.

But why?

Order!

I shall come to that. I do think the hon. member should allow me to make my own speech. If there are any questions, he can rise to his feet and put them to me, and I shall reply to them.

They refused to pass the budget, and in the current year that budget amounted to more than R415 million. That is the amount which we made available to that council and to its Executive to utilize in the interests of the Coloureds. But they refused to pass it. Then the Government has to nominate someone to pass it, and the members of the Labour Party, with their high principles, spend that money. But they go even further. They apply the money as an executive authority. Those people who do not want to participate in the CRC, act as an executive authority, but they do something to which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred in his excellent speech. [Interjections.] They refused to allow that budget to be discussed in the council. Now I want hon. members to tell me what the most important function of Parliament is in the actual practice of democracy. It is the power which it has to control the way in which the executive authority, the Ministers, jointly and individually, apply and utilize the money voted for them by Parliament in the administration of their portfolios. That privilege was denied the CRC by the Labour Party.

I am sorry the hon. member for Sea Point is not in this House, because he made a very silly speech, and I should like to discuss it with him. He said the Coloureds were opposed to the CRC because the system does not work. Are hon. members surprised that some people could have thought that the system does not work when the majority of the members of the parliamentary institution of the Coloureds refuse to allow that institution to exercise its true control function over the executive authority so that, as a result of the discussions of the Votes in particular, the Coloureds could have been informed of what was being done for them, what could still be done for them, what their faults were and what the truly constructive work of that body was?

They administered certain matters such as the Faure camp, an industrial school, etc. When things went wrong at an institution administered by them, for which they bore the responsibility and had to look after on a daily basis, they appointed a committee to institute an investigation. That committee brought out a damning report, but because of the way in which the report was drawn up, the newspapers all thought that the Government and I were to blame for that and not they who were responsible for its administration. Surely one cannot have a council which acts in this way.

But that is not all. For argument’s sake I want to concede that perhaps they did have the right to do these things, but they did not have the right to give undertakings, only to change their standpoint afterwards. Nor did they have the right to impose conditions for negotiations on the Government, and then repudiate those conditions whenever it seemed as though an agreement could be reached with the Government That was their attitude, but nevertheless we helped them.

I have here certain correspondence between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Executive of the CRC. On 13 February last year the Executive wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister and asked him not to submit legislation on the proposed constitution to Parliament because they were also appointing a commission, viz. the well-known Du Preez Commission. They requested the hon. the Prime Minister not to introduce legislation before the Du Preez Commission’s report was available so that they could have meaningful discussions with the Government on the future constitution of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister replied as follows—

They imposed a condition in their request. They wanted meaningful negotiations and discussions and requested that the legislation be postponed, and the hon. the Prime Minister acceded to that request. He appointed a commission before which they would be able to testify. He appointed a commission of Parliament, that sovereign body which alone can effect changes in South Africa—no one else can do so. No national convention can make the laws necessary if one wishes to effect changes and improvements in the dispensation which people want in South Africa. It is only Parliament that can do so. We then appointed a parliamentary commission of all parties to consider this matter. The Labour Party has a report, but not only do they refuse to testify before the commission, they also refuse to make that report available to the commission.

But we have it.

That does not detract from the fact that they refuse to make it available. I know why we have it. It did not come from them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he too would not hesitate, if he was a young Coloured man, to give evidence before an all-White commission?

It depends upon the man. Some people have the courage of their convictions and will give evidence everywhere where they can advance their just cause, like my friends on the Indian Council and your and my friends of Inkatha. They had the courage to give evidence. Are they now inferior to the Coloured people of the Labour Party?

You still have not answered the question.

I find it very interesting that these people, who want to have nothing to do with the council, who disparage and condemn the council and make it useless, so useless that the Opposition members have become frustrated and, with one or two exceptions, are also asking for this council to go because the Labour members have turned it into a useless instrument. It is not that they were opposed to the idea of the institution as such, but because they were completely frustrated by the Labour. Party and thwarted in their own aspirations for the improvement of the position of the Coloureds in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers that the total blame for the breakdown lies entirely with the Coloureds or whether there is any vestige of responsibility that needs to be shown by the Government?

I do not mind questions about what I am speaking about, but when an hon. member deals with what may be a part of my speech at a later stage, as this will be, then I think it is not fair to me.

I was not aware that it was going to be part of your speech.

I do feel that questions should be relevant. The hon. member is within his rights to ask the question, but I am also within my rights to refuse to answer it Unless hon. members ask questions relevant to the current argument I am using, I shall have to refuse to give way.

*Opportunities were created for the Coloureds to negotiate on their conditions and to reflect on the future of South Africa But every time the opportunity is there, they refuse to make use of it.

Several speakers referred to the speech made by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, before the Coloured Persons Council in 1974, when he spoke—and everyone referred to this—of “the sky is the limit”. Then this question was again asked by the uninformed former Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point: Why was nothing done to carry out Mr. Vorster’s wishes? My hon. friends opposite are speaking out of ignorance. Their standpoint can only be understood if one also understands that they are speaking out of ignorance, for what happened? After 1974 there was an election, in 1975, and the Labour Party won this election by 31 seats. Twenty members then had to be appointed, and in order to demonstrate our good faith, the Government appointed a number of people, who had been recommended by the leaders of the Labour Party, to make their majority in that council more effective. If they had to govern with a majority of one it would have been impossible for them, for if the Speaker and the Chairman were not in the council and the Deputy Chairman had to take the Chair, they would have had a minority of one. The Government then appointed members to give them a majority of 10, I think it was. That was the good faith of the Government. But that was not all. The brilliant former leader of the PFP once asked me why we had not also appointed people from the Labour Party. Where is the interest, the research? They have a research office here in this building. [Interjections.] Why do they not do a little research before they speak? That is not all. After that election, on instructions from the Government, officials began to negotiate on new measures to make the Coloured Persons Council fully elected and to expand its powers and functions considerably. But what did we get? What we got can be described in one word—stalling; there was prevarication and procrastination, excuses were made. But we never had meaningful negotiations, until the department, at the time under my predecessor, submitted a Bill to them in 1977-’78 and asked them whether they would not pass it. It was a method of making that council fully elected, at their request, and of giving it more meaning and significance. We are still waiting for a reaction to that Bill which was submitted to them.

They had rejected the system already.

Oh yes, they reject the system. The hon. member is now forcing me to say what I did not want to say. They reject the system, but at the same time they want to derive as much benefit as possible from the system. They accept their salaries, and the first matter to which I had to give attention when I became Minister was a repeated request from them for increased salaries and increased allowances, in one respect even higher than those of members of Parliament. They asked for wall-to-wall carpets, air-conditioning in their motor-cars, etc. They are the people who reject the system, but they do not hesitate when they can enjoy privileges under the system. [Interjections.] The hon. members should rather keep quiet, because they do not know the facts and they are now forcing me to furnish more facts than I intended to furnish. I can furnish other facts as well. [Interjections.] For almost two days I have been hearing how bad the NP and the Government is. Now I just wish to bring home the truth to them. We did not cease our attempts to negotiate. Mr. Vorster, the immediate predecessor of my hon. leader, the present Prime Minister, appointed a Cabinet Council which was to consist of certain members of the White Cabinet who had been involved in questions of relations, as well as the leaders of the Indian Council and the leaders of the CRC. In my presence the former Prime Minister said to these people that he wanted this council because he wanted to negotiate with the leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians on a completely equal footing—he, as the leader of his people, and they as the leaders of their people—to try to solve the problems of South Africa, or at least to try to alleviate them. He wanted them, as the leaders of the various population groups in South Africa, to negotiate with equal status.

I now wish to ask this question: What more could they have expected from the Government? But what happened? What did these people do, they who had said that they did not wish to testify before the Schlebusch Commission and who did not wish to continue with the council because they wanted to negotiate with the Government and the Prime Minister? They refused to take their seats on the Cabinet Council and negotiate on equal footing with the hon. the Prime Minister. When the demand which they had made was complied with, they refused to give effect to it. What is happening to us in South Africa? These are the people who are the heroes of hon. members on that side of the House. I want to tell the NRP that they astonish me. As far as they are concerned, the PFP can say: “Zoals de ouden zongen, zo piepen de jongen.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give me an honest answer …

Order!

I am sorry. The hon. member must take his seat. [Interjections.] I do not want to be insulted.

Order! Is the hon. member for Berea suggesting that the hon. the Minister might give a dishonest answer?

No, Sir, I was just asking a simple question.

It was therefore just a way of speaking? The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have now done what hon. members on the opposite side of the House did, viz. to talk politics for a while. I have a feeling that when a person on this side of the House talks politics and one has all the facts and the realities of the circumstances on one’s side, one always wins the argument. One cannot help it. It is not that one is a better debater; it is simply that if one has the facts, the truth and the realities of the situation on one’s side, one has to win.

However, I now wish to take a different tack. I am now asking for the attention of this House, because I think that if we had approached this debate in the correct way from the outset and the Opposition had set the right tone in this debate, it could have been an extremely fruitful and useful debate for South Africa in the circumstances in which the world finds itself today and in the light of the exceptional problems we are experiencing in South Africa. However they chose to make wild allegations, to display their ignorance, to hurl accusations, launch attacks, and go back to the distant past, as the former leader of the Opposition did, who raked up old issues. On an important occasion such as this it was really an extremely unsavoury display. But we must forgive them, because we are living in times in which we cannot afford to reproach one another too much. Let us rather ask them whether we cannot debate the matter with one another on a higher level for the remainder of the discussion.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout advanced certain arguments. The hon. member for Durban North debated on a higher level. Even the usually impetuous and tumultuous hon. member for Pinelands, towards the end of his speech, winced a measure of concern for which I have sympathy.

I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here. Oh, there he is. [Interjections.]

He has become so small that one can no longer spot him.

The hon. member sometimes has a way of making himself inconspicuous in his bench. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that we must admit that it was due to our actions that the Coloureds of South Africa have found themselves in the political wilderness in South Africa and that we should lead them out of that political wilderness. These were not his actual words, but is that not a fair interpretation of what he said? He stated that we had made a political football of these people in the past.

Nobody can or will deny that, but should we continue to make a political football of them? Must we approve if some of their own political leaders, such as Messrs. Hendrickse and Middleton, also make a political football today of their own problems, and of their frustrations perhaps, for their own gain in South Africa, or for their own objectives? This is what we must think about. That is why I say: For heaven’s sake, let us conduct this debate on a high level. The Coloureds are an important group of people. They are, and here I differ from my hon. friend for Pinelands, an important ethnic group, an important component of the colourful and interesting South African population structure. They are a very valuable and esteemed element of our population. If every American sociologist and every other sociologist says that the Negroes are a separate ethnic group, then I cannot understand how one would have us believe that the Coloureds are not also a separate ethnic group.

Ask the Coloured people themselves.

I did not know the hon. member would use this argument. I shall furnish him with the references on another occasion.

I just want to say that we should admit to one another—and I am referring in particular now to the old United Party and the old National Party …

The good old United Party.

The good old United Party men! [Interjections.] I am not referring to the NRP, which is merely a spectre of the old United Party, that wishes to hover over its dead body. I am certainly not referring to the perversion of the old United Party which one sees there. [Interjections.] In the old days we made a political football of the Coloureds. We misused them for our own political purposes at election time. Let us admit that we did them an injustice.

Speak for yourself.

If we admit this, we could perhaps debate the matter with one another without any hypocrisy, as we always try to debate matters with one another. Let us ask the Coloured Leaders to forget the past so that we can reflect together on the future, and not look for debating points by saying that they do not wish to negotiate with a Parliamentary commission, but only with the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister is as much a creation of Parliament as the commission is a creation of Parliament. Surely those are the facts. Let us speak to them. Perhaps hon. members opposite have more influence over them. Let us use our influence to see whether we cannot get together to reflect on the future of South Africa.

If there is one point on which I believe we differ, it is on the “how”, on the methods, but if there is one thing on which we are absolutely agreed, it is that South Africa needs a new dispensation in its relations—constitutional, economical and social—among the peoples of South Africa. We are all in agreement on this. Let us differ on the methods and on the final outcome, but let us begin to reflect, let us begin to deliberate, let us begin to join forces and not simply score political points off one another.

The chairman of the Schlebusch Commission, the hon. the Minister of Justice and of the Interior, has already said that he believes—I think all of us believe this, the entire commission is at one with him in believing this, and if I am making a mistake then the members of the commission will inform me—that we should not imagine that we will be able to force on all the nations of South Africa to accept a ready-made constitution. Hon. members opposite are nodding their heads in agreement. The chairman of the commission said this. He said it would have to be a process. Any successful institution is the result of a process, if we look at history. This is as I know it to be. The British constitution goes back to Anglo-Saxon days, to the days of the witenagemot and wergild payments, to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Ship Money Trial.

Even now the process has not ended. Only recently Lloyd George had to draw the teeth of the House of Lords by threatening to appoint additional Lords, and in that way subdued that institution. In the ’twenties of this century women got the vote. Consequently we can see that this is an ongoing process.

I am a Cape man. In 1815 Lord Charles Somerset gave us an advisory council in the Cape. In 1834 the first Legislative Assembly was established at the Cape. In 1853 …

1854.

No, it was 1853. The new Constitution of 1853 came into operation in 1854. The new Parliament, or Legislative Council, as it was then known, met for the first time in 1854. [Interjections.] In 1872, the Cape Colony obtained responsible government for the first time. The process continued of course. [Interjections.]

Order!

Still later we acquired dominion status. Then, too, there was the Balfour Declaration in terms of which all members of the British Commonwealth received equal status in their domestic and foreign affairs. In that declaration it was also determined that the one would in no respect be inferior to the other. After that there was the Statute of Westminster and the status of the Union Act. Later still came the Republic of South Africa. Now the Schlebusch Commission is in the process of determining what the next step will be. The process continues. A constitution cannot be manufactured overnight.

That is correct.

We are agreed on that score. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition may put his question to me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister says that it is correct—and I agree with him—that we cannot obtain a ready-made constitution from the Schlebusch Commission. Now I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why the NP then, in 1977, asked for a mandate for a ready-made constitution. [Interjections.]

No, that is not true.

To reflect on the creation of a new constitution for South Africa is probably one of the most important and biggest steps which we as a nation in South Africa can take. When I talk of “we” I include all of us, hon. members of the Opposition Parties as well. That is why the NP went to its supporters and to the people and asked for approval for our standpoint which we would submit in the discussions. [Interjections.] Oh, yes, that is correct. That is why, when the first requests for new legislation were received, we immediately agreed to negotiate and appointed a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Surely that is history. These are facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is in fact true that one cannot compel immediate acceptance of a constitution. Now I want to say something else as well if the hon. chairman of the Schlebusch Commission will forgive me for doing it. I want to speak as a member of that commission now.

It took you a long time to learn.

Yes, I do not want to argue that matter with the hon. member. Perhaps it took us a long time. I only hope that it will not take him and his party longer than it took us to learn what we learnt.

You are learning from our proposals.

What those hon. members must learn from us is that there are things which are greater than party-political trifles. [Interjections.] To my mind this debate proves that it is necessary to learn that lesson. As a member of the Schlebusch Commission I want to say, in all humility, that in the first place I hope that as a result of the activities of the commission, concrete proposals will be put forward which we will all be able to consider objectively, with a true sense of responsibility and praying for the future of South Africa. My second wish is that the Schlebusch Commission will perhaps come forward with suggestions on what we can do to reflect purposefully with the non-Whites of this country, Coloureds included, with all who will be affected by a new constitutional dispensation. However, I believe, as the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Interior also believes, that we cannot force a ready-made constitution upon people. In order to avoid that I think one should, during the process of reflection, negotiate with those who will be involved in the progress to a final destination. That is in reality my plea which I am making to this Parliament this evening. Let us act in that spirit.

Did I not say that on the first day, at the first meeting of the Commission?

I do not know. I did not hear it. If I had heard it, I would have applauded the hon. member that day. It is music to my ears when he speaks in that vein. I only hope that his ideas were in fact an interpretation of my ideas as well. Sometimes one thinks that one is speaking the same language as another person, but then it turns out that that is not the case. We shall have to consider this matter carefully. Consequently I am making an appeal to all the parties in this House to co-operate with us in this matter. Let us consider the past to be a closed book, and now open a new book for the future constitutional dispensation for South Africa. Let us help our Coloured friends so that a true image of them is created for South Africa I am saying now in all earnest that the leaders of the Labour Party—not of the Coloured community—have created a false image of the Coloured people of South Africa, and in my opinion that process reached a climax with the actions of certain people on SATV after the interview with the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us help our Coloured people, or rather let them do it themselves. Let us rather ask them to co-operate so that we can change that false image of them which has been created in South Africa. There is something I should like to say to the Coloureds. Let us allow the past to bury the past. Let us direct our gaze at the future. Let us together ensure that justice is done to all in South Africa who are entitled to it. Let us ensure that there will not again be people in South Africa whom we can kick around like a football among ourselves. Let us see one another as citizens of South Africa, and let us face up to the consequences. Let us consult together to ensure that full justice is done to everyone. Then we will perhaps find that this debate, which we can take further in detail during the Committee Stage, could be a turning point in the history of South Africa, a turning point to the good, which could perhaps lead to our being able to say with justification that we wish to forget the past, our past; my past and that of all hon. members. There is one thing which we must believe. Any man who rises to his feet in this House and says that he has a past which he must not forget, is not telling the truth, and I now hope that no one will rise to his feet and say that, for I will then be forced to say that he is not telling the truth. We are dealing with a great cause. May God give us the grace to deal with it like great men.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, F. J. le Roux, H. D. K. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen, A. J. Vlok and V. A. Volker.

Noes—22: Bamford, B. R.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Goodall, B. B.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield dropped.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—96: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), H. D. K. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen, A. J. Vlok and V. A. Volker.

Noes—22: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Goodall, B. B.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Permit me therefore to motivate our reasons for that. In doing so, may I just take stock of the position of the Bill as it now stands? The hon. the Minister of Justice is unfortunately charged with dealing with this legislation, something for which he is normally not responsible and which really befits another hon. Minister. We appreciate the difficulty of this hon. Minister, especially where he himself says: “Basies moet ek instaan vir en redeneer oor wetgewing wat eintlik by ’n ander Minister tuishoort”. Unfortunately this is so in this case, but is there any reason, any strict tradition of the House, why the Minister of Community Development’s voice has not been heard in this particular debate about an issue which affects him so directly? It has been necessary for us to advance arguments which affect not only the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is piloting this legislation, but also the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

Let us look at how the Bill stands at present. Three amendments were moved in the Committee Stage. Firstly, the hon. member for Sea Point moved an amendment by means of which he wanted to afford protection to all those people who under the Rents Act presently enjoy the sort of protection that they do under the Act as it stands at present. The second amendment, the one moved by myself, was to ask that this Bill be held over by way of a moratorium for a period of one year, but on the basis that only after 1 April 1981 would the Minister have the power to enforce, if he so wishes, by proclamation in the Gazette, the section we are amending at this stage. Then, of course, there was the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central who wanted to provide for an appeal. It is interesting to note that the hon. the Minister of Justice rejected the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point. He said: “Sy amendement kan nie aanvaar word nie. Hy poog om sekere kategorieë mense te beskerm”. It is rather curious that, when we on this side of the House seek to protect a certain category of people, that should in fact be a reason why the hon. the Minister should reject an amendment of that nature.

If this measure is passed as it stands at present, it will mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of people will lose their protection under section 21(1)(c) of the Rents Act. If they timeously paid their rent, they could not be deprived of that to which they were entitled. The hon. the Minister can now tell us what he promised to tell us when, during the Committee Stage, he indicated that we would debate the Bill as it stands at the Third Reading. His promise relates to a figure he quoted to the House, namely that up to this moment 89 760 units had been decontrolled in the phasing out of rent control. I hope that the hon. the Minister has had the opportunity he required and will now inform the House how many of the 89 760 units will fall under sectional title. If he has that figure, we can determine precisely how many people are going to be affected when this legislation comes into force—if it does—on 1 April 1981. We have stressed, and I believe it has been accepted, that this measure is inextricably bound up with the phasing out of rent control. This measure cannot stand in isolation, as this is clearly another step in the phasing out of the provisions of the Rents Act. It is necessary to remind hon. members of this House of what the Government’s policy was, of the statements that were made and of the undertakings that were given at the time. I have with me a Press release which was issued at 12h00 on Thursday, 8 April 1978 by the hon. S. J. M. Steyn, the Minister of Community Development. I want to read the relevant portions in order to remind this House and the Government of its statements and of its obligations—

So we must divert our attention and remember that less affluent category of people, and I hope that is not the category to which the hon. the Minister of Justice referred just now. Later on in this statement, he said—

That is the Fouché Commission—

Incidentally, the hon. the Minister also said—

I shall come back to that point in a moment. Just to dwell further on the promises and undertakings given by the Government, however, I quote from Hansard of 28 April 1978, col. 5919, where the hon. the Minister said—

That is, in fact, the stage we are at now, that of measuring the impact of the measure that we are discussing here at the moment. I must ask this House what weight we and members of the public should then attach to statements made by responsible hon. Cabinet Ministers on behalf of the Government. Do we ignore them, do we take them as gospel, do we hold the Cabinet, the hon. the Minister, the Government, to them, or should this just be thrown out of the window and forgotten because of expediency, or because it does not suit them at a particular time? At that time, when the phasing out of rent control came about, on 6 April 1978, there were admittedly hundreds of flats standing empty in most of the metropolitan areas of South Africa such as Hillbrow or Durban, for instance.

I have stated that, on 25 April 1978, in a newspaper which mostly carries advertisements on Friday nights, I counted 185 vacant flats. In the same newspaper, as recently as 22 February 1980, also on a Friday night, I counted only 37 vacant flats. [Interjections.] The Government acted on the recommendations of the Fouché Commission at that time, but I must ask whether the recommendations of the Fouché Commission are not out of date at this point in time. What has happened since 6 April 1978? Let us see. Firstly the rent control on buildings erected from January 1960 to May 1966 was completely phased out. In April of the following year the rent control on buildings erected from January 1955 to January 1960 was phased out completely. On 1 April 1980 the two 10-year periods, for which the 10% limit was valid in respect of the category I first mentioned, will have expired, and on that date landlords will be able to charge exactly what they like. Other hon. members on this side of the House, the newspapers and I have warned the House that increases of 60% or more, as of 1 April 1980, are being contemplated by the landlords. They are just waiting to impose these increases. If the hon. the Minister goes ahead on 1 April 1980 with his next announcement, another category of buildings erected from 20 October 1949 to 31 December 1954 will also be decontrolled.

I want to illustrate how the position has changed further. In the first place fewer flats and houses are being built at the moment. The demand has outstripped the supply. According to The Star …

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. The Star of 1 March 1980, only the other day, supplied certain statistics, obtained from the Department of Statistics, to which I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. In 1977 only 20 469 units were completed. In 1978 4 000 fewer units were completed, and I am talking about the private sector. In 1978 12 405 units were erected in metropolitan areas. In 1978 the lowest number of houses in 10 years were erected. There was a 22% decrease in the supply of housing accommodation. In fact only 2 500 flats were erected in the entire metropolitan areas of South Africa, which is a quarter to a third of the total number that were erected in 1974.

Let us measure this situation against the demographic position, as illustrated by the latest statistics which have been published by that department During the last three years covered by these published statistics, viz. 1975, 1976 and 1977, the average birth rate—I am only dealing with Whites because we are dealing with housing for White people—was 78 000 per year, and the average death rate 35 000 per year, which constitutes a net gain of 43 000 in the population. As new people are born, homes have to be extended or other homes have to be found. Over the last three years the average White marriage rate per annum in South Africa was 40 000. I assume that when people get married, they have to go and live somewhere. It is quite customary for them to go out to find a new apartment or a new home. In addition to that there were on average 10 000 divorces per year. I take it that when people get divorced, families split up and the one has to go and live in one house while the other has to go and live in another house. So disregarding the number of births and deaths, there is a net demand for something like 50 000 units per year as against 20 000 units which have been completed.

I now want to refer to the question of local authorities. I checked with the Johannesburg housing department only today. As far as economic housing is concerned, they have …

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

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, this is an argument involving the entire Act, and I am answering the hon. the Minister. In the Committee Stage he mentioned the position with regard to housing and gave figures to indicate how many of these units had been built. This whole question is relevant, with great respect, to the consideration of availability. The question is whether the supply is sufficient to meet the demand. It is not. Let me illustrate this further. There were 157 vacancies out of 3 333, which is 4,7%, and below the 5% regarded as normal. In the case of sub-economic units there were 76 vacancies as against the 675. There is a reason for that, because the R150 is too low, because even a woman with three children gets a maintenance grant in excess of that. They expect a waiting-list.

In addition to this there are general arguments. For example, I would ask the hon. the Minister, regarding the question of sectional title flats and the question of flats generally, to do a survey amongst the estate agents in South Africa today to ascertain from them how many properties they have got for sale on their books, and how many buyers they have waiting. From the information I have received, I am prepared to state categorically that in every single case they have an excess of hundreds of people waiting for accommodation which they are unable to supply. In addition to that there has been an excessive demand from people from South West Africa and Rhodesia …

Order! The hon. member must come back to sectional titles. In connection with rent control, it is only sectional title buildings that are involved. I cannot allow the hon. member to go on discussing rent control as it applies throughout South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the whole argument throughout this entire debate—throughout the Second Reading and the Committee Stage—has been that these things are inextricably bound together. That has been my argument too.

Rent control is only lifted in respect of sectional titles.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation does away with section 21(1)(c), which concerns rent control. It relates to the Rent Control Act. Therefore, if we are taking away rent control in respect of sectional title, we cannot view it in isolation, ignoring the rent control being phased out at present. With great respect, it is impossible.

On this issue of sectional title, Sapoa have written a letter to the editors of newspapers, and also issued a circular, in which they state that the tenant in the case of sectional title should first be given the opportunity of buying the apartment he is living in. One must bear in mind that an apartment that was offered for R18 000 three years ago is now selling for R42 000. Do Sapoa think that the present tenants of these apartments have sufficient funds to purchase these apartments? As we have heard, building societies are reluctant to grant bonds to such people. Where are these people supposed to go to get a roof over their heads? I quote from The Star—

We have got to protect the tenants, because this measure will diminish such protection. This is a fact. Is there an answer to the problem we face? What is the alternative?

I want to state our policy quite categorically on the phasing out of rent control in so far as it affects sectional title. I have here a document, dated 6 April 1978, which states—

That was our standpoint then, and that is still our standpoint. As far as the free-enterprise system is concerned, I believe we have fully answered that question. We are not foresaking the free-enterprise system at all. The Rents Act and rent control have been in effect in South Africa since 1920. The question is often asked why the landlord should subsidize his tenants. The answer to that is, I believe, that where there is a need for the tenants to be protected in terms of the existing legislation that need should never be disregarded. We are not unmindful of the rights of tenants. We believe that the Government should even be prepared to consider subsidies in really needy cases if necessary. What must happen, however, is a number of things. Firstly, the Government should consider the possibility of purchasing apartments. Secondly, they should consider the question of leases, and, thirdly, before the next phase is announced on 1 April 1980, in order to avert a catastrophe, a decision is to be made here and now about this whole issue. Therefore I am compelled to call for a stay of execution.

In the Fouché Commission’s report, according to Die Transvaler of 23 June 1977, it is stated—

I want to know, if I may, what has become of this recommendation and what information has been collected with a view to assessing the present position. In the circumstances we in these benches call for the appointment of a Select Committee of this House, a Select Committee which is to be turned into a commission of inquiry after the prorogation of Parliament in order to involve other bodies, for instance, Sapoa, as well as other interested bodies to do the following: Firstly, to assess and do a survey of the availability of flat accommodation; secondly, to assess the demand for flat accommodation; thirdly, to consider the advisability of pegging the present position and to establish how long it should be pegged; fourthly, to examine methods of assisting landlords in receiving a fair return; fifthly, to examine the need for continued protection of tenants and to establish how long they should be protected; sixthly, to examine the income limits as laid down by the Department of Community Development, and to consider the purchase and/or acquisition of apartments for the housing of people in the lower income groups. I believe it is the policy of thee Government, as also stated by the hon. the Minister, to look after the less affluent section of the South African society as well.

In these circumstances, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, we have no alternative but to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the hon. member for Hillbrow because I had hoped that he would advance better arguments during the Third Reading debate than those used up to now by hon. members of the Opposition. Unfortunately I must say with all due respect, and in all honesty, that the note on which he concluded his speech was, to say the least, absurd. I believe that his motion regarding the appointment of the Select Committee and the six points that, according to him, have to be investigated—and I say this with all due respect—are totally absurd.

I listened carefully to what the hon. member said. In order to reply to a few of his arguments, it is as well that he clearly said in certain respects: “Let us look at this; let us look at that. Let us take stock of where we stand.” He also said—

I want to make it quite clear that a very unpleasant element has crept into this debate. It is striking that hon. members opposite have attacked the hon. the Minister of Community Development ad nauseam. We regard this as unpleasant, particularly since he was not present in this House at that stage. It is a tradition of this House that when an hon. member wants to talk to any other hon. member he usually notifies him of his intention. One warns the member concerned that one will debate with him on some occasion or will argue about some of his arguments or statements.

Quite correct.

Yes, correct. However, was this done in this case? I maintain this evening that not one of those hon. members who attacked the hon. the Minister here in his absence, or wanted to put arguments to him, had the decency to ask him to be present here.

He was.

No, I am referring to the Second Reading debate. In that debate personal attacks were made on the hon. the Minister, and I think that constituted reprehensible conduct on the part of hon. members of the official Opposition.

If initially I may have considered any arguments advanced by hon. members of the Opposition in this regard at all favourably, the hon. member for Hillbrow succeeded in totally wrecking their cause this evening. I should just like to refer to a few arguments he advanced. He once again came forward with the statement: “Hundreds will lose protection under the Rents Act, for this must be seen in context with the phasing out of the rent control.” He told us what the hon. the Minister,. Marais Steyn, was supposed to have said in 1978. In that respect he referred specifically to the question of dwellings, as well as to the fact that the hon. the Minister was supposed to have said: “We must have time to study the impact.” However, this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with the phasing out of rent control measures contained in the Rent Control legislation on the Statute Book. This is purely an administrative arrangement. By deleting section 39(1) we are putting the question of flats on a par with the provisions which have existed ever since 1971 in respect of dwelling units that are separate entities. I made a special point of reading up the debates on the abolition of the protection enjoyed by individual houses in 1971. In that whole debate I could not find a single sentence by hon. members of the present Opposition, who are now kicking up such a fuss about this provision, that indicated any objection whatsoever to the abolition of the protection for dwelling units, protection they do not want removed in respect of flats. Let us go back and examine the figures. The Fouché Commission report indicates that approximately 170 000 flats could have been affected at that stage. At the same time approximately 68 000—let us round off the figure to 70 000—dwelling units or houses could be affected.

78 000.

Now, if we take those figures and the figures mentioned here the other day by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the amending Bill which deals only with the abolition of rent control on sectional title units. The hon. member must please confine himself to that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. I was only trying to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Order! I have already ruled that out of order too.

Rather agree with us.

In my own constituency I investigated what the impact of this legislation would be and reached the conclusion, judging from the information I received, that there is a considerable number of owners of plots zoned for flats who apply for rezoning. They want their plots rezoned as single dwelling units. To me this obviously substantiates the argument that there is not such a heavy demand for plots zoned for flats and the building of flats. Apart from that we shall on the other hand be able to accept the argument that if this legislation is accepted, people in flats will be deprived of the right to remain in those flats. Surely, then, the critical aspect is how the hon. the Minister is now going to succeed in promoting the building of more flats. If this is the case, surely one must investigate what the effect could be.

I maintain that somewhere, something must be done in order to try and encourage the building of flats. If one carries this legislation through to its logical conclusion, surely the final and total development must be that section titles must be carried through to their logical conclusion so that it will be more easy for the man in the street to obtain a flat. The hon. member for Hillbrow advanced certain reasons for his opposition, but for those very reasons I believe that this will lead to more flats being built. At the moment we have the situation where building societies, as the hon. member for Hillbrow was quite correct in saying, are disinclined to grant mortgage bonds on flat units. Why? For the simple reason that the title of the individual owner is not as established as in the case of a single house. Once again, Sir, why should there be a difference? Surely there is no difference in principle between a house situated on a separate plot and that which is built in a group. Surely that fortuitous factor makes no difference.

Sir, I want to enumerate seven reasons why I support this legislation. The first is that I believe building societies will be encouraged to grant mortgage bonds more freely in respect of separate flats that are bought. Secondly, I believe that persons who cannot afford houses will now be in a position to buy flats and to give permanence to their home. I also believe that there will not be more dissatisfied than satisfied people, because for every person who is evicted from his flat because someone else buys it, there will be a satisfied person. Therefore the result cannot be more than a draw. I believe, too, that this legislation will make a contribution towards the encouragement of urban renewal and that we will have a higher standard of old flats and flats for the lower-income group. In addition, I believe that more money will flow back to be used for the development of flats, as a result of which more housing will be available too, as was also said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. In the fifth place I can see no difference between the single house situated on a separate plot and that dwelling unit which comprises a flat in a block unit. Each ought to be dealt with on an equal basis. This also applies to the owners. In the sixth place the hon. member for Umbilo said that “there are two sides to the coin”. In fact there are “three sides to the coin” in this regard. For the most part it will not be the flat owner who will give notice: The same principle applies here too, viz. that the owner of a house gives the occupant of the house notice when he wants it for his own use. Similarly, only the individual flat owner will give notice to the person occupying the flat. Just as the person in the house is protected, the flat occupant is even more protected, because if the person giving notice does, not live in the flat for at least a year, he may be criminally prosecuted and a fine not exceeding R400 may be imposed on him. Thus he already has that protection. In addition I also believe that it is not the duty of the individual developer to subsidize individual tenants, but in fact the duty of the State. This the State does in fact do by subsidizing the lower income group in obtaining economic and subeconomic housing and old-age homes. Finally, I believe that the lower-income group will not be so hard hit since it has always been more expensive flats, for which a higher rental is charged, which will be sold under sectional title. For that reason I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Vasco and Hillbrow have ranged far and wide on a clause of the Bill which is a very simple one. Quite frankly, I do not think that to go into birth statistics, wedding statistics and the availability of housing is really all that relevant to clause 3 of the Bill to which we in these benches object. [Interjections.] I must confess that I think the hon. member for Hillbrow should take advice from one of the cricketers like Barry Richards or Mike Proctor who get sponsored for every run they make in a cricket match. I think if the hon. member for Hillbrow received a cent per word he would become a millionaire within a very short period of time. [Interjections.] The basic reason why we in these benches will oppose the Third Reading of this Bill is because of clause 3, because this is a clause which will enable an elderly and poor person to be put out of a flat from which, he has had every reason to believe, for a considerable number of years, that he could not be evicted. This is the absolute crux of the matter. I can tell hon. members that there are a number of extremely concerned elderly people in this country today. I have had telegrams from some of them during the past week who are extremely worried about the fact that their flats could be sold from under them by sectional title and that the new owner of that flat could then evict them because he himself wants to live in that flat which has been bought under sectional title.

The problem that these people have is that if the block of flats is developed for sectional title, they simply cannot afford to buy that flat themselves. They are therefore placed in the most dreadful situation, and I am sure the hon. the Minister must agree with this. What are they going to do? How are they going to cope? Where are they going to find a reasonable shelter over their heads, where they can maintain the same standard of living that they have maintained in the past? This is the crux of the matter.

Unfortunately I was not able to be present during the Committee Stage of this Bill, and on that occasion I understand that I was, to a certain extent, stabbed in the back by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Unfortunately it was not a good clean hit. It was rather a messy business I understand, but of course it is all the more painful for the person concerned. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted various things that I had said. I had tried to put both sides of the coin. There is a plus factor in this Bill and I have no doubt about it. I am sure it is only hon. members of the NP that can find three sides to a coin, as the hon. member for Vasco suggested. I did try to put the case for private enterprise because basically there are principles behind this Bill which one must go along with, and the most important one, mentioned by the hon. member for Vasco, is that we must not expect private enterprise to subsidize the poor within the State. That is the job of the State. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted this section of my speech and he quoted it quite correctly, but what he did not go on to say was that the Government had, in fact, made certain promises. [Interjections.] These people had been led to believe that they would be able to live out their elderly years in the flats in which they were living at a reasonable rental which they knew they could afford. They were put into this position and whether that is correct or incorrect is beside the point at this stage. The fact of the matter is that they were put into this position by the Government. The Government is now taking that protection away. I do not know how many people are going to be involved. I do not think anybody in this House knows that, but in the present economic climate with, hopefully, boom conditions and a good budget coming from the hon. the Minister of Finance, which will put more money in the public’s pocket, I think there will probably be a minor boom in the purchasing of real estate, of flats and of houses. I think we have already seen in this city that there is somewhat of a boom in housing. Prices are escalating all the time and there are a number of buyers. So there is going to be a big demand to buy flats, to turn them into sectional title flats and to sell them. Therefore I think the number of people who can be affected by this legislation can be quite large. These are the people whom the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the Nationalist benches must bear in mind when we vote on this Bill. The Government members must know that, in passing this legislation, they are going to create a tremendous amount of worry. They have already created that worry, but in a lot of cases they are going to create a lot of heartbreak. I therefore appeal to hon. members on that side, and it is a heartfelt appeal, to think of these elderly people before finalizing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the hon. member for East London North is still very uncertain about which standpoint he should adopt on the legislation. Quite rightly so. He is even less convincing in his standpoint of opposing this legislation tonight than he has been before. It is striking that this debate has been characterized throughout by one tremendous anomaly, viz. that both the official Opposition and the NRP have been posing as the champions and patrons of the less-privileged and the less well-off during the debate. I just want to tell them that that role does not suit them. They do not fit that role and I think they must be told, if they do not realize it, that their pious protestations definitely do not sound very convincing.

We on this side of the House have already admitted that this legislation will inevitably cause some privation. I think we have consensus on that. It is simply a question of the extent thereof. If the fact that some people are going to be adversely affected—and we do not deny it—as can be considered sufficient justification for labelling the legislation as being exclusively negative, then it is also true that the legislation has a very important positive aspect. That too has already been pointed out, but allow me just to deal with it once again. The fact is that many of the people occupying flats that are now going to be affected by this legislation, are yearning for an opportunity to own property. What everyone yearns for, is to have a place of one’s own, a piece of mother earth that one can call one’s own. I think it is undoubtedly true that a very large number of the present occupants of flats and other forms of sectional title units who are going to be affected by this legislation, will now have the opportunity, an opportunity which they would otherwise most probably have had no prospect of, to own a house or flat of their own and to live in it. This is particularly important, because we know that the flats that are now going to be exempted from rent control by means of this legislation, are primarily the older flats. Fortunately for these people, especially those on whose behalf the Opposition is interceding, the flats will therefore also fall primarily in the price range which these people will be able to afford. Therefore there is an opportunity for them to avail themselves of it and I think we must welcome that opportunity. The people in the lower and middle income groups are now going to have this opportunity, and they are going to jump at it too. I am sure that one is going to find that happening.

The Opposition believes that there are unscrupulous owners who are out to prosecute the tenants in the flats and to evict them. However, I am sure that in practice one will find that there will be a general pattern whereby the people who are occupying the flats at present, will be given first option to buy the flats. Now the Opposition is saying that the price would not be within the reach of those people. I think that the prices of most flats would in fact be within their reach, but if this is not so, we definitely cannot expect the developers and investors to make sacrifices for the sake of those who are unfortunately not in a position to purchase those properties.

In order to see this matter in the proper perspective in this debate, it is nevertheless necessary to take another look at the purpose of sectional titles, because this is what the legislation that we are dealing with tonight, is all about The purpose is to promote home-ownership. It must bring flat ownership within the reach of a larger section of the community. We must not lose sight of that purpose when discussing this Bill.

This is the ultimate purpose of the Sectional Titles Act. But it is not exclusively an economic objective or endeavour to bring home-ownership within the reach of more people; it does in fact, fit in with the entire political outlook on life in a country like South Africa. It fits in with our entire free market economy and consequently it ultimately represents an ideological approach. In a country like South Africa, where we pursue the system of free market economy, we put a high premium on home-ownership, and there are many good reasons for doing so. We consider it an effective guarantee against foreign, dangerous ideologies. It is a guarantee against communist influences. One can even call it a bulwark against Marxism. Scientists assure us that on the basis of research and study as well as statistics, there is a definite correlation between home-ownership and opposition to foreign or communist influences. Scientists allege that it is a characteristic of countries in the Western world that the stronger the tradition of home-ownership, the poorer the opportunity for foreign ideologies to obtain a hold on a community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if you do not appreciate my argument. I shall not take it any further.

What I do want to say, is that as long as section 39(1) remains on the Statute Book, it will be impossible to realize the actual purpose and ideal of the Sectional Titles Act. The whole endeavour to put home ownership within the reach of as many people as possible cannot be promoted to its full extent as long as there is this restriction of home ownership. The concept of our free market economy in the sphere of the home building industry cannot evolve fully as long as this is the case. Until such time as section 39(1), which was most probably considered simply as an interim measure at the time, is eliminated, the Act cannot realize its ideals and purpose to the full.

The Sectional Titles Act actually incorporates an important promise—it is actually a claim that it is making—and this is that flat ownership and house ownership are completely co-equal. This is a promise that the Act incorporates: Those two forms of right of ownership are equal in all respects. Therefore, a flat owner enjoys the same rights and status as an ordinary house owner who owns a single dwelling.

Section 39(1), however, serves as a temporary precautionary measure in respect to this promise and claim. Since it has been accepted that conditions were abnormal at the time, a temporary limitation has been placed on the promise and claim. It was clearly implied throughout that it would be an interim measure which would be lifted when circumstances changed. It cannot remain in force indefinitely. If it were to remain in force indefinitely, the credibility of the promise incorporated in the Act, would be called into question. The promise must be kept and the only way in which this can be done is to guarantee that flat ownership will not remain an inferior form of property ownership in the long run. This is in effect the whole purpose of the amending Bill.

In normal times and under normal conditions it is part of the inherent right of the owner of fixed property that possession of the property also entitles him to occupy it. The right of ownership and the right of occupation are two components of the right of property ownership. By accepting section 39(1), flat ownership became a somewhat inferior form of property ownership. This differentiation—one can even call it discrimination—can be justified by abnormal conditions on a temporary basis, but not in the long run. In the long run it becomes untenable and quite indefensible. I think that circumstances are forcing the Government to conclude that the time has now come for removing this anomaly and to do the logical thing by equating the two forms of property ownership in all respects.

I do not think that anyone can be dogmatic now and say precisely what the consequences are going to be if this Bill is passed. We cannot say precisely how many people are going to be positively or negatively affected by it. We have already admitted that there is a positive and a negative element. It is impossible to predict it. It is possible that the removal of this legal limitation will give us an answer to the important question to which the Department of Community Development will definitely have to give attention, viz. the question of exactly how great a demand exists for flats that can be rented by people who cannot buy them. If experience should teach us that by removing this further phase of rent control, we are creating a situation which causes a great deal of privation, I am sure that the Government and the Department of Community Development in particular, would give urgent attention to the matter as soon as they feel that something must be done about it. It is possible—I do not know what time will teach it—that the Government will have to think of certain measures to provide for this need. I am referring in this regard to the proposal by Sapoa that we took cognizance of the other day, viz. that the Government should think in terms of subsidized flats for rental, i.e. flats that will have to be reserved for the purpose of rental and not for sectional titles. For instance, Sapoa drew a parallel between the proposal and what the Government has already done in regard to promoting the hotel trade. I do not want to allege that there is going to be such a demand that it will become necessary for the Government to think of such measures, but it is a possibility. It is possible that the extent of the demand for flats will not be converted by sectional title, may be so great that the Government will have to give attention to it. But the fact that there is uncertainty as so the extent of the need, is definitely not sufficient reason to postpone something that is clearly correct and logical any longer.

Mr. Speaker, only the other day the hon. member for Pretoria Central was saying what a pleasure it was to be a Nationalist. I want to say tonight what a pleasure it is to be an Independent, because one can take one’s own decisions in this House. There is no one who can tell one how to vote, and in this case I am voting the right way.

Do you otherwise vote the wrong way, then?

I have my gumboots on, so that comment will not wash. I do not think I am influenced by party political considerations in regard to this particular Bill. This Bill is judged by me on the three criteria which I normally apply when I consider a Bill. I have to make up my own mind on every Bill. As hon. members would have noticed I voted against the Government on the previous Bill, but on this one I am voting with the Government. The criteria which I apply are as follows: In the first place, is it morally and ethically sound? Are the principles in it sound? In the second place, is it practical? And in the third place, what will the effect on South Africa be in the long term? On these counts I am quite happy to support this Bill. Often during the last week people have asked me how I could vote with the Government on this particular Bill. I must be quite frank: It is very easy to support the Government in this case. The Government is right; for a change it is right. In this case I fully support the motion, the way they have put the Bill and how it will affect the home building industry.

Before I start my speech, I would like to deal … [Interjections.] I would like to deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow before I really start and give my motivation for this Bill.

Not too long, I hope.

No, I shall do it briefly. I realize that the hon. member for Hillbrow has a serious problem, because he represents Hillbrow, and we all realize that in Hillbrow the ratio of tenants to landowners or to property owners is tremendous. Therefore he has to take a certain stance in this House, and it is based entirely on that ratio of tenants to landowners. I would like to take him to task on something.

I think he used unfortunate terms. I would like to read from his Second Reading speech where he discussed the S.A. Property Owners’ Association, (Hansard, 1980, col. 1085)—

The hon. member criticized Sapoa because they welcomed a correction of that particular anomaly.

Sapoa called it an anomaly.

It is an anomaly. I shall motivate that later. The hon. member said (Hansard, 1980, col. 1085)—

Say it again.

Shall I say it again? The hon. member said—

If that is the case, he must feel the same about me and about thousands of other people who support this Bill and are not influenced by the number of flat-dwellers in Hillbrow. I should like to correct that statement made about Sapoa. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has said on a number of occasions—and I believe he is correct because many other people view Sapoa in the same light—that they are in fact a very highly responsible, constructive and well-balanced organization.

But whose views do they represent?

They certainly represent a different group, but I say they are well-balanced and in fact play a very constructive role in South Africa.

Is their language well-balanced?

I believe that the language that was used here by the hon. member for Hillbrow when he said “it is disgusting and a disgrace” is not at all well-balanced. In fact, it is irresponsible. I shall excuse the hon. member, nevertheless, because I understand his particular problem.

What I should like to try to do this evening is to find our areas of agreement. I am not going to attack any particular person here tonight.

Oh, are we not lucky!

Yes, very lucky.

I have looked at the various standpoints that the Government as well as the Opposition parties have adopted. Therefore, I should now like to try to establish the common grounds of agreement and disagreement. First of all I am going to deal with the points of agreement. For this purpose I should like to refer to the hon. member for Sea Point. I am sorry he is not here this evening. In order to illustrate his point of view I am going to make use of excerpts from his speech. I agree with him when he says that there has been no encouragement given by the Government allowing property investors to provide accommodation for the middle-and lower-income groups and to write off some of their profits, nor do they receive allowances enabling them to reduce their taxation in order to encourage them to build accommodation for the lower-income groups. According to the hon. member this is the problem. He identifies the problem. That is the existing problem and I agree with him on that.

The hon. member for East London North has pointed out exactly the same problem. I am sure every hon. member agrees with him that that is the root cause of the trouble. Nevertheless, I might add that apart from only one sentence in a half-hour speech, no further mention is made by the hon. member for Sea Point of how this cardinal problem should be solved. He identifies it in one sentence, but says nothing further about it. He then goes on to give a heart-rending statement about all these poor little old ladies and how …

What is wrong with making a plea on behalf of little old ladies? [Interjections.]

We all have sympathy with them, but let us look at the technicalities of the situation.

They happen to be dear little old ladies. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with the speech by the hon. member for East London North.

Are you going to attack me now?

No, I am not going to attack the hon. member.

Rather deal with the breaking of its promises by the Government.

I shall deal with the promises in a moment. When the hon. member for East London North discusses the subsidized accommodation, the accommodation for one group subsidized by another group, he says the following (Hansard, 1980, col. 1081)—

Of course, I agree with him on this point The hon. member repeats the same statement later in his speech, when he states (Hansard, 1980, col. 1084)—

Of course, the hon. member is quite correct in saying that.

Let us come now to the speech by the hon. member for Walmer. With reference to the deletion of section 39(1) of the Act, the hon. member says …

Are you the Minister summing up, or what?

Does the hon. member for Durban Central mind if I proceed? [Interjections.] This is what the hon. member for Walmer says in his speech (Hansard, 1980, col. 1101)—

He categorically states that this is necessary. Then he goes on to say (col. 1101)—

He further states—

Here again I can agree with him, and I think everybody in this House agrees with that statement of his. Let me, however, get to the point.

Hear, hear!

There is something I should like to quote to hon. members. As hon. members know, the English-language Press in South Africa often supports the Opposition to the hilt.

Often?

I have to use the word “often”, because in this instance the English-language Press does not.

The English-language Press takes an independent view.

I believe that the English-language Press does take an independent view. It is anti-Government. Here I have articles from newspapers of both the SAAN group and the Argus group, articles commenting on this particular Bill. I should like to quote what these articles have to say about hon. members of the Opposition. Firstly I shall quote from The Natal Mercury of Friday, 22 February, which has a main editorial headlined “Right of occupation”—

Possibly they are referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Are you going to read the whole thing?

I quote further—

Order! I want to refer the hon. member to Standing Order No. 130 which states—

The only exception to this is in regard to a budget speech, in respect of which newspapers may be quoted.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that that has thrown a curve my way.

He threw the whole bathroom out.

These two newspapers concur with my view completely in the sense that they support the view that in the free-enterprise system one group cannot be asked to subsidize another. It is clearly stated that these groups of people should be assisted by the State.

I should now like to put the Government’s stand on this very same question. In doing so I should like to quote from the hon. the Minister of Transport’s Railway budget speech today. When discussing the socio-economic position of the passenger services, he says the following—

The basic principle underlying what the hon. the Minister has said here is that one group—and in this case it is the tariff-paying group transporting goods on the Railways—cannot be asked to subsidize another group of people, the commuter section. That is the very principle I am putting forward, i.e. that one cannot ask one group of people to subsidize another group. [Interjections.] These particular newspapers, which I am not allowed to quote, clearly state exactly the same view.

Now I should like to come to the areas of disagreement. It would seem that the disagreement revolves around the issue of whether the Minister made a promise to certain tenants. Sir, the Opposition discussed the position of the underprivileged and the aged. They said that these people were the ones who had a promise made to them and that therefore they should like to maintain the status quo. I should like to ask the hon. member for East London North whether, if this group of underprivileged people could be adequately assisted by the State, he and his bench-mates would agree with this type of legislation.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he is again delivering a Second Reading speech. The hon. member may proceed, but he must remember that we are busy with the Third Reading, which deals with the Bill as it comes out of the Committee.

Thank you, Sir. I should like to know whether the hon. member is satisfied with this particular Bill. Would it be acceptable to him and his bench-mates if the Government were prepared to subsidize these groups of people? The hon. member for East London North said “yes”. Are the members of the official Opposition of the same opinion? If the Government were to assist these people, would they support the Bill?

There is more to it than that.

It is a question of occupation …

Mr. Speaker, they shake their heads. In other words, they would not be prepared to support the Bill if the Government were prepared to assist the underprivileged people.

It is a question of occupation, not of rent. You have misunderstood it.

Mr. Speaker, the one party is prepared to agree with the Bill and the other not. It is clear to me that the NRP are prepared to phase out rent control.

We said so years ago.

That is good. The official Opposition, however, are not prepared to accept phasing out of rent control.

Oh, nonsense.

Well, that is what the hon. the member for Hillbrow said earlier this evening. [Interjections.] I think they have to agree that they will lose the principles of the free enterprise system if they cannot endorse this issue.

Are you opposed to all Government intervention?

I am afraid I cannot understand why the hon. member for East London North in fact voted against the Bill if he agrees with the principle involved. All he states is that the State should assist these unfortunate people. Sir, one has to agree with the principle. The principle is what I can agree with. I want to ask these hon. gentlemen why they did not motivate the Government and try to get the Government to give an undertaking that they would assist these people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must continue.

There are hon. members here who get a little bit excited about this matter.

You do not actually have to continue.

These hon. gentlemen …

Order! They are “hon. members” not “hon. gentlemen”.

They may or may not be gentlemen. [Interjections.]

It was not said derogatorily, though.

Mr. Speaker, it seems I am treading on everybody’s toes, including yours, this evening.

Including your own.

Here I am trying to support a Bill, but I am getting flak from everywhere. I am trying to suggest that the hon. members of the Opposition should try to elicit from the Government agreement that they will assist these people. If they could get that undertaking from the Government, they could endorse the principle. They have said they agree with the principle, but they vote against it. They apparently just disagree with the Bill because the Government has stated that these people will be assisted.

Read the amendment we moved.

My bone of contention with the Government is that they had no right in the first place to ask one group of people to subsidize another group of people. If the State is prepared to open its mouth, it must put its money where its mouth is. That is my bone of contention with the Government. They must now put their money where their mouth is. I should like to know what would have happened if the Opposition had succeeded with their objectives in the Second Reading. We would have gone back to square one. Let me give an example. I know of a pensioner who, 20 years ago, built six flats. These flats are rent-controlled at R74 per month. This elderly gentleman now wishes to sell this block of flats. He was able to have five flats vacated, but the gentleman in flat No. 6 was not prepared to vacate his flat. This particular tenant in flat No. 6, however owns a block of flats next door, which is not rent controlled, and for which he is receiving a rental of R122 per flat per month. However, the owner of the block of flats which is rent controlled cannot get this tenant, who owns the block of flats next door, to vacate his flat.

Order! Rent control and the phasing out of rent control per se is not under discussion in the Third Reading. What the hon. member says must be aligned with the aspect of sectional titles.

Mr. Speaker, I was specifically speaking about that. I have given an example of a person wanting to sell his building under sectional title. He has had five flats vacated in order to sell them, but the tenant in the sixth flat will not vacate his flat because, in terms of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act, which has not yet been repealed, he cannot, in fact, give notice to have that flat vacated.

What about No. 9?

There are only six flats, you idiot! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to withdraw that remark before you rule me out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Had this gentleman, who now wants to sell his block of flats, 20 years ago built six houses instead of six flats, he would have had no problem at all selling those particular houses. He would not have come within the ambit of the Sectional Titles Act. He could have sold those houses and the new owners could have taken occupation by giving notice to the tenants. However, because he owns a block of flats he is being discriminated against and he cannot get rid of this block of flats in order to realize his investment for pension purposes.

I want to ask the hon. member for East London North whether he believes that one group should subsidize another, because then he would also, as a previous car dealer, have to tell the poorer people who own cars that they should be subsidized because they need a car, or a stove, or a fridge. How can one group subsidize another? One has to take this whole issue to its logical conclusion … [Interjections.] … in exactly the same way as the S.A. Railways is now subsidizing certain groups.

The Railway budget debate is next week!

I want to say that I shall nevertheless vote for this Bill … [Interjections.] … in spite of the Opposition, in spite of their bleeding hearts and in spite of their trying to portray themselves as being the champions of the poor. We have had the argument of who the fat cats are.

You should know about the fat cats.

The hon. member for Durban Point should not talk about fat cats. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Minister of Community Development should have a long discussion with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. He has this moratorium period of one year and I suggest that he uses it well. I suggest that he should consider all the angles. I should like to put forward a few suggestions that he should now consider in order to alleviate the suffering of the elderly people who will be affected. In my previous speech I said that it could be as many as 10 000 people. Obviously the hon. the Minister of Community Development will have to speak to the people in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as well as to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe it is encumbent upon him to try to get tax incentives for developers to build more flats, to try to get tax rebates on their buildings and even to offer, to various developers and builders, cheaper properties and conditions so that they can build these blocks of flats. I suggest that even an area such as District Six could be effectively used for such purposes. Possibly it could be done on a lease basis. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I should like to suggest that in order to protect the tenants who may be affected by the provisions of this legislation the hon. the Minister of Community Development should put forward regulations which make it compulsory for tenants to have at least a three months’ notice period, during which time they have the option to purchase, prior to their receiving any form of notice to vacate whatsoever. At present this is not the law because the owner of the block of flats cannot ask the tenant to leave. It is only the owner of the flat itself who can do so, [Interjections.]

I believe that the State should subsidize interest rates. The Government should try to subsidize interest on the loans taken by these people who are affected. I estimate that there will be more or less 10 000 units, for each of which there might be a loan of approximately R10 000, which amounts to a figure of R100 million, and the interest on that amount, at 5%, would amount to approximately R5 million per year. That would allow people to purchase flats within the three months’ option period to take up the option to purchase at a given price. I might add that I believe that an additional option of first refusal should also be given. An offer of first refusal means that in the event of the owner offering the premises to the tenant at a very high price, and then later selling it at a lower figure, the tenant will have that right of first refusal if someone comes along with a valid deed of sale. This leaves the person with a two-week right of first refusal. The total cost to the State could be as high as about R5 million. However, if an 8% rate of subsidy were to be given, the amount could be as high as R8 million. If one takes a look at what the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs received today, one sees that he got R105 million to subsidize the commuters. I certainly believe that in this case we can compare the two, since both groups need assistance. Therefore I am quite prepared to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some very fascinating contributions to the Third Reading debate. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South demonstrated, without difficulty, how it was possible for him to tramp on his own toes and also to demonstrate that with a bleeding heart he could have a transfusion at much the same time. When we talk about bleeding hearts, let us get one thing quite clear. There are little old ladies in this world who are entitled to be protected. There are little old ladies for whom somebody has to speak on some occasion. If the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke for those little old ladies, he has nothing to be ashamed of because they are entitled to be defended. They also have rights, not just the big property owners, not just the people who have made a lot of money, not just the people who have vast assets. Little old ladies also have rights in this world. That is very simple. The little old ladies of this world also have rights. Hon. members must just not forget that. It is quite fascinating that the hon. member for Algoa has found that this measure is now the actual answer to communism, that the actual answer to communism is that one must throw a large number of working people out into the street. That is the new approach in the mind of the hon. member for Algoa as to how one fights communism. [Interjections.] Well, in his thoughts, if not in his mind.

The speech of the hon. member for Vasco was absolutely fascinating. He demonstrated that, if the number of people who would be happy to move into flats was equal to the number of people who would be unhappy because they were thrown out, one was actually rendering a social service as one was making half the people happy and half the people unhappy. That is a new approach to happiness in this world. Happiness means that somebody else must be unhappy in one’s place so that one can enjoy happiness. That is the new philosophy of the NP. Its new philosophy is: Laugh because somebody else is crying. That is the philosophy and approach adopted by those hon. members.

An attack has been made on us, not by one hon. member, but by a number of hon. members, who have made the allegation that, because some of us represent people who are tenants in flats, there is something absolutely atrocious about our daring to get up in this House in order to defend them. The hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Vasco were involved in this. I want to tell hon. members that none of us are ashamed about it that we are entitled and obliged and want to defend the rights of our constituents. What is wrong with it?

I want to read to hon. members what has been written to me by the head of a church in my constituency—he is not of my religion. He wrote the following—

I shall not read the whole letter—

I shall not read the rest of it. I want to tell hon. members that this man, who represents a major church in South Africa, who holds a responsible position and who knows what goes on in regard to his parish, says that this is causing distress and that he has already been requested by people to help them enter old-age homes in anticipation of rent increases. I have received stacks of other letters from people who write in the same vein, people who are concerned that they are going to be turned out of their homes.

The argument of the hon. member for Vasco was that only a few hundred would be affected. I want to quote the words of a man who is joint managing director of a major estate agency in Johannesburg. As regards the concern of members of Parliament, he wrote the following—

That is what is involved.

Order! I think it is time for each hon. member to retire to his own little flat and his own little old lady. [Interjections.]