Mr. Speaker, I feel that as the responsible Minister, I owe it to the House to furnish details of the scope and extent of the present state of unrest at schools for which my department is responsible.

On Friday, 18 April, I informed this House of this state of brooding unrest. At the time I also, among other things, made an earnest and urgent appeal to the Press and the news media not to foment the state of unrest by way of sensational and exaggerated reporting.

However, I must now express my disappointment at the reaction to this appeal. Some newspapers are merrily carrying on with the publication of reports which, among other things, furnish grossly exaggerated figures concerning the extent of the boycott action; which virtually advertise mass meetings or meetings for the purpose of planning; which contain reports and publicize in detail resolutions of such meetings, and which, in general, further and facilitate the work of those who are fomenting this campaign.

Let me quote as an example the front-page report in last night’s Argus, under the heading “100 000 pupils boycott classes”. One could ask where they get this figure, because the facts are as follows—

Naturally, my department and I are concerned about the situation at our Coloured schools. The fact is that we are dealing here with a situation in which school grievances and pupils are being misused by political agitators and used as a springboard for a general political campaign.

In a statement issued as long ago as 15 April I reacted in full to the grievances mentioned by the pupils at the time, and I furnished details of what we were doing about the education of the youth. I can only repeat that my department and I are open to and available for discussion of all grievances and shortcomings in the field of education. It is our stated aim to uplift and promote Coloured education, in the interests not only of the community itself but also of South Africa as a whole.

However, the Government cannot associate itself with the misuse that is now being made by political agitators of school children, who are staying away from classes to their own detriment. Moreover, this could entail serious financial losses for the department.

As the responsible Minister, I now make an earnest appeal to the parents and teachers in question to see to it that discipline is reimposed and the pupils resume their studies. If they do not restore order and normalize school attendance in this week, consideration will have to be given to closing schools, and in their own interests, the future of the teachers will have to be considered. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to associate myself and hon. members in these benches—and, I trust, also the other Opposition parties—with this motion. We shall not oppose it.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate adjourned last week, I congratulated hon. members of the House as a whole on the very correct, responsible and constructive way in which they had discussed this budget as well as the financial and economic policy of the Government. At the same time I added I was disappointed in the contributions by certain hon. members of the official Opposition. Having been able to read and study a number of the speeches during the weekend, I am in fact wondering whether hon. members of the official Opposition are talking about the same budget as I am talking about. In order to prevent a possible misunderstanding—and I do feel that some hon. members of the Opposition seriously blundered with regard to the meaning and objectives of the budget—I just wish to refer briefly to what I said. In my budget speech I said that the budget had been basically designed to promote rapid growth in the private sector and therefore in the economy as a whole. If there is one thing that this budget will do, it is that it will promote economic growth.

Furthermore, I stated that in assessing the effect of the budget on the economy, it was important to note that to a considerable extent the tax concessions represented an adjustment that was necessary to prevent the combination of inflation in a system of progressive taxation, the so-called “fiscal drag”, from increasing the real tax burden on the community and in this way actually impeding economic growth.

Accordingly the budget does not promote growth by means of artificial stimulation, but by freeing the economy from the chains of fiscal drag and so providing the scope and incentive for the increase of production and the provision of employment.

I also said the budget combined the encouragement of growth with the maintenance of financial discipline, and I pointed out that the increase in State expenditure was once again within the limits of the rate of inflation. Then I said that apart from the elements of a short-term economic policy, the budget once again contained important elements of tax reform and that I believed that if the tax package was considered as a whole, it was fair to say that virtually all groups in the community would benefit by it. This does not only apply to all income taxpayers and loan levy payers, including married women, but also to pensioners and other social beneficiaries: The aged, many of whom are benefiting not only by higher pensions, but also by significant additional tax concessions; employees in the civil service and in statutory bodies; home-owners; farmers; small business undertakings—in fact, all consumers. Moreover, there are special benefits for Blacks in the form of improved facilities for training, education and housing, as well as improvements in the living conditions in the Black urban townships, the acceleration of homeland development and of consolidation, and so forth.

Then I had to hear that my friend the hon. member for Yeoville, and others—among them the hon. member for Sea Point—were saying that the budget was evidently doing nothing or at least very little for the lower income groups, for the poor, or whatever words he used.

Very little.

I shall come to what the hon. members said. I first just wish to refer to a summary published by Nedbank and entitled “Post-budget prospects”, in which they said the following, and probably the hon. member for Yeoville had this in his hand when he spoke—

†This is a point which I think the hon. Opposition completely missed. The article continues—

So they go on analysing this, I think, in a very admirable manner. They end by saying—

The emphasis is surely on sustainable growth. Economic growth is, if anything, a longer term rather than a short-run phenomenon. What this budget is trying to do, just as the previous one did, is to lay the groundwork for a longer-term era of prosperity in the country. [Interjections.] A higher growth rate so that all may benefit. It is axiomatic that if the growth rate rises, average income also rises, and everybody must benefit in general.

Not everybody.

Yet—and this is my objection—the hon. Opposition has given no analysis in terms of facts. They have simply given a whole lot of generalizations, saying that the budget does little or nothing for the so-called lower-income groups. If the hon. Opposition have difficulty in accepting my word for that, based on the facts contained in the budget… and one of the most remarkable things the hon. member for Yeoville said was that the budget may be good in the short run but it fails in the long run. [Interjections.] If he ever missed the point, it was in saying that. That was the one thing above all else where the hon. member completely misled himself.

And now you are going to quote Mulholland. That is the biggest judge in the country.

What does the Financial Mail say? The hon. member for Yeoville is already in plenty of trouble with the Financial Mail. [Interjections.] The Financial Mail of 4 April states—

So they say—

Then it says the following—

I still want to quote just the following point—

*If there is any doubt about this, Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer immediately to what I regard as a particularly effective article that appeared in Beeld on Wednesday, 9 April, under the heading: “Begroting—P. W. se Rigting Oorgeënt”, by Prof. Jan Lombard of the University of Pretoria. He says the following—

Then he very explicitly states the reasons why he makes this statement. I am referring to this because more than one Opposition speaker has alleged in the course of this debate that this budget was evidently not related to the idea of a constellation of States. The matter is very clearly analysed here, and Prof. Jan Lombard comes to the conclusion that the budget, and the policy reflected in it, is consistently in line with the Prime Minister’s idea of a constellation of States.

†I now just want to refer to another assessment in which a few points are being made in connection with this budget. I am referring to the Sunday Times of 30 March, in which it is stated that—

The article goes on to say—

That is what the Sunday Times has to say. The article goes on to say—

*That is precisely my point. We are not being told what the amounts should be if we are wrong, then. I quote further—

Many hon. members in the House will remember that the hon. member for Sea Point, when he was still the hon. leader of the PFP, often spoke of a “redistribution of wealth”. In this connection, we read here with regard to England—

If the growth rate increases, it means that standards of living in general improve, and that is the most important objective of this budget.

If it is felt that our own journalists, our own financial publications, are perhaps a little one-sided or suddenly like the Government a great deal and no longer like the Opposition, what is being said overseas? There are few places in the world where a more critical view is taken of financial policy and budgets of countries as in London. That is tradition. I have before me a report from London which reached me a few days after the budget. I quote from it—

†So it goes on.

One of the difficulties which I have, and which perhaps many hon. members of the House have, is with the sort of philosophy which is being propounded by the official Opposition, particularly in earlier debates this session and especially through the hon. member for Yeoville. He is on record as having said that we need a people’s budget “People’s budget” has an ominous ring. A “people’s budget” is what is referred to behind the Iron Curtain. It is a well-known phrase there. He also talks of social democracy.

Are you against the people?

I want to say that the Government realizes the importance of demonstrating to all sections of the population that a system of free enterprise, of private initiative, is a better system for everybody than Marxism, socialism or any other system of that sort. We can argue about the methods employed to attain this objective, or about the tempo at which changes should take place, but the ultimate objective in this regard is clear.

*My main problem with the whole explanation advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville is, however, his misconception that a system of free enterprise and private initiative as advocated by the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular, is the same as capitalist exploitation—a total misconception—and that in some way this is bad for the man in the street. I repeat that this is a total misrepresentation of the Government’s economic policy and strategy. The Government’s economic policy in this regard is clear. We promote the system of free enterprise, of private initiative, because we are convinced that a system of this nature will produce by far the best results in South Africa with its rich natural resources and other means of production, in the form of a higher economic growth rate, greater provision of employment, higher production, higher exports and in general, greater prosperity and a stronger economy. A strong economy is, in turn, essential to improve our preparedness for the total onslaught on us that is being launched. The Government does not believe that socialist measures are the answer for South Africa. In the economic sense, socialism necessarily means either far higher taxation, or inflation. Someone has to pay for all the so-called social security and the so-called welfare state. On a number of occasions hon. members on this side of the House have asked the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members of the official Opposition what their intention was. Do they want a welfare state? Well, we are still awaiting a reply. Economic socialism also necessarily means a mass of direct measures of control of wages and prices, production and many other things. This, in turn, means excessive red tape, whereas we specifically want to move away from these things in order to stimulate production and sound economic growth. The Government does believe in the implementation of an economic strategy, but allow me to quote what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister during the famous Carlton Hotel meeting with business leaders on 22 November last year. I quote—

In the sense I have just indicated, we in South Africa, technically speaking, have a capitalist system. We believe in private ownership and encourage people to save so as to accumulate capital and then to invest that capital productively in order to promote production and provision of employment in the interests of all sections of the population. But now all of us know that the word “capitalism” is one of those words to which various meanings are ascribed and which at times arouse emotions. Consequently it is a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville is always attempting to link the Government’s economic policy to what he terms 19th century capitalism, imperialism and racial discrimination. However, he has not succeeded in his tactics; his own party colleagues will reject them.

Mr. Harry Oppenheimer was one of the main speakers at the Carlton talks in November last year and he pledged his full support of the Government’s economic policy of free enterprise and private initiative. It remains part of the Government’s economic policy to look after the interests of the ordinary man, and this applies to all race groups. On more than one occasion I have made it quite clear that it is our policy to pass on the benefits of the high gold price and the strong balance of payments to all inhabitants of this country, but this must, of course, be done in a judicious way, a way which will really serve the long-term interests of all inhabitants. Most experts agree that this is exactly what this budget has done.

I have deemed it necessary to give my view on this extremely important matter to this House because I think that we shall in future have to note very carefully the Opposition’s course of action in this sphere. The discussion of the various budget votes will commence very shortly and consequently I just want to explain something in the latest estimate of expenditure. Printed at the beginning of the estimate of expenditure is a memorandum by the Minister of Finance that reads as follows—

It will be seen from the footnote that the details concern the key scale prior to revision, but that the appendix in the second print, in which the amendments arising out of the budget proposals are incorporated, will be replaced by an appendix containing the new improved scale. When the first print was being finalized, all details of the new scales were not yet available. These will appear clearly in the second print. The underlying principle of this appendix is to inform Parliament, that has to appropriate the costs attached to the Public Service’s salaries, as well as the taxpayer, who has to pay the salary account, of basic information on the general level of public service salaries. Under the new budget system, the so-called budgeting by objectives, only the total staff costs are indicated in respect of each budget item and programme, and no longer the detailed salaries of the departments. Finally, an appendix is published in respect of each vote indicating the estimate of man-power in man-years, as we call it—this is the number of officials who will be involved in the particular salary groups in each programme of the department. I mention this because I trust that it will contribute to a more meaningful understanding of what appears in these statements.

†I should like to make just one or two remarks on this question of salaries. The amount of space devoted in the news columns and leading articles of newspapers to pay increases for public officials in recent months is probably unprecedented in this country. Press coverage of current developments is centred on the pay and benefit provisions built into the estimates which is at present before Parliament. There was a clearly discernible build-up to budget day, followed by the inevitable speculations concerning pay adjustments details. Some comment on all this publicity, some of which was clearly sensation-seeking should, to my mind, be made here. The widespread publicity given to the matter, coupled with the fact that the general pay increase has in fact been granted, seems to have created the impression in some quarters that the Government has yielded to sustained pressure exerted from certain quarters. I want to assure the House that such an impression would be completely erroneous. In point of fact, the monitoring and weighing of circumstances and factors bearing on salaries in the Public Service, and the planning of compensatory measures within the constraints set by financial and economic realities, is an ongoing process in which agitation does not play a part. The Government will continue to take pay decisions soberly and objectively, and will not allow itself to be swayed by agitation. I should like to say here that where this Government has through the years showed its concern for all classes of Public Servants on so many occasions so clearly, and where assurances were given that we were giving every consideration to Public Servants’ feelings in this respect, particularly this year, I thought that it was very unfortunate that some members of the teaching profession should, on the very eve of the budget, have called a big protest meeting, presumably in order to put some kind of pressure on the Government at the very last moment. I should merely like to tell them that I believe that they are in the minority and that the final decisions on the pay and other improvements in the conditions of service had been taken many weeks before that and had been finally decided upon at a much earlier stage. Whereas I, too, spent what was perhaps the best years of my life, a period of approximately 26 years, in education, and have a very high regard, as has the Government, for the teaching profession at all levels, it seems to me that the day that this great profession, the teaching profession, allows itself to be led by a small group of militants to become a militant trade union, would be a very unfortunate day, not only for this country, but particularly for the teaching profession itself.

I therefore hope that wiser and responsible counsels will prevail and that leaders of this very important profession will realize that this country has some enormous issues before it. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that we are dealing today with some issues which affect our very survival. Under these circumstances one would hope that everybody in the country at large, and certainly the members of this great teaching profession, will be among the first to realize that there are many priorities and that the Government spends many hours ordering these priorities in what it believes to be the very best advantage for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can ask his question a little later. I first want to finish my statement. The old adage that one cannot satisfy all the people all the time is obviously nowhere more evident than in the determination of pay levels and adjustments for a large and diversified body of public personnel. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Government is deeply concerned about achieving the greatest measure of general satisfaction within the constraints of the country’s capacity to finance it. Above all, the Government is committed to taking pay decisions which are accountable, fair and reasonable and designed to maintain a stable and competent personnel corps. The striking feature of the reaction to announcements on pay has been a preoccupation with what the other person may be getting. It would seem that in certain quarters dissatisfaction, when it is experienced, is caused not so much by the package of pay and benefits actually received, but by the pay package received by someone else. It may be that we will have to accept this phenomenon as a manifestation of the complexity of modern-day human nature. However, it is basically a subjective reaction and one which can militate against balanced consideration and discussion based on objective factors and criteria. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, we will do well to remember that the material benefits of office by no means constitute the sole, or perhaps even the major, motivation of the truly committed public official. The outstanding public servant is, in my experience, the one with a profound sense of mission, who sees his career in the first place as an opportunity to serve his country and its people. Fortunately there are a great many such officials and herein lies the greatest strength of our public services. Then again, there can be no gainsaying the view that some of the most challenging and satisfying work in the country is to be found in public employment. Public service is often a reward in itself, quite apart from the material benefits associated with it.

*Mr. Speaker, in this regard I just want to refer briefly to the confidentiality of the package of service benefits, because the question was raised in various newspapers and other discussions as to why all the particulars were not released at once. Objections were raised to the confidential nature of the package of service benefits at a stage when the preparatory work on the salary improvements was still in progress. Hon. members will understand that confidentiality is essential, particularly at an early stage, so that false expectations are not created amongst the officials. No one can benefit from speculation, and no employer can be expected to release figures to the Press or to his staff before the final product is available. It must be emphasized that approved service benefits are not a secret, but that there are good reasons for always considering them confidential. The staff associations welcome the confidential nature of the package of service benefits. Prior to the announcement of the present improvements, the Public Servants’ Association requested once again that they remain confidential. For obvious reasons, it is essential for every employer to maintain a bond of confidence with his employees. The Public Service Commission and other public institutions handle a variety of confidential information regarding staff, of which remuneration is only one element. Furthermore, it is important when competing with the private sector for scarce staff, for the authorities to be in a position to compete and negotiate on an equal footing. That is why it is essential for prospective candidates to have the opportunity of judging the entire package of service benefits and that outside companies cannot simply offer higher salaries in anticipation as a result of information which they obtained by disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it will be impossible for me to refer to all the different contributions to this long debate. I am sorry, because there are a good number of contributions on which I should have liked to congratulate the hon. speakers concerned. However, I shall do my best to raise a representative number of suggestions and arguments and, wherever I can, to give my opinion on them.

The first matter that I want to raise here, is that of inflation. Various hon. members have referred to it. The hon. member for Constantia dealt with it in a very responsible, competent way although he did not have very much time at his disposal. I listened to him with interest. I want to ask what more I could actually have done to combat inflation, a world-wide phenomenon, which as I understand it, is causing so much concern throughout the entire world. What did we do? I actually announced seven anti-inflationary steps which the Government is applying every day.

Let us now take a look at the budget. Firstly, I want to deal with Government expenditure. Under these circumstances it is essential to keep Government expenditure in check, firstly because the extent of Government expenditure is of necessity large, and secondly, because an important part of Government spending is not immediately productive, as in the case of a manufacturing enterprise which manufactures products and sells them at once. One must therefore be careful not to undertake unnecessary expenditure.

Over the past four years, and once again with this budget, we have succeeded in keeping Government expenditure within the bounds of the rate of inflation. It is extremely difficult to go further than that. Consequently, we can say that in real terms, Government expenditure has practically remained constant.

Then I want to refer to the monetary policy. I think that we are following a very efficient monetary policy. Over the past year, the money supply increased by 13% at the most, whilst the rate of inflation was 14%. My information is that this percentage has decreased even further over the past two or three months. I think this is a very good thing. Our most important viewpoint with this budget is in fact to promote economic growth. The whole idea is that if production can be increased in general, it must have a favourable effect on unit cost—I am speaking in general now. Therefore, this must also be considered as a way of combating inflationary tendencies.

In this budget we are making available the largest amount that we have ever voted in history for education and training, including technical education. The whole aim of this is to increase productivity where possible. This is extremely important.

Furthermore, we abolished the surcharge. This is also an important anti-inflationary measure. We also caused the rand to appreciate by 7,5% over the past 12 months in comparison with the dollar and a so-called basket of other units of money. I am of the opinion that as matters stand at present, the rand may perhaps gradually appreciate even more. However, this is also an anti-inflationary step.

Furthermore, where we were able to, we naturally tried to provide relief on the short term by means of subsidies, but I must emphasize once again that a subsidy is not really a long-term solution. In fact, a subsidy can create very serious problems on the longer term. I am mentioning this because I do not think it is right to say that the budget is encouraging inflation. The very opposite is true, particularly if one realizes that no new money is being created to finance the budget. We are financing the budget without creating new additional money. However, the fact remains that inflation is very serious. We shall have to make every attempt to be more productive and more efficient in all our activities in order to be able to combat this extremely awkward problem.

One of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House referred to a possible commission of inquiry to investigate the problem. Of course, we have the advantage of excellent technical and economic assistance and advice, but I can give the assurance that if it is necessary to go further than that, we shall not hesitate to take further steps.

Speaking of subsidies, I can remind hon. members that in 1977–’78, for instance, the food subsidy amounted to a total of R153 million, whilst the transport subsidies which were aimed particularly at relieving the pressure on the poor—the lower-income groups and in the Blacks particular, amounted to R84 million. In the 1980–’81 financial year the food subsidies will amount to R221 million and transport subsidies to nearly R150 million. Now I ask hon. members of the official Opposition who made such a fuss about subsidies and what else we should still do for these good people, what the subsidies should then have amounted to. If these sums are not correct, what should the subsidy be? To go further, what should the bread subsidy be? What should the subsidy on maize be, on dairy products, on bran? We did not get a single sum out of them. How can a debate be conducted in this way? In any event, transport subsidies were not even referred to. What about the amount of R150 million which the Government is making available from taxpayers’ money to grant relief to the poor and the Blacks in particular, about whom the Opposition are apparently speaking day and night?

I want to repeat what I said the other day. The Government did not increase the bread price. By means of the steps which it took to increase subsidies, the Government prevented the bread price from increasing by much more. If we had not granted an increase in the bread price and were to have subsidized the difference between the present price, i.e. 16 cents before 4 cents were added, and what the market price of bread would be, we would have to find far more than R200 million—I think it is R220 million …

It is R223 million.

… for the bread subsidy alone. I ask the Opposition whether it is right to provide such a sum from taxpayers’ money to provide for that purpose alone. What is being achieved on the longer term?

†I said quite clearly that you would be putting off the evil day. I am glad that we can give some immediate alleviation, but let us look at these things clearly.

*The hon. member for Vasco put it very clearly when he said that subsidies do not really solve problems; we must see that there is a decent growth rate so that people can earn enough from their salaries and other remuneration, because then they are able to afford the market prices. This is how one goes about things in a free or private initiative economy. I should have liked to hear very much more on this matter from the official Opposition than the mere allegation that an increase in the bread price should not have been allowed.

†The hon. member for Yeoville said that the real disposable income of Whites had been falling for some time and that the rate of increase of that of Blacks had shown a dramatic fall. If the hon. member will look at the latest statistics he will see that real disposable income has increased by no less than 6,5% between 1978 and 1979. That means an increase of 6,5% in one year. The way things are going now, I have no doubt that there will be a further increase this year compared with last year.

Yes, but what happened in 1978, 1977, 1976 and 1975?

Yes, it varies of course. In some cases it goes down and in other cases it goes up, but the most important position will be that of the last year and the year with which we are dealing. Last year it rose by 6,5% in real terms, and in the coming year it must obviously rise, with the rise in the growth rate. The hon. member should therefore be careful that he does not choose the wrong premises before coming with such an argument.

Then a good deal was said by the official Opposition about pensions. According to them pensions are apparently inadequate. What should the pension increases have been? We have now for years been increasing social pensions on 1 October. That is done once a year, on 1 October. Now suddenly there is an outcry that we must do it from 1 April.

Not suddenly. It has been every year.

Every year? That makes it still more stupid, if I may say so. One cannot raise it twice a year. If one raises it on 1 April, they have to wait 12 months before it can be done again.

That is right.

And from 1 October they also have to wait 12 months. [Interjections.] If one takes it over a period of a few years, one gets to exactly the same position. [Interjections.] Let us just take these pensions. What do we spend on pension increases in this budget? For the full year we spend R110 million on social pensions, R40 million on civil pensions and R24 million on social pensions, through the bonus. That adds up to R174 million extra in one year. I should like to ask hon. members of the official Opposition as well as hon. members of the NRP who have also been talking about this, what that amount should have been. It is the highest in our history.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given consideration to granting the increase to pensioners from 1 April instead of the May bonus, so that they can receive their benefits from 1 April like the other pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, the bonus takes effect from 1 April.

They get the bonus on 1 May.

Well, it dates from 1 April. We have therefore already achieved that.

That is only R30.

Well, that is fine. It is R5 a month for six months, until October.

A R12 a month increase was announced.

Well, let us look at the percentages. I have respect for the hon. member for Umbilo when it comes to the question of pensions. He talks not only with sincerity, but also with knowledge, and I should like to deal with this seriously.

We can take any group we like, but for the sake of argument let us take the White group. Percentagewise the other groups are in fact better off. Therefore I am taking the group with the lowest percentage increase. If we take the current financial year, the period 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1981, and assume there will be no further increases or bonuses in the whole of the 12 months ahead, what then is the increase in this 12-month period? It is six times R9 per month—the last one—plus six times R12 per month—the latest increase. That is an increase of R126 which, plus the R30 bonus from 1 April 1980, gives an increase of R156 this year. That is a 13,5% increase. What should it have been? For the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks it is a good deal higher.

That is not even equal to the rate of inflation.

What Government can give the undertaking that it will pay everybody equal to or more than the rate of inflation? If one wants to index the thing, like Brazil and so on, we will one of these days have an inflation rate of 75%, like they have got, because one is simply giving way then. Let us take another example. Supposing one takes the year 1 October 1979 to 30 September 1980—12 months. What is the increase then in terms of what they actually get? They get 12 times R9, which equals R108. In November 1979 they received a R30 bonus and in May 1980—that is part of this financial year—another R30. That gives a total of R168. So, White pensioners get a 16% increase in those 12 months, actually in their pockets. What should it have been? Must it be 25%? Who then pays? What happens to our tax rates? I think these are fair questions, and I want to say that I believe that on the issue of pensions the Government stands in an extremely strong position against any negative or hostile critic who might like to come forward.

Will these now be annual bonuses?

No, I cannot commit myself at all. It depends upon the state of the Government’s finances, but while we can afford it we will be very happy to have this.

Would it not be easier to make the payment from 1 April 1980?

My hon. friend keeps on asking for payment from 1 April. These are from 1 April, although they are paid out in May because of technical reasons. There are thousands and thousands of people and it has to be done by computer.

But the pensioners are short paid because the bonuses are not equivalent to the increases.

No, they are not short; with great respect, the pensioners are looked after very well. I wish I had with me—I did not bring any—just a random sample of the literary scores of letters I have been receiving, as well as my colleague the hon. the Minister of Welfare and Pensions. One can pick out any one to show what the pensioners’ reaction to this is. They are the nicest letters one could ever receive, without any exception. They all say that this is a very generous gesture on the part of the Government. [Interjections.]

Would you like to wait six months before an increase in your salary is paid out to you?

No, they do not wait six months. It has been from October for years, and if one changes it, one will pay out twice in one year, which we have never done. [Interjections.] I want to go further.

*I just want to refer to the speeches of a few of my hon. friends. That is all I shall have time for. If there is anyone who did his homework in regard to the budget, it is the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. He quoted figures and clearly spelt out their significance. It was really a pleasure to listen to him, as is true of the speeches by so many other hon. friends in the House. The hon. member made very important statements. He referred to the taxation of married women and said that usually married women worked with their husbands in a small business. These are people who work long hours and who are productive, and so on. He asked whether something could not be done by way of the Income Tax Act. I want to say that it is well known that married women often assist their husbands in the management of small business undertakings and farming enterprises in particular, and by so doing they make a direct contribution to the family income. If the deduction were to be made permissible in such cases as well, it could lead to every taxpayer who carries on a business or profession being tempted to argue, irrespective of the true state of affairs, that his wife assists him in that way, and to claim a deduction. Without physical inspection of the premises of each such undertaking, and that would of course be attempting the impossible, it would be impossible to distinguish between bona fide cases and artificial divisions of income with the sole aim of obtaining the benefit of the deduction. This is why the situation has remained as it is up to now. I have a great deal of sympathy for the cause advanced by the hon. member. I do not say that we would be able to change the situation with ease, but we are taking another look at the matter, and we are doing so with sympathy.

I just want to mention one or two arguments or proposals advanced by hon. members in this House.

†The hon. member for Edenvale spoke last, and as a new member let me say that he spoke objectively. I listened to him with interest. I think he objected to the fact that unmarried persons had apparently been treated more generously, in regard to the reduction of their liability for income tax, than had married persons. It is true that when one merely compares the taxes payable in respect of the 1980 tax year with those which will be payable for the 1981 tax year, it does seem as if the unmarried taxpayer is being favoured at the cost of the married person earning an equal amount. On the other hand, this apparent discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the unmarried person was, in the past, treated a little too harshly and that this anomaly is now being corrected as part of the tax reform programme. If one reviews the position over the years since the programme was started, i.e. if one compares the taxes payable for 1978 with those to be payable for 1981, one finds that all taxpayers have been granted approximately the same percentage reduction in the effective rate at which their incomes are being taxed. For example, the effective rate of tax on a taxable income of R12 000 has been reduced by 47,3% in the case of an unmarried person, whilst on the same amount the reduction, in the case of a married person with two children, is 47,8%. So what appears to be a discrepancy, when one just looks at the one year, is in fact resolved, and I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that.

*Since we are now discussing taxation, I just want to refer to an interesting point raised by the hon. member for Florida. He said (Hansard, 1980, col. 3929)—

He also said—

This is in fact true, and I am pleased that the hon. member raised the point. It was my aim with this budget that everyone should enjoy a degree of tax relief. Therefore I am pleased that the hon. member for Florida drew my attention to the situation which could arise as a result of the factors he mentioned with regard to the income tax that will be payable under the proposed scale by some taxpayers with large families. Although an extremely limited number of people are involved—only a handful of people have these very large families—consideration is nevertheless being given to the possibility of affording them additional relief, purely as an interim measure which will be phased out to the extent that further structural and other adjustments are made. I shall deal with this matter at greater length later in the session when the Income Tax Bill is put before this House for consideration.

†Let me take another example. The hon. member for Walmer—who explained that he and his colleague the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central cannot be here today— raised a few points and asked whether we could not pledge gold as collateral for medium term loans. There is a technical reason why we do not pledge gold as collateral on loans. It is the so-called negative pledge effect. If we give that advantage to one lender, we are bound to give it to all the others. That is the reason why we do not use gold as collateral. We do, however, use a different technique. We have for example used gold swops, and indirectly, of course, the mere fact that we produce a lot of gold serves as a general collateral anyway. That is the short answer there.

Then he asked why we did not allow over-liquid domestic and foreign institutions to buy gold on a formula basis with the Government then having the option to buy it back at a price which will yield them a reasonable return, the object being to keep us away from the open market at unsuitable times. I am not sure how practicable this will be, but we will certainly refer this to the Reserve Bank for close study. The hon. member will know that we have recently introduced a more flexible gold marketing policy where we have on occasion lately in fact withheld a certain amount of gold production when the price perhaps rose quite a lot and then sold it when the price has been somewhat lower. So I think we have brought about a certain stabilizing effect. I am, however, glad the hon. member put this and I appreciate his interest.

Then he asked what price we actually use in making our estimate of goldmining revenue in this budget. That is something we do not normally make generally known. But I think I can say that it was a conservative estimate, and we hope that it will turn out to be correct. It is not an easy estimate to make.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised a few interesting points, one of which concerns the rebate in respect of life insurance. I merely want to inform the hon. member that the Department of Inland Revenue is looking at the question of the R75 rebate in respect of life insurance instead of the abatement previously and the implications of that. We shall therefore be in touch with him about that.

The hon. member for Durban North had a quibble with me. I enjoy listening to him. He has had a pretty good grounding in economics.

Surprisingly.

It may be surprising, but it is so. The hon. member quibbled with me over the fact that I had forecast a year in advance that the growth rate would be 4% at the end of last year while in fact it was only 3¾%. I merely wish to ask him: In all modesty, who else came within a mile of that estimate?

Only because of the loan levy.

I was the one person who kept on saying it. Nobody else would give a single estimate.

What about the loan levy? [Interjections.]

If I remember correctly, that was paid out in about November, and by then the rate was about 3¾%.

You mean it had no effect?

It could therefore not have had any effect. It was paid out in the 11th month of the year. I therefore do not think that that holds water.

The hon. member raised a few other important points. He also spoke about inflation. I have tried to deal with this matter in general and I think all of us are going to have to put in our best efforts to cope with this. It is all very well to say it is worse in a number of other countries, but we ourselves have to deal with an inflation of approximately 13% to 14%, and that is bad enough. It is going to call for a tremendous effort in raising productivity generally and in restraint in all respects, and not just in Government spending. I hope very much that the private sector as a whole is going to bear this in mind in determining wage and salary increases in the years ahead.

The hon. member also spoke about the need for export centres. That is something to which we are giving a good deal of attention and there will be more to be said about that very shortly. I would like to point out that it is true that, where we have so many urgent calls on the Exchequer, the performance of our exports generally have never been better than at the moment. We have to bear that in mind. I am not saying it is not important always to encourage exports, but I should just like that to be seen in perspective where we have so many other calls on the State’s finances.

*Now I just wish to refer briefly to a few other interesting points that were raised. The hon. member for Newcastle said that the have-nots were being afforded unprecedented opportunities in this budget, and I again wish to bring to the attention of my hon. friends, particularly those in the official Opposition, the fact that the have-nots are being afforded unprecedented opportunities in this budget, and I think that every impartial and objective commentator has also made this statement. Therefore, there must be something in it.

The hon. member for Paarl made a very interesting speech and referred to the Stabilization Fund. He said that R39 million was being transferred to the Stabilization Fund and that he would have liked to see the amount increased. I agree wholeheartedly with him. When I consider that the Government, with an annual budget with more than R13 billion, contributes an amount of R39 million to its Reserve Fund in this way, I must agree that this is a meagre sum in today’s circumstances. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that we should at all times act with circumspection in that regard.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Vasco.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that he thought that we had handled our gold affairs well over the past year. I am pleased that he said that, because although it can be said with justification that we do not determine the gold price, the fact remains that if we do not market our gold in a very responsible and orderly fashion, problems can arise. The hon. member saw that.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised an interesting point. He wants to know whether big mergers are not monopolistic. I think that was the drift of it. That is something one has to keep very carefully in mind. Of course, we now have the Competition Board and they will undoubtedly, constituted as it is, be watching these things. I would merely say that although there might be a presumption when these big mergers take place that there might be an element of monopoly straight away, nevertheless one has to be very careful not to confuse size with monopoly. I remember some years ago that Du Pont in America, which is a huge organization, were prosecuted under the Antitrust laws of America where they had also, among other things, effected a merger and they were prosecuted for that, and for other reasons, for engaging in monopolistic practices as defined there. To read the proceedings of that case is really extremely interesting. Du Pont in a very, very carefully reasoned reply made the point that although they were bigger, they were in fact going to be more competitive in a whole number of activities, which they listed. They won that case. I merely mentioned that. The general point I think is a good one.

What about the breweries? Are you happy about that?

I think we shall just have to wait and see. Let us give them a chance. It is still a little early.

I thank the hon. member for Mooi River and many other hon. members for the very kind remarks that they made about the budget and perhaps about myself. It is appreciated. Among other things, the hon. member for Mooi River raised the important point, which the hon. member for Durban North also raised, i.e. the question of gold-mining taxation. The hon. member for Durban North wanted a review of this and the hon. member for Mooi River made certain suggestions. He said (Hansard, 14 April 1980, col. 3877)—

I should like to comment on that because this is an important source of revenue in any case. However, I think there are one or two wrong impressions here, if I may say so. Firstly, the formula was not designed to give the department, the State, a certain amount of income. In budgeting set targets are not based on any one sector of the economy. Secondly, the formula is not applied to mining houses. They are ordinary commercial or investment companies. It is applied to individual gold-mines. Thirdly, the formula is based on the profitability of a mine, after taking into account capital expenditure, which can be written off, and therefore works as well under present conditions as in the past when a fixed gold price prevailed. Fourthly, tax is not levied on gold-mines in the same way as on commercial companies, and the concepts of taxable income from gold-mines and that from commercial companies are poles apart in that taxable income from gold-mines is determined after the deduction of capital expenditure. Fifthly, whereas tax is payable by commercial companies at a fixed rate on its taxable income, irrespective of the profitability of the undertaking, a gold-mine does not pay tax if the rate of profitability on its operations is less than 6% in respect of a pre-1966 gold-mine, or 8% in respect of a post-1966 gold-mine. Finally, the rate of tax payable by a gold mine of course depends on its profitability. This fact encourages the mining of low-grade ore when the price is good, thereby lengthening the effective life of the mine and providing employment. I have here a more technical discussion of the formula, which I would be only too pleased to make available to the hon. member who has taken this interest. We did, of course, abolish the company loan levy, and that affects the gold-mines too. That was 10%. We felt, under the circumstances, that that was as far as we could go. But the hon. member raised a good point.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein made a very moving speech about handicapped persons. I took a great deal of trouble to obtain information from the department and I wish to convey it to that hon. member. I know that it will show him that the Government is not indifferent towards this very important group of people in our society. We all have a great deal of sympathy for them. As far as taxation is concerned, I want to say that a welfare organization is exempt from tax if it imports wheel-chairs from abroad to make them available to individuals. However, if an individual person does this directly, he is not exempted from tax. It therefore appears as if there is an anomaly, and I have requested the department as a matter of urgency to determine whether we could not also exempt from tax the individual purchase of such equipment. I believe we can do so, and I shall contact the hon. member again in that regard. It is true that there is an exemption as regards customs duty. We shall consider the matter of sales tax in depth as well. In general, sales tax is distributed very widely throughout the entire economy. It is in fact a transaction tax. However, the hon. member put a very strong case here, and I shall do my best to try to manage this as well. I shall again get in touch with the hon. member about this personally and I shall see whether a great deal more could not be done about this. The amount for which provision is made in the budget with regard to handicapped people of all categories is a very large sum and represents an increase of approximately 25% to 28% over that of last year. But perhaps it is true to say that we can never do enough for these people. I want to thank the hon. member for having drawn our attention to this matter in such a striking way, and I shall get in touch with him again in regard to this matter as soon as possible.

If I had had time, I could also have referred to the speeches by the hon. members for Malmesbury, Pinetown and all the other hon. members who spoke. There was not a single speech about which I could say that we could not derive something of value from it or about which I ought not to say something here today. I just want to say to the hon. member for Gezina that I appreciate the fact that he, too, referred to the fact that it is essential that the important teaching profession should act very responsibly and should not permit certain militant elements in it to go too far. I think it is essential that this be said. I apologize to hon. members on both sides of the House for not being able to deal further with individual contributions at this point.

†I want to say in conclusion that in general I expect 1980 to be a good year for the South African economy. The growth rate of our real gross domestic product is expected to rise to perhaps 5% or even more by the end of this year if things go well. Our balance of payments on current account should, for the fourth successive year, show a substantial surplus. Cost inflation remains a serious problem. The consumer price index increased by about 14% between February 1979 and February 1980. In my previous budget I listed, as I mentioned a moment ago, seven anti-inflationary steps which the authorities are trying to implement. Our present fiscal and monetary policies are directed towards using the increased scope for sound growth in South Africa to the full for the benefit of all classes. The economy is clearly moving in the right direction. What is required now is to ensure that this movement is sustained and will gather still more momentum. But this emphasis on growth is accompanied by an equally strong emphasis on the maintenance of strict financial discipline. As I pointed out in my budget speech there is at present no conflict in South Africa between more rapid growth and continued financial restraint. I am pleased to have noted that, since the introduction of the budget, this approach appears to enjoy the full support of most private sector organizations, economists and financial commentators. Much to my surprise, however, I have also seen the view expressed, admittedly by a minority, that the budget might indeed over-stimulate the economy and superimpose demand inflation on top of the existing cost-push inflation. I believe that it can be shown that this view is based on a misunderstanding. It is correct that the budget is intended to promote economic growth by supporting the present recovery in private consumption, investment, production, employment and imports, but—and this is the key to the point the critics of the budget have apparently overlooked—the budget does not attempt to stimulate the economy by either an increase in real Government spending or by the creation of additional money.

These policy options were open to us, but we rejected them. Instead, the budget provides for no increase in real Government spending and for the destruction of as much money as may be necessary to ensure that the increase in the broadly defined money supply is held within the rate of inflation. In a growing economy this implies a further reduction in Government expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Such a conservative budget might perhaps have been criticized for not being bold or expansionary enough and perhaps for having underestimated the scope existing in the South African economy for more rapid growth, but how it could possibly be described as being too expansionary or inflationary I fail to see. Where the critics appear to have gone wrong is in concentrating too much attention on the tax and loan levy concessions of R1 560 million. Surely this is no way to analyse a budget. As I emphasized in my budget speech, these concessions to a large extent represent adjustments needed to prevent the combination of so-called fiscal drag—that is the inflation working with the progressive tax system—to prevent that from increasing the real tax burden on the community and thereby actually retarding economic growth. The budget promotes growth, not through artificial stimulation, but by freeing the economy from the chains of fiscal drag and thereby providing the scope and incentive for the expansion of output and of employment, particularly in the private sector.

I would like to reiterate what I said about the more flexible gold marketing policy. It is not aimed at trying to manipulate the market in any way at all. It is a stabilizing factor which I think already has had a very good effect on the gold market, which for various reasons has been rather volatile in the last few months. Far from having a disruptive effect on world bullion markets, our more flexible marketing policy should exert a stabilizing influence on the gold price.

So I would merely like to say that there is a great challenge ahead of us today with all these advantages we have with the economy in the strong position that it is. We nevertheless have a very great challenge, and the main challenge is inflation. There is also a challenge in the form of unemployment, and I think, looking more broadly, also in the field of monetary reform in the world economy as a whole. I also want to reiterate the plea I made at the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in Belgrade in October last year. I then said that I thought the time would come that we—that is to say representatives of countries that are really interested in these things and that would be a large number of countries and certainly South Africa as the biggest producer of gold—should get together around a table and thrash out responsibly and authoritatively the proper role of gold in the present, I would not like to say chaos, but deficiencies that exist in the world’s monetary and payment system. I believe that unless we can do that, unless we can assign to gold an active, positive role, because gold does bring discipline into monetary affairs, the world is for a long time going to be faced by this very serious and very grave problem of inflation and currency and payments problems. Not only should I like to see gold enhanced as a monetary asset, as we say, but I should also like to see that it should again be assigned a positive role as a means of payment. I think the very first step in that direction seems to me to be that the dollar should once more be made convertible into gold. I have often thought that the biggest mistake that could have been made in this field was made in August 1971, when the USA closed the gold window and made the dollar inconvertible into gold. If one looks at the history of the international monetary system since then, one sees that the turmoil we have seen year after year and the growing inflation stem more from that than from any other cause.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I also thank the House for its indulgence. As far as our economy and finances are concerned, I think we can face the future with great confidence, but I think that at the same time we must keep things in perspective. We must keep the great virtues of discipline in this field in mind, but on the other hand we must also allow full scope to enterprise and initiative, which constitute, as I understand it, the very ground-work of the hon. the Prime Minister’s imaginative scheme of a constellation of States in Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate I put it to the hon. the Minister that in my judgment the time had come to consider tax incentives for labour-intensive industrial concerns. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has just a moment to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize because I could not deal with all the points that were raised. The question which has been raised by the hon. member for Pinelands is one of them. It has been raised on a number of occasions in the past by, amongst others, the hon. member for Yeoville. It is true that this whole question of encouraging labour-intensive industry is becoming increasingly important in South Africa because of the rapid increase in our population and the population composition being what it is. It is something the Department of Inland Revenue is looking at. However, what I propose to do is to refer it also to the Standing Commission on Tax Policy. I may just add that in America they did introduce certain specific measures which, however, did not work very well. In fact, I think they are generally regarded as having largely failed, but maybe we can learn from that lesson. We can talk about it again.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—110: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jong, G.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. R; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; 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.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No. 1.—“State President”, agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“Parliament”:

Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to raise the question of the restrictions which limit the usage of the parliamentary dining-room to Whites only. The rules are as follows—

Who decides precisely what the definition of a “very important” Black person is, is to me not clear. In so far as the private dining-room is concerned, an hon. member may entertain any Black person, but only after having received special permission for doing so from Mr. Speaker. We have for a long time found this state of affairs to be most distasteful.

Since 1977, this matter has been raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove, by the hon. Opposition Chief Whip, by the hon. member for Sea Point, by myself last year, and most recently by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The case for opening the facilities has been put at least annually to Mr. Speaker, to the President of the Senate, to two successive hon. Leaders of the House, to the Catering Committee and to the Internal Arrangements Committee, all, I might say, to no avail. When, in desperation, I spoke on the matter under this Vote last year, the then hon. Leader of the House refused to discuss the merits of the case and in fact falsely accused me of by-passing the accepted channels and of breaking the tradition.

As I stand here today, the same rules still apply in the South African Parliament. Last year an incident occurred which brought this whole shabby scenario to my attention most starkly. The International Cricket Conference, comprising the most senior administrators of the world body, visited South Africa in order to investigate and report upon the progress being made in eliminating racial discrimination in that sport. While here the ICC was hosted by the S.A. Cricket Union president, Mr. Rashid Varachia, who in his own right is respected both nationally and internationally for his unremitting efforts, under difficult circumstances and in the face of continuous opposition, to normalize cricket in South Africa and to persuade the world to re-admit the Springboks to international competition. While members of the ICC were in South Africa they met the hon. the Prime Minister, were entertained by the hon. the Minister and the Department of Sport at a Newlands hotel. As part of their programme, the then hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point, was requested to entertain the ICC to lunch in Parliament on 5 March 1979, which he was pleased to do. Two or three days before that date we were informed by Mr. Speaker that permission was refused to us to use the Parliamentary Dining-room. I now come to the reasons given for this refusal. In the first place, one of the ICC delegates—who happens to be Mr. Champ Hunt, the greatly admired chairman of the Bermuda Cricket Union—was not White. In the second place, the president of the S.A. Cricket Union, Mr. Varachia, was not White. In the third place, the private dining-room was not available on that day and, fourthly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not a member of the Cabinet. Therefore permission was refused to have these gentlemen in Parliament to lunch. At that very moment the hon. the Prime Minister was preparing to announce, inter alia, point 6 of his twelve-point plan which, hon. members will remember, relates to the pledge to remove hurtful and unnecessary discriminatory measures that create ill-feeling. On that very same day the then hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation was telling the delegation that discrimination in sport had been eliminated. On that day these same hon. gentlemen stood by and allowed this indefensible decision to stand.

I can handle almost anything in politics—I have not been in politics for any very short time—but there is one thing I cannot abide, and that is this sort of hypocrisy. So incensed was I by this insensitive decision, perpetrated jointly by hon. gentlemen who had themselves many times accepted invitations from these very same cricketers but who refused permission for the cricketers to be entertained in Parliament, that I wrote to Mr. Speaker informed him that as the official Opposition spokesman on sport I would personally apologize to members of the ICC and to Mr. Verachia for this insult. I regret to say that heavy pressure was immediately put on me from several sources, and to my regret today, because I saw it as being in the interests of S.A. cricket, I said nothing at all at that stage. I said and did no more, and waited for more than a month to elapse before raising the matter in a general way in Parliament, but even that which was done last year reaped no reward.

I believe a few questions should be answered on this matter. What is the point—and whom is he trying to fool—of the hon. the Prime Minister castigating the hon. the Minister of Public Works for treating young Coloured rugby players as lepers, when respected non-White sports administrators are regarded as so leprous that they may not be invited to enjoy a normal meal in Parliament? Now my second question. Is there no single hon. member of this House, many of whom are constantly talking about the elimination of racial discrimination, who has the courage to take issue on this form of bigotry within the governing caucus? Is there no such person, or is the removal of discrimination just a slogan to which lip-service is paid only when the leadership approves and when it is safe to say these things quietly to diplomats and across the cocktail tables? I have a third question. Do hon. members really think, and honestly fear, that by opening the dining-room to invitees regardless of colour, some hon. members will be so irresponsible in whom they invite, and others in how they behave, that racial friction will be caused here? Is that where the rub lies? I want to say that I can hardly believe it.

Finally I would like to ask the hon. the Leader of the House a question. Does the hon. Leader seriously think that he can dismiss the raising of this injustice by failing, as his predecessor did, to deal with the merits of the case and by accusing the member who spoke out of breaking with tradition? Does the hon. leader honestly think that he can deal with it in this manner again? Does he believe that the issue will just quietly go away till next year at this time, or is this all bound up with the struggle to preserve the White identity of Parliament and its members? No I believe that this legislature cannot have it all ways. The Government cannot open hotels, restaurants, parks, sports events, bioscopes and post offices whilst failing to sweep discrimination from its very own doorstep. Parliamentarians should, I believe, realize that although today they will not share their hospitality with non-Whites, whether they are South Africans or foreigners, the day will come—and I believe quicker than they think-—when non-Whites and others, both South African and foreign, may not wish to eat with them.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this debate would not take place today, because this Parliament is an institution which is a symbol of many things. It is the place where the authority of the country is exercised, the place where policy is laid down, policy which determines the image of a country or nation. What we say and do here, naturally affects everyone living in this country. However, there is one subject which one approaches with jealous vigilance. I am referring not so much to the policy of the country, but to that aspect which affects our being here together. We who are here in our capacity of representatives, make laws and discuss affairs of state. However, when our association here is at issue, i.e. who eats where and who does what when we are together here, we actually consider this institution as a personal club. It is in this spirit that I want to reply now. [Interjections.] I can adopt one of two attitudes now. I can get hot under the collar and berate other hon. members. But I shall not do that. I can say that when the hon. member was speaking, he was continually looking at the gallery and actually addressing an outside audience.

We tried long enough in private.

However, let us leave that. [Interjections.] Let us leave that for the moment. The matter was discussed here last year. [Interjections.] Hon. members must listen now. It was discussed last year, for the first time in a very long while. According to the tradition of Parliament, the matter was discussed elsewhere but not here across the floor of the House. Now we can ask what has happened, between last year and today, which could have given rise to a different reply, if there is in fact a different reply to the one which my predecessor gave. My answer is that I am not aware of anything that has happened in South Africa to make last year’s reply inapplicable this year. [Interjections.] Rules of this Parliament, particularly rules which relate to this matter, were laid down in 1949 by the then President and Speaker. From that time to the present they have been accepted by their successors. In the meantime it has been qualified by this instrument that we created viz. the committees, the Catering Committee and the Committee on Internal Arrangements. These two committees considered the matter, and I shall now quote what the guidelines were which they laid down at the time.

What date was that?

These are the guidelines which were laid down in 1949. I quote—

I should like to quote what else was decided—

This is the background against which it happened. I want to point out that the hon. member argued as if it is not possible for a person of colour, from South Africa or from abroad, to come to Parliament and have a cup of tea here. This is not true, after all.

That is not what I argued.

Nor is it true that there has been no progress as regards relationships between 1949 and the present. In 1968 Parliament went further and created a special place. Now hon. members must bear in mind that Parliament has one big problem, viz. a tremendous shortage of space of several kinds. There is a shortage of office space and a shortage in other respects too. In spite of that, a small dining room in Parliament was turned into a VIP-room which has much better facilities than the dining-room itself.

With a separate entrance.

People can come there, they can make speeches there and be entertained. It is very much more spacious than simply a single table in the diningroom. Consequently, it is not true that a person of colour from outside cannot be entertained here. The hon. member argued as if it is not possible to offer anyone of colour a cup of tea or refreshments here in Parliament.

I read the rule.

He could not have been listening.

Apart from the main dining-room, a special facility was therefore created where people could actually be received in much greater and more splendid style than is possible in the dining-room. Therefore it is not right to give the impression to people outside that it is not possible to entertain anyone of colour from outside or from within South Africa in South Africa’s Parliament. The only requirement that is laid down is that it should be done in an orderly manner.

Now I can be asked the question: Where do we discuss this type of thing? At the beginning I said that if there is one thing that we approach with jealous vigilance, it is the way in which we associate here in Parliament. What is the nature of our association here? It is not a public restaurant, a café or an hotel to which anyone can come. This dining-place of ours is a club, and that is why it is not possible for anyone and go there unless a member accompanies him. That is why only those people from outside who have been members, to enter there whenever they like. No one can enter there, unless we take him in. That is something we jealously insisted on. This is how a club is managed, in this spirit and in this atmosphere. Now I ask: As far as any club is concerned, whether it is this or any club in South Africa or in the world, where is a matter of this kind discussed? Is it discussed here in the hearing of the entire world? Or do we discuss it through the instruments which Parliament itself has created? I do not believe that it should be discussed in public. There are instruments and I suggest that it is discussed there.

But it has been done.

Now hon. members can say that things in South Africa are moving very quickly. The hon. member for Sandton said so too. He quoted examples and went on to say that we should also throw Parliament open, etc. Sir, we are not simply going to throw this place open. We discuss similar matters in the place where this must be discussed. The first point that I want to make, therefore, is that the dialogue which must be conducted on this, must not be conducted here, but in the place where hon. members can all be present. It has been said that great development is taking place in South Africa. On that basis, we are asked whether we should not move more quickly because one of these days Parliament will also be changed as a result of the constitutional change. Of course this is true. We all know that South Africa is on the eve of further constitutional development, but it is not for me to force anyone to predict now how South Africa or how the constitutional development is going to look. I say that when this happens, it is the right of that Parliament, as it was the right of the old Parliament, to organize its own situation for itself. That is why I want to leave the discussion at that.

It is true that we can receive all people here, from abroad and from South Africa, people of colour, and serve them here. Consequently it is not true that they cannot enter Parliament.

The second point that I want to make, is that the atmosphere and the situation are like those of a club and not like that of an open place like an hotel or whatever. Thirdly, I say that the place to discuss this, is not here across the floor of the House. The instruments which this Parliament has created for itself constitute the forum in which to discuss this matter. Furthermore I say that if it should be changed at any time in the future, then it must be changed in the correct way. When we speak about how things are going to look in South Africa in future, I want to say that I am not a prophet. No one is a prophet. But things must be arranged under the new circumstances, by new instruments for new occasions. I want to leave it at that.

I am sorry that this conversation had to take place here. I hope that we are not going to use Parliament to discuss our association here in this way. Consequently, I want to ask hon. members to drop this now. They have access to these two committees. Discuss these matters there, because if hon. members are going to do it here, I honestly think that it is going to create a very unpleasant affair for South Africa if every time the hon. the Minister of Finance resumes his seat, after he has delivered his reply, and Parliament comes up for discussion, we start debating on who eats where and who sits where and who walks where. I do not think it is worthy of Parliament, and I think we should therefore leave the discussion at that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members will have listened with some dismay to the reply of the hon. the Leader of the House. In the first place, these situations so often bring to light illogicalities and absurdities, as has happened this afternoon, and not for the first time. The hon. the Leader of the House has said that Parliament is a kind of club, but does he realize how illogical it is that some members of the club have rights which other members do not have? I am not a member of a club which has a constitution like that. The present rule is that Cabinet Ministers may have Black guests in the main dining-room without permission from anybody, while the ordinary member cannot. Is that the kind of club life that the hon. the Leader of the House is suggesting we should follow? I reject that. I would not want to belong to a club that is ruled like that.

You can leave then.

The second point I should like to make is that the hon. the Leader of the House did one thing more than his predecessor last year. He followed the same line, but he did one thing more, and this is even more distressing. He relied upon a document that apparently emanated from the governing party or the Committee on Internal Arrangements in 1949—31 years ago. I find it cause for great dismay that we should solidly be debating a policy statement that is 30 years old, with all that has happened in this country. I find it extremely odd. In fact it is absurd.

The third point I should like to make is that the hon. the Leader of the House, I am quite sure unwittingly, has given the impression that of course there are facilities for Blacks that members can use for their guests. We on this side of the House find it unacceptable that we have to ask permission to use a small, very pleasantly furnished important persons’ room, a private dining-room. We do not want something as of permission or as of licence. We want exactly the same rights as Cabinet Ministers have in this regard. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House: Does he realize what I have to say to a Black guest in the VIP dining-room when he says to me: “Tell me, why are we dining here? Why are we lunching here?”

I have to be truthful. I have to tell him that the rules of Parliament debar him from lunching with me in the main dining-room. Then where do I go from there? It has happened to me and I have tried to play it down. One does not want to become brutally frank with one’s guest on an occasion like that. I have tried to play it down by saying that I would explain it to him later. They do, however, ask. Of course they ask. I am sure that the hon. Chief Whip on the other side, if he were a Black guest in the VIP dining room, would also ask his host at some stage: “Is my presence an embarrassment to you?” That question has been put to me. I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the House that the cul-de-sac we have arrived at has not been caused because the proper channels have not been used. I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that we on this side of the House have done all that we could humanly do through the normal channels. We have been to the Catering Committee, the Internal Arrangements Committee, Mr. Speaker and the hon. the Leader of the House, and I know, just as I am sure he does on reflection, that the road-block we cannot get past is the National Party caucus. Mr. Speaker and the President of the Other Place cannot decide themselves on a change in the rules. They can only do so if they feel that they are reflecting the views of all parties in this Parliament. That is the principle of consensus that the hon. Leader of the House perfectly correctly set out. The principle of consensus does operate in this club. One cannot change the rules unless all the parties agree, and one cannot change the rules unless all the caucuses agree, the caucuses as, of course, represented by the Whips. I am quite sure that my hon. colleagues on the opposition benches in the House agree with our stand. I have no doubt about it. I am quite sure that this is also the case with the SAP. What is the element that is not present in the consensus that is required? It is the NP. It is perfectly clear, because this was admitted by the predecessor of the hon. Leader of the House last year in column 4296 of Hansard. Mr. Lourens Muller said—

The hon. the Leader of the House, I believe, quite sincerely was surprised that we should have raised this matter in debate. I am surprised, too. I do not want to do it in this way.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the caucus did not decide upon this matter. It has not been put before the caucus.

I understand the hon. the Leader of the House to say that it has not been put before the caucus. The only way in which this particular block can be removed, if we want it to be removed—and if we do not want it to be removed, we know where we stand—is to put the matter before the caucus. If we do not want it to be removed, we are entitled to draw our conclusions from that. If it is merely a question of tactics, or of problems that the hon. the Leader of the House has in his caucus, I can understand it. I am afraid I have to leave it to him to work this out However, I think that we need a commitment from him today that he will, in fact, put the matter to his caucus, because there is no other way out. I am afraid I can go and see Mr. Speaker on another hundred occasions, I can go to the International Arrangements Committee, but until the Government party is an element in the consensus which is required in Parliament, we are not going to get anywhere with this matter. South Africa is, in the meantime, waiting for an answer.

Mr. Chairman, a situation like this is one in which no one can remain silent, occupying the position we do, as a separate Opposition party—I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the House, as a matter of interest, whether it has ever been considered that the same facilities that are given to hon. Cabinet Ministers should not be extended to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I would say that aa case could be made out for the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is an extremely important person in Parliament, and as such might very well be entitled to claim the same privileges as are given to Cabinet Ministers. I wonder if that would in any way, meet some of the objections we have had here.

No.

I can understand that hon. member saying “No”. I am not putting that forward as a palliative, and I want to make my own position absolutely clear. I can see no reason whatever why facilities in the dining room to entertain people of colour should not be available to all hon. members. That is my attitude and I have no problems in that regard. I think that the discussion has very properly been held in other places rather than here in the House, but what we are faced with now is simply a question of the majority/minority situation. I think it is incumbent upon the hon. the Leader of the House to clear this matter with his party if it is simply a case of there being a majority on the governing side who say that they will not accept the request of this side of the House that this should be made available to all hon. members. In that case we understand the situation.

I regret very much, as the hon. the Leader of the House does and as all hon. members here do, that we have to discuss a matter here which is essentially a matter that is private to Parliament and should never be discussed over the floor of the House at all. However, as the matter has been raised and is being discussed, I want to put my point of view. I would regard it at the very least as being desirable that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be accorded the same facilities that members of the Cabinet enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to argue about the matter, but simply say that the rules are laid down by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the President of the Senate. The instruments that they consult and converse with on this matter, are the two that I mentioned a moment ago. It does not suit me, it is not my duty and would be out of order if I were to give an assurance to hon. members opposite from this bench and in doing so bypass both the Speaker and the President. I say once again, as I said at the beginning, that the place to discuss it, is not the floor of the House. There is a place for discussing the matter. I leave the matter at that.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker I move—

Mr. Speaker, now that we have come to the Third Reading of this Bill, there are only two points which I should like to bring pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister explained to this House yesterday as regards the so-called “swart varkie”, that the KWV, as an organization, was not in favour of the continued marketing of inexpensive wine in a 20-litre container. The hon. the Minister went on to say that under the circumstances, as the trade has not yet had the opportunity of adapting itself to not selling wine in a container of this size, he did not regard it as necessary at this stage to introduce legislation in this regard which would prevent the sale of wine in 20-litre containers. We on this side of the House once again want to state that like the hon. the Minister, we feel strongly that the sale of inexpensive wine in containers of that size should not be allowed to continue in future. For that reason we should very much like to see the hon. the Minister keeping a watchful eye on this situation as far as this matter is concerned.

The real debate yesterday concerned clause 10 of the Bill. The argument advanced by hon. members of this party and the other opposition parties was that a system now applies in practice whereby hotels and restaurants that serve liquor to Whites as well as non-Whites in actual fact have to pay for two licences. It is indeed true that the sum of money is not a large one; it amounts to a mere R200 per licence per annum. Thus the argument does not concern the amount of money, but in fact the principle that a business undertaking which applies and receives permission to sell liquor to the community as a whole, is being penalized. In other words, to be able to provide liquor to Whites as well as non-Whites, that business enterprise has to be given special permission, but they are penalized for doing this as though this were something which is in actual fact not approved of and is exceptional in the South African community.

We are all aware that we are rapidly throwing open many more facilities to everyone in South Africa. This principle which applies in the Liquor Act does not fit into the development in the direction of the throwing open of facilities and of an open community. I just want to make this point clear.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg again stated this afternoon that a hotel owner who wanted to render services to non-Whites had to pay for two licences. He said that what was at issue was the principle that such a hotel owner was being penalized if he wanted to serve the whole spectrum of the South African community. This is the same argument which was advanced yesterday by the hon. member for Durban Point during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage of this Bill.

It is one thing to express objections in principle to a Bill as a political party, but surely it is quite a different matter if a party’s leader and hon. members of the official Opposition are trying to score political points by means of a Bill without having done their homework properly in respect of a measure before this House. If those hon. members who advanced this argument had taken a little trouble to examine the existing Liquor Act and its predecessor, they would not have made such irresponsible statements here. If they had done their homework, they would have discovered section 72(3) of the Liquor Act, a section which, when the Act was consolidated in 1977, was taken over word for word from the previous Liquor Act. What is more, those hon. members need not even have taken the trouble to read the Act of 1977; they could simply have examined clause 4 of this Bill. Clause 4 incorporates an amendment of this very section 72(3). The principle is there in the Bill as large as life, for this House and hon. members to see. This is not a new principle.

[Inaudible.]

It is one that has been on our Statute Book for years now. I wish to say that the excitement among those hon. members concerning the provisions of clause 10 is merely a political hullabaloo. What is the true state of affairs in respect of the matter about which these hon. members became so vehement? If we now confine ourselves solely to hotel liquor licences, the facts are as follows. The Liquor Act in reality knows only one hotel licence, but in terms of the same licence that licencee may apply for certain authorizations. He may, for example, apply for the right to sell liquor outside the licensed premises. This is the so-called off-consumption right. If he wants to make use of that privilege, he has to pay for it. In the same way, he may also apply for authorization to be of service to people of colour, to serve meals and liquor to them and to provide them with accommodation. This is a privilege he acquires above the other licence holders.

What privilege does this entail?

It is that he may serve additional clients in his hotel. He must, of course, pay for that privilege. But this is not a new thing.

It is still wrong.

If the hon. member for Durban Point examines the first schedule to the Act, he will see that for the off-consumption right, for example, there has for years been a provision to the effect that when a hotel owner wants to use that particular right, he must pay extra for it. This is a precise analogy …

No, they are additional premises.

No, this is not necessarily additional premises. This is an additional advantage obtained by the licensee, an advantage greater than that of his competitor. If this is the case, surely there is no question of anyone being penalized, as the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Wynberg seek to allege here. After all, he does obtain an advantage over his competitors. This is an old principle, a principle that need cause no problem.

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

I do not have time to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

That is because you do not know the answers.

We on this side of the House want to reject the arguments that have been raised in connection with this matter by hon. members of the Opposition. Consequently we gladly support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what the hon. member for Ermelo has just said, and I want to take issue with him and with the hon. the Minister on a few of the points that have been raised.

The hon. member for Durban Point indicated yesterday what our objection to this measure was. During the Committee Stage we opposed clause 10 and we called for a division on it because we believe that we have an instance here in which a penalty is being imposed for the provision of what we consider a desirable service.

Why did you not then oppose clause 4?

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Ermelo pointed out— and I am not arguing with him—that it has in fact been so that a licence has been paid in the past. He says it has been for many years past, but we say it has been since 1977. I think that is the point in issue. Then he goes on to talk about the various types of licence flowing from a liquor licence.

He says one has a liquor licence out of which one can get, by application, an off-sales licence or a licence to serve people of colour, people other than Whites.

A different authority.

A different authority then. What does it matter? I want to put it to the hon. member for Ermelo and to the hon. the Minister that in terms of the old Liquor Act of 1928, hotels paid a licence and country hotels in particular—and, I might say, many hotels in the area of the city of Durban were able to provide bar facilities for Whites or for Coloureds, and in Durban, bar facilities for Indians.

Let me expand on this by taking Durban for example. I can give the names of many hotels—and I am going back a few years now—where bar and dining-room facilities were available to Indians and to Whites. This is the additional clientele that the hon. member for Ermelo has been talking about. Whites under the same hotel roof and the same license without any additional fee. Now we have a situation where we are not, I believe, bringing in any appreciable increase in custom.

In a five-star hotel?

Yes, in a five-star hotel. I submit to the hon. the Minister that a bar and a lounge have a certain capacity. It has its limitation, and that is its capacity. If it fills to capacity, good luck to it, but I do not believe that this provision is automatically going to have that facility bursting at the seams. I cannot accept that argument. It is not going to make all that much difference to it. Why should the licensee have to pay a double licence?

If a licensee is providing a facility to other races in a country hotel it is not costing him anything extra, but he is in fact enjoying additional clientele. He is getting more than his share, as it were—if one wants to put it that way.

Whites can eat in Indian hotels without the hotels having to get an extra licence.

Yes, a White can go to an Indian hotel without the hotel having to obtain an additional licence. The Chelmsford Hotel in Tongaat is an example. I had a meal there last year when I was invited to address a symposium that was held there. This is an Indian hotel, and they did not have to pay for an additional licence to serve my wife and me. I earnestly suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is something he should look at very carefully. I mean, it is not, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Durban Point, a matter of the amount involved. It is a matter of principle. There is such a provision in the Act as it stands at present—we accept that—but is this not the time to rectify that wrong? We think that the hon. the Minister should give this his urgent attention and should perhaps still consider rectifying this. As another hon. Minister said yesterday, the curtain has not fallen until the Bill has been read for a Third Time in the Other Place. We make this appeal to the hon. the Minister in such a spirit that hopefully he will see that this provision does not have a place in the Bill. Let us just have the one licence irrespective of whether or not one is dealing with people in a multiracial situation in a five-star hotel, as the hon. the Minister has it, with a hotel which has applied for that facility or a club for that matter, or with a little country hotel that is able to serve people of other races and incidentally provides other facilities in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, in respect of the question which the hon. member for Wynberg has asked me with regard to the 20-litre containers, I just want to read one or two paragraphs from my Press statement—

I just want to say that the only reason why I am not dealing with this matter this year in the form of draft legislation, is that I was told—whether it is true or not I do not know—that one cannot simply prohibit certain wine producers from using the 20-litre container, because then one must prohibit it in certain sectors of the trade as well. Since I was not sure whether this matter had been discussed with the trade, I deemed it only fair to hold this matter in abeyance, and first to discuss it with the trade too. However, as I said yesterday, even if I had introduced this legislation this year, I would have postponed its implementation for a year so that the people could phase out their containers, in which they have invested a great deal of money. I think we are now achieving the same effect. I am giving them a year’s notice and they must phase out their containers, and unless something unforeseen happens the necessary legislation will be introduced next year.

I have some friendly advice for the hon. member for Wynberg, as a younger member in this House. It is a poor reflection on him that he too is climbing on the bandwagon after he himself, in all fairness, had not raised the point in the first instance. He merely asked me whether, in terms of clause 10, double licence fees were levied.

And you did not reply.

The hon. Chief Whip opposite must allow me to make my own speech.

Order! The hon. member must speak in the third person and refer to “the hon. the Minister”. The hon. member said “jy”.

I said “u”

Order! That is irrelevant. The hon. member must say “the hon. the Minister”.

I should like to refresh the memory of the hon. Chief Whip a little. What did in fact happen was that I told the hon. member for Wynberg that since this matter had been broached by the hon. member for Durban Point and would apparently be taken further during the Committee Stage, I would furnish him with a reply during the Committee Stage, which I did repeatedly, because neither he himself nor the hon. member for Durban Point knew about this particular point in the Act and as a result both of them were confused about this matter. However, this is not the point I want to make now. He never raised the so-called ideological aspect of this matter. To their dismay, because this is the type of competition one finds between these two parties, the hon. member for Durban Point then got mixed up with the legal aspect, and it was then decided that it would be a good thing to raise the ideological aspect as well. He then proceeded to do so.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a good point.

He may have made a point …

So what are we supposed to do then?

Am I supposed to answer you?

Yes.

Well, please give me a chance and I shall do so.

*What happened was that the hon. member for Durban Point then said that because non-Whites had to use the facilities, the hotel in question had to carry a further burden. That is how he put it. Then, overnight, the hon. member for Wynberg began to realize that it was a great pity that his party had not thought of it, that wonderful party which makes a special point of it if there is anything black to be seen.

What a feeble argument.

In this House it is a very good thing to be original, but it is not a very good thing to be an imitator.

It is also a good thing to listen to good arguments and accept them.

The hon. member for Ermelo quite rightly referred to the illogical behaviour of both of those parties yesterday, since they had allowed clause 4 to go through and brought up this point for discussion only once clause 10 was being discussed. What are the facts of this matter? Clause 4 amends section 72(3)(e) of the original Act by means of certain additions, but in reality clause 4 contains the same principle as that contained in section 72(3)(e), viz. that one must pay double for an additional authorization. All clause 10 does is to insert the details of clause 4 into the Schedule to the Act.

But clause 4 is only the application.

The hon. member for Durban Point must not get confused again. In any event I do not want to argue further about the legal aspect.

I now want to come to the question whether there is now double payment or not because people of colour are served there.

That is the question.

I want to say that that is not the point. The point here is that additional authorization is being given which gives these people additional clients as a result of which they extend their business. This means a great deal more business for a five-star hotel or a large hotel, because this is the type of hotel which obtains international status. Just as in the case of an off-consumption licence in respect of which double must be paid, the principle here is that one must pay double because one is going to obtain more business and an authorization which means considerably more to one in terms of rands and cents.

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

Colour has nothing to do with it. Before I resume my speech, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity. As I have said, this has nothing to do with colour. This is an existing principle. Yesterday I repeatedly gave the assurance that under the new legislation an applicant need not pay a cent more than under the old legislation. For that reason I am not prepared to forego clause 10 or clause 4.

The hon. member for Umhlanga—if he wants to listen to me, I shall reply to him—stole my heart a little this afternoon. He was friendly to me. [Interjections.] As I have said, I am not at all prepared to forego clause 10 or clause 4. I shall most definitely carry the matter through here, as well as in the Other Place. What I do undertake to do is to ask the National Liquor Board to go into the matter and to report to me—because to me this is the only matter which is relevant here—on whether this authorization is worth so much to the applicant in question that the double licence payment should be retained in future. If they convince me that this is in fact the case, I shall not come forward with amending legislation. My successor will probably honour this as well. Therefore, if the authorization is worthwhile, my successor or I shall not come forward with legislation, but if the authorization is not worth as much or relatively less in terms of money, we may consider either abolishing the double payment completely or making it less than a double payment.

It is not the money: It is the stigma.

If that is the hon. member’s question to me, I want to tell him that he has not been listening to what I have been saying. I told him that it has nothing whatsoever to do with stigma. It has nothing whatsoever to do with colour. As in the case of off-consumption licences it concerns an authorization which means additional income.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not true that in the case of an ordinary hotel, for example a one-star hotel or a licensed restaurant, permission may be obtained to serve non-Whites there? In such a case there is no additional licence. What, then, is the difference?

Mr. Speaker, in an ordinary restaurant one can obtain a licence on an ad hoc basis only. If one obtains a licence on an ad hoc basis, surely the hon. member must himself concede that there can be no question of a great deal of money being at stake. International status is most certainly something which rakes in a great deal more money in one of his posh five-star hotels in Durban—and let me say at once that Durban’s hotels are very good and that it is always a pleasure for me to stay there—but surely I have already given the hon. member’s colleague the assurance that we shall go into this matter in future, once the legislation has been passed, viz. whether double payment, in the light of the additional earnings, is fair or not. Surely this is as fair as I can be with the hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the Second Reading speech in relation to this Bill was delivered several weeks ago and this has enabled hon. members to think about the matters raised by the hon. the Minister, to consider his proposals quietly and to come forward with reasoned arguments and arguments which are fairly comprehensive.

Firstly, I should like to mention a few general principles with reference to constitutions, principles which pertain to the aspects which are under debate today. The first important principle is that any constitution should not in the ordinary course of events be amended or changed lightly. I do not believe that a constitution should be subject to alteration in its terms at the drop of a hat or merely to serve a temporary expedient. This is especially so in so far as the conventions of the constitution are concerned. The conventions of the constitution are only partially prescribed by law. They are not always or necessarily to be found in written form. They are observed by tradition, by mutual consent. That does not mean that a constitution should be inviolate and so hidebound as to be incapable of amendment, so rigid as to be incapable of adaptation to changing circumstances. On the contrary, the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act is but an ordinary statute and it is a simple statute to change. The fact that it is a simple statute to change—and I am referring to a democracy by consent—places an even greater onus than usual on the leaders of a parliamentary majority. Its actions, the actions of a parliamentary majority, in relation to a constitution which is easy to change, and the manner in which that majority is used, will be a factor in determining the degree of respect afforded to the constitution by the minority. Therefore change should, where possible, be by agreement, after consultation, after negotiation, for, put at its very simplest, a constitution forms the ground rules for political activity in a country. Accordingly, it affects all parties and in the end result it affects all the citizens. Consensus change to a constitution is therefore always preferable to the changing of a constitution being brought about by the usage of a majority or of voting strength. It is especially bad when proper consultation in regard to a change has not even been attempted. That is the first point of our criticism of this Bill. No matter how compelling the introductory arguments of the hon. the Minister were and how compelling they may be, these are no substitute for inter-party consultation. It is a matter of regret that no consultation of an in-depth nature was undertaken on this Bill and that there was no attempt by the hon. the Minister or the Cabinet to reach consensus before this Bill came before the House. It seems to me that the Government is set, under the guidance of an hon. Minister who is experienced enough to know better, to change the political rules unilaterally once again by using its captive, docile, unquestioning voting power in this House.

Are you serious?

I am perfectly serious. The hon. the Minister of Justice asked me whether I was serious. The hon. the Minister perhaps does not follow the point;— the point is that he has not consulted the Opposition in this matter. He has not discussed this Bill with anyone. He has put the Bill before the House. He has stood up and made his Second Reading speech and he now expects the House to follow him blindly. I am saying that a constitution affects all parties and ultimately all the people of a country and that changes in a constitution should be brought about by agreement, by consensus, and not by bludgeoning it through Parliament by using a voting majority. I thought that that was a very simple point and I hope that the hon. the Minister has grasped it now.

Secondly, throughout the modern history of South Africa, since 1909 in fact, both convention and the law have had it that a Minister must be a member of Parliament or a Senator, or that he must be elected as a member of Parliament or a Senator within three months of his appointment as a Minister. The theory is that the Cabinet is responsible to Parliament and that Parliament is responsible to the electorate. Kennedy and Schlosberg, in their book The law and custom of the South African Constitution, on page 141 put it this way—

This makes good sense. G. M. Cockram, in her book Constitutional law, on pages 53 and 54 had the following to say on this very issue—

Therefore, the tradition in both the British and the South African system has developed that the Cabinet, certainly an original product of convention, is a body necessarily consisting of members of the legislature and as such is dependent upon the support of Parliament, which implies that the ultimate control is in the hands of the people.

The hon. the Minister always requires hon. members to listen to him when he speaks, and I should be most grateful if he would listen to the argument which is being put before him now.

More practically, this means that before becoming a Cabinet Minister, a candidate must submit to the will of the people and stand the test of an election. In a political world and in a Westminster style of Government such as we have in South Africa at present, this practice should not, I believe, be mindlessly discarded. A foreign intrusion of this sort, on an ad hoc basis as is envisaged in this Bill, certainly cannot be supported on any lines based on firm principle, especially not when the new deviation is unaccompanied by any major reforms to the constitutional framework of our country. An appointed member, I believe, has no place in a body directly elected by the people and will always be present on the resentful sufferance of those who have gone through the mill and faced the people before coming here.

Some may argue, and argue very strongly, the “best-man-Government” idea. The concept of bringing outside experts into the executive, as for instance in the USA, and of divorcing the legislature from the executive, or at least moving towards a separation of these two arms of government, certainly has merit. It is not an argument which can be shot down easily or immediately and could even, after discussion, enjoy the support of this side of the House. But, if the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech is to be taken at face value, this is not the measure to give effect to the idea of a “best-man Government”. This Bill provides no more than ad hoc relief of a temporary nature, and seems to be put a palliative to a problem which nobody had even noticed existed. If it is felt that a “best-man Government”, with a non-responsible executive, should be introduced in place of our existing system, there is, I believe, a more proper way of introducing and dealing with it, and that is by using the machinery which presently exists and exists only to consider constitutional reform, and that is the Schlebusch Commission, of which this hon. Minister is presently the chairman. This commission is sitting at present and is the very body in South Africa which is devoting its collective mind to these very problems which are being debated under this Bill. It seems to me to be futile to appoint a commission of this nature and then to preempt its findings twice within two months, unless, I hasten to say, there is a very sound and solid reason for doing it. However, no argument has been made out for the almost indecent haste with which this amending Bill is being passed through this House.

We should consider very carefully whether it is worth destroying the important principle, of responsibility to the electorate, in the cause of temporary expediency or for the political convenience of avoiding a by-election at a given moment because it may be inopportune for the Government of the day. I say that it is not worth destroying that principle, as is being done by this Bill.

I would like to look at one or two of the specific arguments which the hon. the Minister advanced in support of this measure. He says that it is inconvenient for a new incumbent to fight an election while finding his feet as a Minister and that such new Minister may not always be available to be in the House when needed because of his electioneering responsibilities. Surely even the most ardent supporter of the hon. the Minister must admit that this is an exceedingly weak argument. This House is not aware of any crisis which has arisen because of this circumstance, certainly not since the Second World War. No case at all has been made out to support this baldly stated point of view.

The three-month period of grace has been good enough for successive Governments in South Africa, and the question I wish to ask is: Why should this provision be changed now? Is it not a case that we are being asked to support this far-reaching amendment on the basis of an uncanvassed theoretical possibility which has not even occurred in recent history? If that is not the case I believe that the hon. the Minister should motivate his proposals far more frankly than he has done, by stating both the facts as to why he requires this provision and by giving examples of why it is needed.

The hon. the Minister’s second argument was that in present circumstances a sitting member might have to be financially inconvenienced by being asked to make his seat available for a new appointee. Again I do not find this to be an argument of any real weight or persuasive power at all. There has never been a problem of this sort in the past. By-elections occur frequently. Very often, as hon. members well know, there are at least five or six seats available or on offer at any given time. At least one or two new Senators are appointed virtually every session. Even failing this, there are adequate ways available …

You are destroying your first argument. You are talking about the rights of the electorate.

No, Sir. The hon. member for Von Brandis says that I am destroying my argument. The argument that I am advancing, however, is entirely consistent. The first leg of the argument is that we are destroying the principle of responsibility to the electorate. The second argument is that the lengthening of the period from three to twelve months is totally unnecessary.

But surely you are saying that a potential Minister is a carpetbagger. [Interjections.]

I do not wish to answer that, because that is not what is implied at all. I think he must just listen carefully, and I shall try to explain the point further. Even failing that, at least one or two Senators are, as I have said, appointed every session. However, if that does not work, there are adequate ways available of compensating, of promoting side-ways or upwards or of demoting those who are asked to make way. The hon. the Prime Minister has at his disposal many offices of largesse such as the offices of the Commissioner-General and Consul-General and offices for Railway Commissioners—to name but a few—which seem always to be available to tired politicians.

Quite apart from that, Parliament only sits for five months in the year. In any event, the practice has been that Cabinet changes take place, when they take place in the normal course of events, in the recess after a parliamentary session. This year the hon. the Prime Minister announced in advance that a Cabinet reshuffle will take place after the close of the session when there will be plenty of time for elections and electioneering so that such people can properly qualify for a seat and be appointed to the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that isolated exceptions can be catered for by normally occurring vacancies and the existing three-month period, and perhaps even by allowing such new Ministers to be present in the House for that short period. However, what this amendment does is depart radically from the existing system without showing the road to any new or meaningful constitutional dispensation.

The consequential amendments, contained in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, are logical. If one accepts clause 1, it follows that clauses 2 and 3 are exceedingly logical in that if a twelve-month period is to be allowed for persons to be elected, it makes sense that such a Minister be entitled to sit and speak in the House but not to vote while waiting for his election to take place—for the work of this House and the administration of the departments must continue. If there is one who sits in this House and is entitled to speak, is in fact obliged to speak in this House, it is essential that such a person should enjoy the normal privileges, particularly in regard to the protection of free speech, as it pertains in this Parliament.

Overriding all that, however, is the fact that it is bad in principle to artificially bolster the debating strength of the Government— and it is only the Government that has this right—by appointing people who for a period of at least 12 months will not have to face the electorate. Even in support of this point, however, the hon. the Minister advanced yet another one of his most unconvincing arguments, and I quote the relevant section of his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 28 March 1980, col. 3835)—

What the hon. the Minister is proposing, however, is to extend that principle, a principle which has been accepted into the provincial council system. The hon. the Minister is proposing to extend it and to carry it into the highest and only sovereign body in the country, so that members of the executive will sit in this legislative body without being responsible to it, or for that matter, for a period of at least a year, without being responsible to the electorate.

Cockram, in her book from which I have quoted just now, says the following on page 56, in connection with the provincial Executive Committee—

To take the matter even further, I want to refer to H. J. May, whose book The SouthAfrican Constitution (second edition), is almost required reading for all local constitutionalists. He writes in relation to provincial executives, on page 202 of his book, the following—

Surely we should not introduce these weaknesses into the Constitution of our country merely for the sake of avoiding a possible, though not yet even experienced, transient inconvenience.

In the end result all members of the House—that is to say all members of both Houses of Parliament—should be equal in terms of rights and privileges because all of them have undergone the same rigorous selection process. This Bill introduces the principle that some people will enjoy the rights and privileges of the House without having undergone a selection process. Taking the existing system under which we operate, this cannot be a good principle. In any event, 12 months, as stated in the Bill, is far too long a period for a Minister to wait to become elected to the Other Place or to the House of Assembly. Of course, if one argues merely on the constitutional lines, there are several things that can be and have been said.

I believe, however, that perhaps this Bill has a political connotation. It might even be whispered that with the mooted disappearance of the Other Place this Bill is designed to accommodate the current hon. Minister of Finance, who, over a period of years, has shown a remarkable reluctance to involve himself in any sort of relationship with the ballot box at all. [Interjections.]

In the light of the transparently weak arguments of the hon. the Minister of the Interior placed before this House, one’s mind turns to the less obvious, and it does not take all that much deviation of the thought processes to reason that the task of the Director-General of South West Africa, for instance, is not one of very long-term duration. It is certainly not going to be the life task of Prof. Viljoen to finalize the issues presently being contested in that territory. Before not too long he will have to come back to South Africa. Some even say that he will come back to South Africa straight into the Cabinet, via this Bill.

Are you now shooting down the puppets you yourself have set up?

That is what is being said. This measure is opening the road for him straight into the Cabinet.

And why not? [Interjections.]

Perhaps the hon. member for Rissik has now let the cat out of the bag. [Interjections.] He wants to know why not. I say the reason why not is because we believe that people who come into this House should first face the electorate. That is why not. Because we believe that this House is responsible to the electorate and that hon. members of this House are responsible to Parliament, that is the reason why. We believe that if one destroys that principle and appoints people and tries to bolster one’s power of debate in that way, one is destroying one of the basic institutions of the Westminster system of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Give us some more guesses.

I shall give the hon. the Minister one more guess. The S.A. Defence Force has, through the medium of some of its most senior officers and its most recent publications, if one reads Paratus, been adopting a fairly high profile pro-Government political stance lately. Perhaps this Bill will be the vehicle to give the SADF less secretive representation in the executive. Who can tell?

If these are the sort of instances the Government wishes to cater for, two further points arise. In the first place, the hon. the Minister should be frank with the House and tell us what the true intentions of the Bill are and what lies behind the Bill, and not try, as he has done, to fob us off with arguments which clearly do not hold water. Secondly, even if this is the case, if the examples I gave are true, we ask: Why cannot such appointees seek election in the normal manner? Why are their cases so special? What is the real necessity for these new and specially created rules? In the end result, a Government, no matter what its position, should not manipulate the Constitution to satisfy one or two of its specially created circumstances.

We cannot help but come to the conclusion that this provision is designed to satisfy the short-term advantage of the immediate NP requirements. This amendment, which bypasses the Constitutional Commission as it does, I believe brings with it no benefit at all to the House and certainly no benefit to the people of South Africa as a whole. Therefore I am sure the hon. the Minister will not be surprised to learn that we intend voting against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton has spoilt what could have been a very good constitutional speech, a very good constitutional justification of responsible government, by this speculative hot air with which he ended. This mixture of politics with all his scholarly references at the beginning, simply indicates that the hon. member, and therefore the hon. Opposition, is trying desperately hard to avoid the fact that there is no new principle in this amending legislation. Section 54 of the Constitution incorporates the principle of the appointment of persons to the Cabinet without their having a seat in this Chamber or in the Other Place. That is the principle with which we are concerned, and the hon. member tries to dodge that by referring to the nature of Cabinet government and the responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament by quoting Cockram, May and other authorities. The fact is that there is no new principle involved in the legislation, and if the hon. member and his party, or for that matter the whole Opposition, were to be completely consistent in their argument, the hon. member should move that the present three-month period contained in section 54 be scrapped. That should be his position. He should say, as a matter of fact, that there should not be any period, any grace, for the appointment of a person to the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

I am not entitled to argue that.

Yes, but that is the logic of the Opposition’s position. That is the whole basis of the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member made the point very explicitly that he believes that no person should be appointed to the Cabinet who has not fought an election. That principle is contradicted by the existing provision in our Constitution. What we are talking about here is an extension of the period from three months to twelve months. The hon. member mentioned two arguments specifically. The first relates to the fact that there was no inter-party consultation on this particular issue. This is a debatable point, because the fact is that if this were a matter of principle in the Constitution one would have expected the Government to have consulted the Opposition and to have tried to get as wide a degree of consensus as possible. This is not, however, a question of principle. It is, in fact, a relative detail in the Constitution.

And if we feel it is a principle?

Well, that is obviously a matter for argument. As I have indicated to the hon. member, however, it is not a matter of principle, that a period of grace be given to a person appointed to the Cabinet, is already embodied in the Constitution. So the matter therefore turns on the question of the period of time. That is the first argument he advanced.

The second argument relates to the principle as such. He claimed that this involved, if you like, almost a rape of the Constitution, a denial of self-government. That is the kind of argument the hon. member raised. That is not, however, the case in the South African Constitution, nor is it the case in Britain because it so happens that in the British Parliament persons who are not yet members of either the Commons or the Lords may be appointed to the Cabinet. In point of fact, in October 1964, when the Labour Government won the election, Prime Minister Harold Wilson appointed two persons to the Cabinet, i.e. Frank Cousins and Gordon Walker. Frank Cousins won a by-election in January 1965 and Walker lost two by-elections and then resigned from the Cabinet.

So what is the period laid down there?

No period is laid down in terms of the British Constitution, but Gordon Walker was in the Cabinet for a period close on seven months before he resigned. He fought two by-elections, sat in the House and was in fact, in all respects, a member of the British Parliament. After two by-elections, however, he resigned. So the principle is not an exceptional one. It has been taken over in South Africa in a more formalized form. There is a further point I want to make.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why Gordon Walker felt compelled to resign after seven months?

Gordon Walker resigned because he could not be re-elected. He had been appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs and could not be re-elected. He therefore resigned. We accept that, of course, because it is a fundamental principle. We say that a member appointed to the Cabinet, in terms of the existing constitution, would have to resign if he did not take his seat within three months. This is now to be extended to 12 months for reasons which have been spelled out by the hon. the Minister. Gordon Walker resigned after seven months. However, not only may persons be appointed to the British Cabinet who do not have a seat in the Commons, but neither of the two Scottish Law-lords, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of Scotland, are members of the House of Commons, but they nevertheless take their seats in the Cabinet. One is, of course, not arguing in favour of a general principle here. All one is saying is that this is not such an exceptional thing, in fact so much so that I wish to quote from Wade and Godfrey Philips’s Constitutional and Administrative Law, seeing as the hon. member for Sandton hauled out his authorities. They say the following about the appointment of members to the Cabinet—

That is a case of persons actually holding portfolios or ministries and sitting in the Cabinet. We do not accept that principle. We simply accept the principle that a person may be appointed to the Cabinet and will be given a certain period of grace to be elected to the House or the Other Chamber as the case may be. This legislation therefore does not involve any new principle. It does not involve any deviation from the principles of self-government Because it is a matter of detail, the charge of the hon. member that the Government is high-handed and is using its majority here to bludgeon this bit of legislation through the House falls away. The hon. member is smiling. Obviously he cannot mean it. The fact is that there is no reason for this hullabaloo over this legislation.

What is it this legislation does do? Without possessing any inside information, because quite obviously appointments to the Cabinet are the prerogative of the Prime Minister, I want to say that what it does do is give a greater flexibility to the Prime Minister in his appointments to the Cabinet. In a society like ours, a highly diverse society in which there are different provinces, different regions, and in which there are different interest groups which need to be recognized, this may not be a bad thing. If there is the possibility that this power could be used to bring people into politics, in an age of specialization, to play their role in the government of this country, certainly that is something that would be welcomed by the Opposition as well as the Government. I therefore have no hesitation whatever in expressing the support of my side of the House for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite fascinating to listen to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and to see the way in which he tip-toed through the daisies and did a constitutional egg-dance. I should at the outset like to reply to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens directly. Then in the arguments we shall put forward we will in essence be replying to a number of the hypotheses he advanced here. Is it not ironical that at the very height of the National Party’s power, with their holding 134 seats in the House, they still find it necessary to bring people into the executive, into the Cabinet, from outside the House? The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned that we are living in an age of specialization when one requires experts in various fields to deal with certain aspects. Would that, however, be sufficient justification to say that we must change the constitution of South Africa because the NP within its bulky ranks, its bulging ranks, cannot find the talent necessary to exercise executive power? I am afraid I cannot go along with that particular argument, specifically in the light of the present set-up and the numbers of the different parties.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also said it was only a matter of detail and that no new principle is involved here because we already have in present legislation the fact that a member of the executive, of the Cabinet, can be appointed for a period of at least three months without fighting an election. I think that that is symptomatic of the attitude of the Government to constitutional design and democracy in South Africa. To want to change the constitution in respect of a very important aspect—I shall elaborate on this shortly—and then to consider that as merely a matter of detail in fact lends support to the argument of the hon. member for Sandton that the Government is going to use its majority in order to, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put it so well, bludgeon through changes for purposes of expediency.

I should like to turn to the main aspect of the argument we in this party should like to put forward. As I have suggested, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will find the answers to the queries he raised in this. We in the NRP considered this amending legislation extremely carefully before deciding on the stance we would take. It must be borne in mind that we also took into consideration the fact that we have the Schlebusch Commission investigating constitutional change in South Africa and that it is quite possible that this amending Bill will prove to be only an interim or temporary measure. We also took into consideration the plight of the NP in wanting to bring specialists into the executive. But when we had added up all the pluses and minuses we found, regrettably, that it would not be possible for us to support this amending legislation. I should like to mention in particular that when one considers this type of amendment to our Constitution, it is essential to see where we stand in relation to constitutional development. At this very moment it would be incorrect of us, it would be wrong of us to prejudge or to pre-empt the possible recommendations of the grand constitutional design which will be presented to South Africa. It is therefore imperative that hon. members should note that we still live under a Westminster constitution and that there are certain rigid requirements, written and unwritten, which must be adhered to. One of those most fundamental requirements is the question of accountability.

It is interesting to note that during the Information scandal in 1978, that short debate in particular, Cabinet members, one after the other, said that they did not accept joint responsibilities. That was stated very clearly virtually in every speech of every Cabinet Minister who participated in that particular debate.

You are incorrect as far as that is concerned.

Cabinet Ministers in that context said—I agree with the hon. the Minister there—that they did not accept joint responsibility. Therefore the question that I wish specifically to direct to the hon. the Minister of the Interior is: What happens to the accountability of a member of the executive who can sit here for 12 months if a similar circumstance arose again? Again we would have no joint responsibility. The hon. the Minister will know that a member of the executive appointed in terms of this particular amending Bill, need not even account in this House in terms of certain aspects of his functions. The hon. the Minister knows that, and I believe that the NP should decide what its stance is, what its priorities are and what principles they believe in. One cannot ask the House on the one hand to give carte blanche to a member of the executive for 12 months without accountability and then by the same token, when it suits the Government, to say that they do not accept joint responsibility. Comparisons have been made so far today with what happens in other countries.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens elaborated in detail on what happens in the home of the Westminster system, viz. the UK. However, we must also make a comparison with other countries and see what the constitutional factors are there. For instance, in France and in the USA provision is made for the appointment of members of the executive without necessarily going through the normal democratic process. But one must examine that appointment in the light of the braking mechanisms and the accountability mechanisms within that particular constitutional set-up. Therefore, to do a direct comparison is not quite valid. The system of accountability in France is totally different from the system of accountability in this country. I view this to be particularly important in the light of the statements made by those hon. Ministers in the Information scandal debate who categorically denied that they accept joint responsibility. The position would then be that for a period of 12 months we will have a member of the executive here without accountability, either accountability in terms of being responsible to the Cabinet or in terms of his responsibility to the electorate. The present position of a three-month period does relate, in terms of the new amending Bill, in that ratio to a time factor, as mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, is something which one can still tolerate. It is still possible to tolerate a three to four month period as a practicality. But when we go further and extend that period to 12 months, allowing a member of the executive to sit right through a full session of Parliament without any accountability, then I believe the situation becomes intolerable. The hon. the Minister, in his motivation quite some time ago, did raise a number of reasons and these I think have been quite adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Sandton. We in these benches feel that the responsibility in a democratic society is like justice: It must also be seen to be done. Every hon. member, with the possible exclusion of one whom we are going to talk about shortly, was elected by the electorate through the democratic process. I believe that it is the total responsibility of every hon. member to ensure that he maintains and actively supports, and is seen to support, that very system which brought him into this House. I do not believe it is possible for hon. members on the other side of the House to neglect their duty and allow a gradual erosion, a creeping erosion into democracy in South Africa. The fact that the Government has that majority referred to by the hon. member for Sandton gives no justification for hon. members on that side of the House to neglect their defence of democracy. What is more, they must be seen to be defending democracy. It has often been stated by myself and other hon. members, both in this House and on public platforms, that South Africa is rapidly entering the era of a one-party State. We are reaching that era because of the attitude of the Government towards democracy. [Interjections.] Here is a typical example of that attitude. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said here that the difference is only nine months and that there is no change in principle. However, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens does not realize the implications of that state of affairs, viz. that a member of the executive, with executive powers, can sit here right through a parliamentary session without accountability. That is the difference between supporting democracy and adopting the attitude that the difference is only nine months.

I regret to say that my party feels so strongly about this principle that we will definitely not be supporting this particular measure. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider and, very possibly, withdraw this amendment Bill. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider that. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s particular difficulty is that he finds it necessary now, prior to the interim and final reports of the Schlebusch Commission, which must come to the House fairly shortly, to present this particular amendment.

He has a lot of passengers he can sack to make room for others.

As the hon. member for Durban Point says, there are other remedies than tinkering with the Constitution in order to solve the problems the NP is experiencing.

I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister a fundamental principle in terms of democracy, and that is that in a democracy the Government is the servant of the people. If we allow this creeping change in democratic thinking we will shortly end up in a position where the Government will be the total master of the people. That is the difference between civilized government and, if I may use the word, uncivilized government. Democracy has been honed and shaped over centuries. It was not simply developed in seven days as Rome was. It is a civilized, evolutionary process which has been tried and tested. If we improve on that in terms of the democratic principle that a Government is the servant of the people and not the master, I believe the time has come for constitutional change. However, when we start thinking in terms of changing the Constitution to suit the problems of a particular party or a particular Government, we have reversed that process. We then go down the slippery slope where we gradually speed up the process and, because of the attitude of the Government towards democracy, the Government becomes the total master of the people. The difference is very simple: When one is the servant of the people, one is accountable to them; when one is the master of the people, one is not accountable to them. That is the difference between a totalitarian, one-party, authoritarian State and a true democracy.

Is the Government not called to account at every election?

I shall come back to the hon. member for Von Brandis in a moment. He can slow down and ask me his question just now.

I should like to come back to the case of the provincial councils quoted by the hon. member for Sandton. I want to point out that members of the executive in the provincial council are elected by members of the provincial council and not by the electorate. Although that is the case, they are nevertheless elected and they have accountability towards those people who put them into their positions of authority.

We in this party do not consider this as just a matter of nine months’ difference, as simply an arithmetical problem as elaborated by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. It goes very much further than that. It concerns the whole attitude of the Government towards democracy, to seeing that democracy is practised, towards defending the system that brought members here, and towards accountability. Although it may only look like a question of arithmetic in this particular Bill, it goes far deeper than that. The implications are far more serious for South Africa if we are to maintain the system which we have at the moment. Therefore we regret that we are unable to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether any Government in any event is not accountable at all times when an election period dawns? A Government then has to account to the people for whatever it has done.

That is a very good question. It is quite so that everybody in this House and the Other Place should have accountability to his electorate, whoever that electorate may be, whether it be the corporate body or the members of the public. That is precisely what the argument is about. We in this House, must be seen to be maintaining the principle that every hon. member of this House is accountable to the electorate. In that sense the hon. member is quite correct.

And obviously we have to account to the electorate for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, that is rather circular thinking. The hon. member for Von Brandis is suggesting to the electorate that we should try out a few Cabinet Ministers first and if they are not happy with the product, we shall find them another one. That is what he is saying. [Interjections.] That amounts to trial-and-error government and we have seen enough trial-and-error government for 32 years. That is precisely the kind of attitude we are trying to defend against. [Interjections.] The problem is the attitude of hon. members on the other side to democracy, to accountability and to what is really in the interests of democracy in South Africa and not only in the interests of the NP. I hope the hon. member for Von Brandis will share his wisdom with us and elaborate on his concept of what democracy is, but I certainly doubt whether it will make any difference to the fact that we shall not be supporting this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North has basically argued along the same lines as the hon. member for Sandton. Therefore I do not propose replying to his arguments separately, but prefer responding to them in conjunction with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Sandton.

*Both the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Sandton gave long dissertations here concerning a Minister’s accountability to the House for his actions. No one on this side of the House has any objection whatsoever to that principle. We on this side of the House are indeed just as concerned about the preservation of the constitutional guarantees as any hon. member on that side of the House. However the two hon. members set up their own puppets, as it were, and then shot them down themselves. They adopted certain assumptions, and then attacked those assumptions.

With respect, I must differ with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He said that the hon. member for Sandton had given an excellent constitutional lecture, but later spoiled it. However, I should go so far as to say that the hon. member for Sandton made a number of irrelevant statements which had nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation under discussion. The issue as regards this Bill is by no means per se one of the accountability or responsibility towards the House of a Minister, because if the matter is examined carefully, the question arises as to how a Minister accounts to the House. He has to stand up in this House and defend his vote, or the legislation he wants to pilot through the House. Whether that Minister is afforded a period of grace of three months, six months or a year, sooner or later he will have to account for his actions in this House. As far as the principle of the matter is concerned, it therefore makes no difference whatsoever whether this period of grace is three months or a year.

†The hon. member for Sandton referred to some of the works he had consulted and made the bland statement that in order to meet this responsibility, the period within which the Minister must be elected to either of the two Houses, should not be longer than three months. He just made a bland statement without substantiation.

*After all, the term of that period of grace has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Minister must justify himself.

The hon. member for Durban North tried to take the argument further and maintain that a 12-month period of grace would entail that a Minister would be able to sit in this House throughout a session without having to be accountable. Surely, in practice this is untrue, because when a Minister sits in this House and when a Minister acts, he surely has to account…

To whom?

… to this House. They have their arguments mixed up. What the hon. member meant was that that Minister need not account to the voters for a period of 12 months. That is the point. But surely he still has to account to this House.

And to the Cabinet as well.

He would also have to account to the Cabinet.

The hon. member also referred to the joint responsibility of members of the Cabinet— joint Cabinet responsibility—as a basic principle. However, it is a basic principle that Ministers are jointly responsible for the actions of a colleague only in so far as he accounted for those actions in the Cabinet and the Cabinet acquiesced. This is the basic limitation of the joint responsibility of members of the Cabinet.

The hon. members made out that all guarantees would now be simply thrown overboard, that all accountability was now being done away with and that an outside person could be appointed to Parliament as a Minister and for a full year not be accountable to the House, the Cabinet or the voters, and therefore be able to do as he wished without anything being said about it. Surely that is devoid of all truth.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens rightly pointed out, no new principle whatsoever is incorporated in this Bill. These constitutional clichés, as I am tempted to call them, which hon. members were strewing around here right and left, and out of which they tried to construct arguments, have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. Because no constitutional arguments can be brought against the Bill, they are trying to argue about principles, which are not relevant.

Why are they doing this? Both hon. members questioned the motives behind the legislation. The hon. member for Sandton speculated as to who the people were who would supposedly be accommodated in terms of the legislation. By doing just that, the hon. member revealed the PFP’s motive in opposing the legislation and coming forward with specious arguments for attacking the legislation. This is the typical behaviour on the part of the official Opposition. They are going around with all kinds of suspicions and fears.

You are telling me!

For the most part they are based on gossip.

We shall see.

Then they come here and oppose measures against which no valid objection can be raised and seek arguments with which to do so. It is not due to the constitutional considerations that they oppose it, but due to motives of their own, as was revealed here.

The hon. member for Sandton conceded that if we accepted clause 1 of the Bill, it follows logically that we should also accept clauses 2 and 3, because they merely constitute consequential legislation. Accordingly I do not wish to discuss clauses 2 and 3, because I do not think it is necessary to make out any case for them. Therefore the whole argument concerns clause 1 and, as I tried to indicate, the Opposition’s objection to it is based on certain assumptions and points of departure which are neither relevant nor well-founded, and they are trying to build a case on that.

The hon. member for Sandton also intimated that the hon. the Minister had supposedly not furnished evidence of circumstances which necessitated the legislation. The hon. member intimated that it was merely a theoretical speculation that the situations to which the hon. the Minister referred, could arise. This is probably the advantage an opposition always has, particularly if an opposition is irresponsible, as the one we have is—that it can sit back and wait and see what standpoint the Government adopts, and whatever standpoint the Government adopts, it is always wrong. If the hon. the Minister had not come forward with this measure, and a situation such as that which the hon. the Minister put forward as a possibility, were to arise, then the official Opposition would have been the first to say: “The hon. the Minister neglected his duty. Why did he not make provision for such an eventuality by way of legislation? He should have foreseen it.” It is so easy always to be right in one’s own eyes, and to put forward an alternative for any Government action, and to maintain that it would have been a better alternative, whereas it can never be tested.

Suffice it to say that the two hon. members who have spoken failed to advance any argument whatsoever that caused or could have caused me to have any doubt about the merit of the legislation, and I take pleasure in supporting it. If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he may do so now.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that a Minister who is appointed in the manner proposed by the Bill need not in fact explain his doings in the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill, and that such an appointed Minister may not be compelled to answer questions regarding his Vote.

I have said repeatedly that such a Minister is still accountable to the Cabinet. This Minister is a full-fledged member of the Cabinet, and as such he must surely account for his actions to the Cabinet as well. And if the Cabinet acquiesces, the Cabinet accepts joint responsibility for that, and therefore it is not as if there is no accountability for this action. Eventually, on a later occasion, when he has in fact been elected, the House can always call him to account for his actions before he was an elected member of this House or of the Other Place. Indeed, how often does it not happen that hon. members of the Opposition charge hon. Ministers with things that happened years ago? The argument which the hon. member for Durban North is now advancing viz. the argument that at a specific moment the Minister in question cannot be called to account, does not hold water.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has used a number of arguments, most of them of a purely pragmatic nature, to try to refute the constitutional arguments which have been raised against the Bill before us today. [Interjections.] It is not really an argument to say that members of the Opposition are obstinate, arrogant, unreasonable and suspicious and that these are the reasons why they bring up these arguments. This is merely argument by epithet. It is not argument by logic, and I do not think that it can be expected that one should take very serious account of such arguments. What we are really fundamentally and basically concerned with here is the question of an extension of executive power. It is an extension of executive power because what we are proposing here is that the right of the executive to appoint members of its Cabinet should be extended beyond the period hitherto allowed in our Constitution. That is what it is basically about. This is clearly an extension of executive power. We have to ask ourselves why in the original legislation, in the existing Constitution, it was deemed right, or rather in the framing of the constitution it was right, that there should be a three-month limit. Why is there a three-month limit? Why this short period? It is quite clearly because it is recognized that the period should be as short as reasonably possible. That is why. It is because the three-month period of service by a member of the Cabinet, without responsibility to the electorate, is in fact contrary to basic constitutional principle. Because he has to be allowed a degree of latitude for his appointment, however, it was decided that three months was the minimum period in which a Minister could reasonably be allowed to take his seat and to find a constituency. Suddenly the hon. the Minister asks us why, if we accept the principle of three months, it should not be 12 months. I could ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens or the hon. member for Mossel Bay: Why not three years? After all, time is not the essence of the argument, we are told by these hon. gentlemen. The hon. the Minister thinks so too. Time is not the essence of the matter, it is said. If one allows three months, why not three years? What is the difference between 12 months and three years for this purpose? Why not 15 years? Let us be generous; let us give this person a good-long run. There is, however, reason in the three-month period, substantial reason, and let me say wherein the reason lies.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.