Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I wish to avail myself of the earliest opportunity available to me to explain that in yesterday’s discussion of the Road Transportation Amendment Bill I pointed out in my reply to the Second Reading debate that as a result of court interdicts considerable amounts had to be paid to bus companies by way of additional subsidies. In as far as I created the impression that the amount in the case of City Tramways was R12 million, I should just like to rectify this matter and put it in perspective.

The fact of the matter is that, owing to boycotts by bus passengers and owing to court interdicts, the Exchequer did in fact pay out R12,7 million to bus companies from September 1979 to the end of March 1980 in order to keep them operational. During the period September 1979 to March 1980 an amount of R4,165 million was paid to City Tramways alone in connection with the court interdicts. This is the correct information I wanted to furnish to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. We meet at a time when Coloured affairs are in a sorry state indeed. With the scrapping of the CRC on 31 March, the hon. the Minister virtually became the Emperor of Coloured Affairs because all power has been concentrated in him and his department. He sits there, however, with his empire collapsing about him. I believe it would be correct to say that not ever in the history of the Republic or the Union, or the Cape Colony before it, have relations between the Coloured citizens of South Africa and the Government of South Africa been worse than they are today.

As my colleagues and I will show, the prime causes for this situation are to be found in the policy of the Government, and the Cabinet must take collective responsibility for this. The situation has been aggravated, I am sorry to say to the hon. the Minister, by the ineptitude and gross ineffectiveness of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations. He has failed miserably to gain the confidence of the Coloured people of South Africa. In terms of the report, his department is supposed to liaise between the CRC and the departments of State. He has, however, failed to act as an effective liaison man. He has failed to convey to his own Government the depth of the feelings of the Coloured people and the gravity of the situation that is developing. He and his department, by adopting threatening attitudes at times, and then retreating when wiser counsels have prevailed, have added to the tensions and compounded the problems. I think of the recent threat that if Coloured children did not return to school by last Friday they would be expelled, that threat then being withdrawn …

That is not true. That has been denied and the hon. member has seen it.

I refer to Mr. Quint, who made a statement to the effect that this was withdrawn. There is evidence that the mere fact of the threat was part of the cause of the continued boycott. So the hon. the Minister and his department are part of the cause of the situation that has developed. Because of the failure of Government policy, and the hon. the Minister’s own ineptitude, had it been possible for this House to reduce his salary, we would have had no hesitation whatsoever in moving to have his salary reduced. The hon. the Minister is let off the hook, however, by the fact that his salary falls under the Vote of Community Development and is not available to us today to do what we should to him, and that is to see to it that he is ousted from office.

Let us look at the situation in perspective. There is no doubt that we are living in watershed days. The events of the past few days and weeks, the protests of the Coloured people and the responses of the Government, are going to have a profound impact on the future of this country. I believe that what we are witnessing today is not merely the consequence of a breakdown of communication between the Government and the governed, nor merely the outward expression of a frustration and bitterness that runs deep in the Coloured community, but the early manifestations of a growing movement for change amongst the disenfranchised people of our country, a movement for liberation from discrimination, a movement that will grow and grow, becoming less compromising and more militant as long as discrimination exists on the Statute Book in South Africa.

One thing I hope is that nobody in the House is surprised at the turn of events. Nobody who thinks deeply about the situation in South Africa should be surprised. Nobody who read the report of the Theron Commission of 1976 or who read the report of the Cillié Commission published this year should be surprised. Nobody who realizes that no self-respecting community will sit back indefinitely without trying to throw off the yoke of discrimination and domination should be surprised. It should not come as a surprise to anyone who realizes that the Coloured citizens of this country have been systematically cut off from the country’s constitutional power structure. Today they have no vote. They have no say whatsoever at municipal, provincial or national level. Hon. members should put themselves in their position. The Coloured people today have no representative forum from which to express their grievances or articulate their aspirations. They have no elected leaders through whom they can negotiate for a better future. They have no constitutional vehicle through which they can express their political power or fight against discrimination. This is the situation in which they find themselves.

The consequences of cutting people off from constitutional power or denying them a say in the legislative bodies are as predictable as they are inevitable. A government which does such stupid things does not destroy the Coloured persons’ political power. It merely concentrates it, it radicalizes it, it mobilizes it, and it forces it to seek expression outside of the formal constitutional structure in protests, in boycotts, in economic action in the labour and consumer fields and, if the process is allowed to go full cycle, also in violence and ultimately in subversion.

I want to say with all the gravity at my command that the denial of political representation to the Coloured citizens of our country has been a fatal error on the part of the National Party Government. The hon. the Prime Minister in particular, as leader of the National Party and as leader of the National Party in the Cape Province, must, I believe, accept direct responsibility for the situation that has developed. In my opinion the hon. the Prime Minister has committed three major errors of judgment which have contributed materially to the present impasse in Coloured-Government relationships.

These major errors of judgment have been, firstly, to dismiss the last remaining elected Coloured leaders after that shocking meeting, that disturbing meeting, which took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Labour Party leaders who at the time were members of the Executive of the CRC. The hon. the Prime Minister’s decision to dismiss the last remaining elected Coloured leaders and then to arrogate to the Government the right to nominate leaders in the place of elected leaders was, I believe, a serious error of judgment which is contributing to the present situation. The CRC, with all its faults and with all the human failures of its leaders, represented, in the absence of proper Parliamentary representation, a contact point for negotiation between the Government and the Coloured community.

Secondly, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s decision to cling stubbornly to the view that Coloured people must get out of District Six and that this former heart-land of Coloured South Africa should be handed over to Whites has also been a major contributory factor.

You have said that so many times.

We shall say it again, because it is true. Whether we like it or not, the rape of District Six symbolizes to the Coloured people of South Africa the discrimination, the unfairness and the viciousness of the provisions contained in the Group Areas Act. The third error of judgment on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister is to carry on demanding that the Western Cape should be a Coloured labour preference area. No other single policy decision by the Government has retarded the economic growth of the Western Cape and the economic development of the Coloured citizens of the Western Cape more than that decision. It is misdirected and self-defeating, and is part of the reason for the economic stagnation and the economic climate in which the Coloured people of the Western Cape find themselves today.

These three errors of judgment on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister have been contributed in part to the collision course on which Coloured-Government relationships have been placed, and might well change the course of South Africa’s history.

On 28 April this year the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations made a very important statement in this House, and I quote (Hansard, col. 5018)—

Here he says that the Government would not rest until all injustices have been wiped out. That was four weeks ago. Much has happened in those four weeks, and I believe that this hon. the Minister and the Cabinet must have had time to consider the implications of that undertaking and to decide what, in fact, it is going to do to wipe out the grievances which exist. I call on the hon. the Minister in this debate today to spell out in clear and unambiguous terms, on behalf of the Government, the steps the Government is going to take to fulfil this undertaking to the Coloured people of South Africa. The hon. the Minister must realize that the time for vague generalities from the Government is over. What is the Government going to do to wipe out the Coloureds’ legitimate grievances in the educational, the social, the economic and the political fields? What is its plan of action? I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what laws the Government is going to change. How much more money is it prepared to spend? What are the sacrifices the hon. the Minister says the Government is prepared to make in order to eliminate these grievances?

I should like to offer one word of advice to the hon. the Minister and the Government at this stage, and that is not to proceed to nominate members to the Coloured Persons Council. The hon. the Minister said earlier that the names of the nominated people would be announced by the end of April. I presume that circumstances have overtaken these intentions and that we have been spared another month of this nominated CPC. I say to the hon. the Minister that he should not nominate these people. He should take note of the mood of the Coloured people today. He should realize that to nominate a CPC in the present climate is to court disaster. I believe that if the Government proceeds to nominate people to the CPC, that very act, apart from destroying the credibility of those people who may serve in the eyes of their fellow Coloureds, will also polarize the Coloured community into an even more militant opposition to the White establishment in South Africa. My appeal to the Government is to take stock of the situation and not rush into the nomination of these people to this council. If the Government wants to save anything from the wreck of Coloured-Government relationships, it should be prepared to eat humble pie and re-open negotiations with Coloured leaders on the principle of fully elected political structures. The Government might ask where it should start. It should start with local government. There is no reason whatsoever for Coloured people not to have full municipal rights in South Africa. The Coloured people have no separate homelands. They share municipal facilities and services with Whites. They depend on the same sources of revenue as White municipalities. We have the ironic situation that Black Community Councils are going to be elevated to full municipal status while the Coloured people of South Africa, who in the Cape once had full municipal status, are now going to have the status of voteless “bywoners” in White-controlled municipalities.

On 28 April the hon. the Minister said that he would redress their grievances. He then went on to say that the hon. Opposition must please help him to identify the real grievances. But the hon. the Minister should know what these grievances are. He should have an intimate knowledge of what is going on in the Coloured community and what their grievances are. But to the extent that he requires assistance we will give him that assistance, and if he thinks that our arguments are specious I want to tell him that our arguments will be based on the reports of the Cillié Commission and of the Erika Theron Commission. To start with, the Cillié Commission is quite definite when it says that race discrimination is the key element. The report says—

What has the Government done to get rid of discrimination in the light of this indictment of its policies by the Cillié Commission?

Secondly, I turn to the report of the Erika Theron Commission. I do not have time to deal with educational matters. These will be dealt with by the hon. member for Pinelands. Housing matters were dealt with exhaustively under the Community Development Vote. If the hon. the Minister wants to know what the grievances are, I need only read to him from his own commission’s report. Four years ago they reported as follows—

The commission has found that this particular aspect was a matter which elicited the sharpest language, the most negative feelings, and time and time again reference was made to it as a cruel law. In the light of this evidence given four years ago, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the Group Areas Act? What has he done about the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] It seems that I am irritating some of my friends on my left. I quote further—

I ask him, in terms of the report of the Erika Theron Commission four years ago, what he is going to do about District Six?

I now want to turn to mixed marriages and immorality. The Erika Theron Commission has the following to say about this—

The hon. the Minister must listen carefully to this—

In the light of that finding of four years ago, what has the Government, what has the hon. the Minister done to scrap the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act? One can go further and talk about teachers’ salaries and separate amenities. The commissions reports—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the Government is doing about this. What serious attempt is it making to upgrade amenities and facilities for Coloured people right throughout South Africa?

Let us look at transport. In this regard the report of the Erika Theron Commission says—

The hon. the Minister should know that at a meeting of 40 responsible Coloured community organizations held during the last week-end, it was decided on a boycott of the buses starting from next week. I want to know what is being done by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to see that transportation is available at a cost which is within the means of the Coloured people, who did not ask to be placed miles away from the centre of Cape Town. They work in the centre of Cape Town, but in terms of Government policy they have been pushed 20, 30 or 40 kilometres away from their work. What is the Government doing about this? So one can read, not the words of the PFP, not the words of the hon. member for Sea Point, but the words of the Erika Theron Commission, and realize that precious little has been done to change the substance of the grievances which the Coloured people expressed to that commission over four years ago.

The hon. the Minister should be aware that many of the expressions of the grievances which are taking place in the Coloured community today are related to their economic position and their quality of life. I ask the hon. the Minister what is being done to see that all employment restrictions on Coloureds are removed, that the last vestiges of job reservation are removed? What about the Group Areas Act? I put a question to the hon. the Minister earlier this year in respect of the restriction which does not allow non-White people to be in managerial positions over Whites. What has he done about it? He said that he wanted more time, after 1 March 1980, to consider it. What has been done to remove this very serious restriction on job advancement for Coloured people in the city centre areas?

One of the most shocking things is the decision of the Cabinet that there should be no more industrial expansion in the vicinity of Mitchell’s Plain. There is plenty of ground in that area for another Epping type of sophisticated industrial area, but the decision of this Government is not only that there should be no industrial expansion there, but also that the people of Mitchell’s Plain must be compelled to work in Cape Town or within the Cape Town-Kuilsriver axis. What about trading opportunities in the central business district? The Theron Commission recommended four years ago that the central business district should be open to trading by Coloured people. When is the hon. the Minister going to open the centre of Cape Town to them? When is he going to make it possible for Coloured people to trade there? I also asked the hon. the Minister about property ownership. When is he going to see that there is an adequate hinterland for the development of Coloured property ownership? At the moment the situation is frozen in the Cape Peninsula. Once the present group areas have been occupied by the Coloured people, they are only going to be allowed to occupy and own property some 40 km away. So one can go through this sad saga of grievances.

I must caution the hon. the Minister that economic issues are becoming predominant as far as the Coloured community is concerned. He should be aware that large sections of the Coloured community are trapped in a culture of poverty, while others in the middle-class are struggling against almost insuperable odds to maintain reasonable standards for themselves and their families. The Coloured people are tired of being pushed around by this Government. They are tired of being treated like second and third-raters in this country. They are tired of hearing vague promises and fine words from the hon. the Minister. We believe, and we put it to this House today, that what the Coloured people want is to be treated as full citizens in a country which is theirs as much as it is ours. Yes, they want full citizenship, and I believe that they want it now.

Mr. Chairman, the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point reminded me of an occasion during my student days when I had prepared a sermon which I considered to be a very good one. One of my student friends, who had listened to it, told me afterwards: “It was a good sermon, but unfortunately you grazed like a cow from Genesis to Revelation.” The hon. member for Sea Point seized upon this opportunity to graze just like a cow over all the political aspects of South Africa. When I came to this House this afternoon, I hoped and trusted, even prayed, that we would conduct this debate in a responsible way. But the hon. member did not make a responsible speech. He did not make a responsible contribution here this afternoon. He availed himself of this opportunity, knowing full well of the conditions outside this House, to heap even more coals on the fire. He did not help to extinguish the blaze because he does not want it extinguished. He wants the fires burning in this country to bum even more violently and fiercely. [Interjections.] He also created the impression … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Oudtshoorn allowed to suggest that the hon. member for Sea Point does not want the situation … [Interjections.] The hon. member stated that the hon. member for Sea Point is trying to add coals to the fires of unrest rather than to cool them down. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn merely used that as an argument.

The hon. member for Pinelands was a poor clergyman, I fear. The hon. member for Sea Point created the impression here this afternoon that the Government had done absolutely nothing for the Coloureds over a period of 30 years.

Total deterioration.

There we are hearing it again from the hon. member for Green Point with his “total deterioration”. But surely that is untrue. Surely those are not the facts. If one casts one’s mind back over the last 30 years and is honest and objective, one sees what the Government has really done to promote the interests of South Africa’s Coloured people.

You stripped them of all their political rights.

The hon. member for Sea Point also availed himself of this opportunity to unleash an attack on the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Prime Minister. Consequently I want to tell that hon. member this afternoon that the hon. the Minister is doing everything in his power in these times to restore tranquillity, peace and order to the Coloured community. The hon. the Minister is not an agitator. He is a builder. He wants to help the Coloured community to build a fine future. The hon. member also referred to the interview the hon. the Minister had with members of the Executive Committee of the former CRC. We received a transcription of that interview. That hon. member also received it, and consequently knows that the hon. the Minister asked those persons certain pertinent questions. He also knows that there was no co-operation whatsoever on the part of those leaders, and that those leaders told the hon. the Prime Minister that the CRC should be abolished. And what was the hon. the Prime Minister supposed to do then? The Coloured leaders said: “Abolish the CRC.” Were we supposed to retain it? Were we supposed to carry on with it? They did not want it to work. They had every opportunity to make a great success of the CRC. Surely the hon. member knows that they did not want to approve the budget. Surely the hon. member knows that they did not want to discuss the Votes.

And you know why.

They did not want to account for their work.

Why do you not give the reasons why?

A great deal has already been done for the Coloureds in this country. I am not saying that everything has been done. I believe that there are great frustrations in the community to which attention must be given, but we shall make no progress by adopting the methods advocated by the hon. member for Sea Point, by the official Opposition. I believe that a very great danger exists that, as a result of the attitude which favours boycotts, militancy and confrontation, the Coloured community as a whole could be stigmatized—and I say this is a danger—in that a negative attitude towards the Coloured community on the part of most of the White community could develop. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to set that image straight and to state that there are many leaders and others in the Coloured community who have a positive approach. There are leaders and others in the Coloured community in whom goodwill prevails and who condemn the boycotts and the spirit of confrontation. There are individuals in the Coloured community who want to make our common dwelling place a happy, prosperous and progressive one. However, the fact of the matter is that there are people in this country and there are members of the Coloured community who are opposed to this positive attitude and who prevent the evolution of and full expression being given to this positive attitude. Now one could ask this question this afternoon: Why? Why does one find this spirit among certain Whites as well as among certain Coloured people in South Africa?

I maintain that the chief purpose of the events in the Coloured community during the past few weeks has been to create a spirit of tension and unrest. They have been used to cause chaos, to break down discipline, to destroy stability in this country and to harm South Africa in this process. The Coloured community is unfortunately a community which is being misused, which is often exploited and which is subject to intimidation of the worst kind. It is unfortunately a community which is being used in an effort to destroy the economic and political order in South Africa. I want to denounce as extremely base and unfair the use of a community for the achievement of political objectives and the harming of that community in the process. Those who are ultimately going to suffer in South Africa are going to be the Coloureds.

On the other hand it is our duty to protect the Coloured community in South Africa against the attacks which they are being subjected to, against incitement, as well as against attacks which threaten the whole of South Africa. It is our duty to protect this community with its Christian character against the Godless ideology of communism. Furthermore it is also our duty to maintain sound relations with this community, to diagnose the symptoms of these events and to find a solution to them. Then it is also our duty, I believe, to remove the frustrations which are present in this Coloured community.

I now want to say that the Coloured community, like any other community, has its faults and its shortcomings. In other words, it too experiences socio-economic problems, but—and I am not saying this disparagingly, but in all humility—the Coloured community of South Africa displays certain social phenomena which greatly impede progress and development. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this in the debate on his Vote. I quote (Hansard, 29 April 1980, col. 5072)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity he has given me. Let me proceed with the quote—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

The Government was aware of this and that is why it appointed the Theron Commission. In its report the Theron Commission pinpointed these problems. The commission identified the problems and examined them in depth.

After three years, however, it is surely necessary for us to assess the situation and ascertain whether the acceptance and implementation of many of the commission’s recommendations have had any significant effect in solving these socio-economic problems. If not, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to an urgent programme for the socio-economic improvement of the community life of South Africa’s Coloured people. Furthermore I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he finds that there was no significant effect as a result of the Theron Commission, the matter should be referred to the proposed President’s Council.

What I mean by this is that this programme for the socio-economic improvement of the community life of the Coloured people in South Africa should be referred to the proposed President’s Council, but then there is an important prerequisite which is specifically concerned with the question I want to ask this afternoon: Do the Coloureds want to be a separate community in the South African set-up? Do they want to be a community which is prepared to maintain itself? I have heard Coloured leaders speaking of “so-called Coloureds”. Why do they speak in this way? Surely I, as an Afrikaner, do not speak of the “so-called Afrikaners”; surely I am an Afrikaner.

But you are not a second-class citizen.

Nor have I ever found an English-speaking person who speaks of the “so-called English people”. Similarly I have never found a Jew who speaks of the “so-called Jews”. We must thus ascertain whether the Coloureds in their own right want to be a community on its own and whether they are willing to be themselves, to maintain and to help themselves.

I find certain leaders in the Coloured community who are trying to make common cause with other population groups. My question is: Do those population groups want them? Do the various Black peoples in our country want the Coloureds with them? Why do certain Coloured leaders not want to lead their community, their people on this path along which the Government wants to help them to attain great heights?

Where to?

Where to? To being a separate people in their own right, to being a separate community in its own right.

Where is their country?

For many years the Jews did not have their own country.

It is not necessary for the Coloureds to have their own country. They live with us in the same country, but here each one of the various population groups may manage its own affairs in its own community and develop them to great and fine heights itself. We can live together in peace and live here together as communities.

In the second place I say that the Coloured community is a community with its complaints and grievances. It is no exception. All communities throughout the world have their complaints and grievances. It is right that attention should be given to them; it is the duty of the Government. However, we must first ascertain whether such grievances have real substance, whether they are justified, are well-founded. On the other hand all communities must be aware of the fact that they are functioning within an economic structure and that that economic structure imposes certain restrictions on demands. Communities cannot simply make unlimited demands for funds which cannot be given to them in view of the country’s economic structure. Furthermore the communities must also be aware of the fact that they, too, function within a social and political structure.

As far as the economic structure is concerned—no one can gainsay this; neither the official Opposition, nor the hon. member for Sea Point—it is a fact that during the three decades of NP Government in our country, doors have opened for the Coloured people in the economic sphere as never before in the history of South Africa. [Interjections.] If it were not for the policy of separate development and if South Africa were a so-called open society in which everything had to take place simply according to so-called merit, I am of the opinion that the Coloured community would not have made the progress which has in fact been made.

But surely that is disparaging.

No, I am not being disparaging. What I am saying is that opportunities were given under the policy of separate development.

The hon. members opposite would have left them in the backyards.

If we were simply to continue according to the old policy, would there then have been a Coloured principal of a Coloured university? It is under this Government that a principal from the Coloured community was appointed. Now I want to put it to the hon. member for Sea Point today that that same man who is now the principal of the University of the Western Cape is a person whom the University of Cape Town on two occasions refused to appoint as a lecturer on its staff. [Interjections.] That can be established. What I am now saying, is true. I personally have the highest regard and respect for the man I am now referring to.

In this regard I also want to refer to the work done by the Coloured Development Corporation. Can hon. members dispute the fact that this corporation has done great work? Can hon. members dispute the fact that, as a result of the existence of this corporation, Coloured businessmen have emerged who are proudly running their own business concerns today and who are grateful for the opportunities that were created for them?

I should also like to refer to Coloured education. Unfortunately time will not permit me to do so. But I want to say something about education unit costs in particular. It is easy to refer to the Cape and say that the Cape Education Department spends R635 per annum on every White child, whereas the Administration of Coloured Affairs spends a mere R153 per annum on each scholar. In other words this amounts to R635 per annum for every White scholar, against R153 per annum for every Coloured child in the Cape. Seen merely in those terms, this is unfair and discriminatory. However, one cannot make one’s calculations in this way. One cannot use these facts to make calculations of this nature. There are several other factors which also play a role here.

The hon. member for Sea Point must bear in mind that the salaries of all White teachers in the employ of Coloured schools—there are between 1 500 and 2 000 of them, all of them well-qualified and well-remunerated people—are not being paid by the Administration of Coloured Affairs. Their salaries are being paid by the Department of Coloured Relations, and are not taken into account when the unit costs are determined in this way. The Government’s contribution of 2% to the pension fund for Coloured teachers is paid by Welfare and Pensions. This, too, is not taken into account when the unit costs are determined. The housing subsidies for Coloured teachers are paid by the Department of Community Development. Once again this is not taken into account in determining the unit costs. The expenditure involved in the buying of premises, the construction of buildings, school hostels, extensions to existing buildings, etc., is met by the Department of Public Works. And this is not taken into account in determining the unit costs, whereas it is taken into account when the unit costs per White pupil in the Cape are calculated, because the Education Department is responsible for all these expenditures. The maintenance of educational premises is paid for by the Department of Public Works. The school health services at Coloured schools are paid for by Health. These amounts are not taken into account when the unit costs are determined. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn served on the Erika Theron Commission. He has dealt with a number of matters, but I can only agree with him on one of those matters. That is when he comes to the conclusion that there is a great deal of frustration among the Coloured community and that it is necessary to bring about an urgent upliftment of the economic position of the Coloured community. When one reads the report of the Erika Theron Commission and the recommendations contained therein, together with the White Paper that was tabled by the Government, it is clear that many of these matters …

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn was never a member of the Erika Theron Commission.

Was he not a member of the Erika Theron Commission? I am sorry. I thought he was.

That is why he did not know what he was talking about. That is why he talked so much nonsense.

I thank the hon. member for Piketberg for drawing my attention to this. The hon. member for Piketberg was indeed a member of the Erika Theron Commission. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has, however, made a study of the affairs of the Coloured community.

One realizes the necessity for the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloured people. I believe it is an indictment on the NP Government in that, after 32 years of rule, we should have a situation of extreme tension amongst the Coloured community and also the current situation of tension between the Coloured community and the Government. The money that is to be voted by this Committee today, the sum of R383½ million, has to be discussed and approved by this Committee, although nobody in this Committee can really speak authoritatively and say how the Coloured community feels this money should be spent. In the estimates the aim is said to be—

Well, there might be a degree of development, but as far as promoting relations is concerned, the situation is such that perhaps relations between the Government and the Coloured community have reached one of the lowest points in the history of the governing of this country by the NP. The anger of young Coloured people is a symptom of the building up of frustration over the years. The country-wide support the school boycott had, and its spreading to other parts of the Republic, has indicated the dangers inherent in the escalation of such feelings. There is no doubt that there were certain people and organizations that were able to exploit those feelings of anger and frustration amongst the Coloured youth. I believe, however, that many other race groups are in sympathy with the grievances voiced at the commencement of that boycott. The Committee of 81 evidently intended, to a degree, to control the boycott and the behaviour of the children, but the situation developed along other lines, and we in these benches can only condemn what took place at the weekend at the Golden Acre shopping complex where, unfortunately, the young people made themselves guilty of looting and committed various offences. This is what happened, according to the testimony of certain witnesses. I think any reasonable and responsible person can only condemn such behaviour which is not at all in the interests of bringing about any form of peaceful change by non-violent means. Obviously if one is going to bring about change it must be done within the bounds of law and order. One cannot allow a complete disregard for law and order.

It is also necessary to point out that there are responsible people amongst the Coloured community who also condemned the behaviour of a certain section of the young people last weekend. I should like to commend the attitude of Dr. Van der Ross, the Rector of the University of the Western Cape. I believe it is a great tragedy that he met with the reception that he did at a meeting that was called on the campus. He is a man who has devoted a great deal of his time and energy to the upliftment of the Coloured community as such. It therefore seems a great pity that certain sections of the Coloured youth should have adopted that attitude towards a man of his stature.

It was a disgrace to say the least of it.

Yes, I agree fully with that sentiment, because he is a man who is respected and very highly regarded by members of the Coloured community. They respect the qualifications he has, and I think this applies to the White community as well. I think that members of the White community take great cognizance of the utterances of Dr. Van der Ross.

I also want to refer to the question of the escalation in the boycott and how this escalation took place over the past five weeks. Events are now entering their sixth week, and the escalation is a cause of a great deal of concern.

The deteriorating situation must somehow be brought to an end so that we can move towards normality, for only then can we find ways and means of meeting the justified grievances that some of the children have, as well as dealing with some of the other aspects of the socio-economic position of the Coloured people. Therefore I hope that it will be possible for the hon. the Prime Minister, as the representative of the Government, to initiate action and find ways and means of bringing about a reconciliation with the leaders of the Coloured community Such leaders in the Coloured community can be drawn from the business sector, the academic sector and from various political parties. It is of such great importance to the future of this country to see to it that the initiative does come, and if necessary the initiative should come from the hon. the Prime Minister to try to bring about a reconciliation between the Government and responsible members of the Coloured community. In the process of finding ways and means of bringing about that reconciliation, a time-table should be brought out through which the Coloured community can be told where they are going and what their future in this country is. If one discusses matters with responsible leaders in the Coloured community, one learns that there is still a great deal of confusion about where the Government is going in regard to the future, generally, of the Coloured community in this country and particularly in the political field.

There are certain grievances which have been high-lighted in the course of the disturbances that have taken place on a country-wide basis, grievances in respect of which the Government can take action. There is, for example, the question of parity in the salaries of teachers and in other professions where the same work is done by all, the granting of equal opportunities to the Coloured community, and ensuring that parity will eventually exist in respect of social benefits and also in other spheres. The Government should work towards that goal and issue a declaration of intent to the Coloured community so that they will know where they are going. There is also the whole question of the law-making process and the decision-making process. Ways and means should be found to share that process with the Coloured community and with members of the other communities which make up this country of ours.

It is of great importance to find means of bringing about that reconciliation. Earlier this session we had the situation that the CRC was abolished. We on these benches opposed that and moved a reasoned amendment to that provision. We believe that that move on the part of the Government has created a vacuum. In this respect the Government is indeed facing a dilemma, a dilemma of its own making, in that it is impossible for them to find elected representatives to speak to so that they may negotiate on a number of these vital issues affecting the Coloured community. As I have said, this has created a vacuum. The hon. member for Sea Point made an appeal that the members of the Coloured Persons Council should not be appointed at this stage and we are inclined to agree with that attitude. Obviously, if the CPC is to have any chance of success at all, there will have to be law and order and a return to normality before the CPC can in any way be regarded as a body which can become effective. In the present atmosphere of tension, discord and bitterness it could be an affront to many of the people in the Coloured community to appoint members to the CPC at this stage. Also, the present situation could then be utilized to the political advantage of certain people.

The question of appointments to the CPC is one in respect of which the hon. the Minister has not carried out his intention as stated at the time, viz. that it was expected that the members of the CPC would be appointed by the end of April. Indeed, at the time he said the new council would start sitting “almost immediately”.

We are now faced with the situation that we have to find ways and means of bringing about a better relationship between the Government and the Coloured community. At present we have boycotts throughout the land and the threatened boycott of buses is another aspect which can be considered a danger to the future relationship between the Government and the Coloured community. Indeed, the Erika Theron Commission devoted a good deal of its time to transport matters and made many recommendations in that regard. Transportation is an overall problem facing the Coloured community. With group-area removals and the tremendous increases and proposed increases in travelling expenses, this could become another flash-point as far as the relationship between the Government and the Coloured community is concerned. As I have said, the question of transport matters was mentioned in the Erika Theron Commission’s report. I hope that the hon. the Minister, who is at this stage responsible for the welfare of the Coloured people, will find ways and means of assisting them.

There are many other matters one can refer to and which are also raised in the Erika Theron Commission’s report. Other members on these benches will in fact do so.

What I also believe to be important is that gestures of goodwill should be shown to the Coloured community wherever possible. This can, I believe, be done for instance through establishing parity in social benefits. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to the frustration of the Coloureds and the solution thereof, that should preferably be sought by way of discussion and mutual persuasion instead of by means of demonstrations. His attitude differs from that of the hon. member for Sea Point who said “we are living in watershed days”. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member in this respect. However, he attributes these “watershed days” to the inability of the Government to rule the country, particularly in so far as it relates to our Coloured population.

He blames the hon. the Prime Minister for various blunders he has allegedly made, and then offers the advice that “we must accept the principle of fully elected political structures”. I infer from this that what the hon. member actually means, is that we should accept the principle of one man, one vote. If that is not so, the hon. member should state his views very clearly because there is something that gives us in the House cause for concern. There is something that makes one doubt whether one should really take the official Opposition seriously. I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he differs with his colleagues serving on the Schlebusch Commission with regard to the fact that the Westminster system would no longer be suitable in the future constitutional dispensation of South Africa.

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. The hon. member for Sea Point, however, once again advocated in the House today that we should accept the “principle of fully elected political structures”.

You are missing the point altogether.

One of the proposals by the hon. member for Sea Point was that we should have integrated municipal councils. Surely, in proposing that, the hon. member for Sea Point is suggesting that we should carry on with the Westminster system of government.

I should prefer to devote the rest of my speech to the future of the Coloureds and to their well-being in this country. As an agriculturalist it was my task to take a look at Coloured agriculture. I felt that I had to make a contribution in regard to this matter in this debate. The success of entrepreneurs, whether in the commercial or the agricultural field, is dependent upon various qualities such as expertise, initiative, experience and available capital. The position in the present milieu is it is very unusual for persons who have not previously been connected with farming to enter this industry. On the contrary, there is a decrease in the number of farmers in most countries of the world every year. According to South Africa’s condensed statistics, there was a decrease of 30 000 farming units in South Africa over a period of 15 years, from 1960 to 1975. The number of farming units decreased from 105 859 to 75 000. Taking due account of the fact that these 30 000 farmers who have been lost to agriculture were, by and large, skilled and experienced people who grew up in a farming environment and who, in most instances, had acquired their land and equipment during relatively inexpensive times, I am seriously concerned, as I believe all of us are, about the question of what hope there would be for inexperienced and unskilled people entering agriculture today. In this connection one calls to mind in particular the leeway our Coloured population have to make up in the field of agriculture.

To appreciate the standpoints and procedures that relate to Coloured agriculture, one must see Coloured agriculture as a whole. There are three categories, namely Coloured farms in White areas; farms in rural Coloured areas in the extensive grazing regions; and farms in the smaller agricultural regions in the more intensive agricultural areas such as Mamre, Saron, Suurbraak, Genadendal, Elim and others.

Most Coloured farms in White areas are to be found in Natal, but apart from that there are very few such farms. In this case, the entry of Coloureds into agriculture is very limited. During 1979, only four farm mortgage bonds were granted to Coloureds in the entire Republic. The object of the Coloured Farmers’ Assistance Act is based on the procedures of the Agricultural Credit Board. Mortgage bonds are only granted after it has been ascertained that the unit in respect of which the loan is being applied for, is an economical unit, that the prospective purchaser has a portion of the purchase price, for example 10% to 15%, and that the purchaser has the operating capital necessary for him to proceed with his farming activities. Furthermore, the purchaser has to obtain a permit to buy a farm in a White area.

The determining of the economic value of a farm could create problems in this instance. The possibility exists that unrealistic prices—normally unrealistically high prices—are charged when Coloureds buy farms in White areas. The question is whether there is a sufficient number of experienced officials in the Directorate of Rural Areas of the Department of Coloured Relations to undertake expert valuations of agricultural properties, and whether this function should not be transferred to the Agricultural Credit Board. Moreover, the farms outside the rural areas fall under the Land Conservation Act, and the determination of the potential of such farms should not be the responsibility of officials of this Division.

The permit system creates serious problems for potential Coloured purchasers of farms in White areas. Unfair objections are often raised in order to prevent such transactions from taking place. There can be no transaction arising out of a public auction of a farm, because the prospective purchaser does not know whether he will be able to obtain a permit. Since the financial restrictions are sufficient to prevent anybody who is not creditworthy from purchasing of a farm in the White area, it would be to the benefit of a Coloured purchaser if the permit system were dispensed with.

Then there is also the question of farms in rural areas, in the extensive grazing regions and in the smaller rural areas where we still, by and large, have the old system of commonages with common grazing rights. One does feel that the old system of communal farming could not, in such circumstances, offer the Coloured a viable farming project which would enable him to make a living. I believe it is on account of this that our rural Coloured areas are gradually becoming areas where old people and unemployed people sit and vegetate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with only one matter which was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam and then to say a word in response to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn before I start with what I really intend saying. The hon. member for Swellendam is totally confused in his understanding, or lack of understanding, with regard to the Westminster constitution and system. The whole idea, which seems to defeat him, is that the Government itself has time and time again made it clear that it believes in “one man, one vote”. In terms of the Coloured community, for example, all the Coloured people of a certain age were allowed to vote. The only point that we are making is that in exactly the same way that they are allowed to vote separately, we believe they should be allowed to vote in the same way as we do under a federal structure. That is the only difference.

I believe the hon. member for Oudtshoorn asked the absolute key question which ought to be asked in this debate today. He asked: Do the Coloured people as a community want to have a separate identity and to have that identity preserved? He went on to complain about certain Coloured leaders who talk about “so-called Coloureds”. He was very distressed by this and could not understand it. If the hon. member does not understand that basic problem, then I am afraid he does not understand anything at all about what is in the heart and mind of the Coloured community. The very reason why they talk about “so-called Coloureds” is because of what has happened over the years. Let anybody try to deny that. It is not only since the Nationalist Government came into power, but also before, and certainly since. One has only to read the laws and see the attitudes to understand that the Coloured people have by definition been regarded as inferior in their own country. It is an accepted fact, and this has been the big tragedy. As a result of this there has been a deep-felt shame about even owning up to that. Just look at the race classification clause. Just think of that. Why do they want to change? It is because to be Coloured is to be second class by definition.

That is what you think.

No, this is what people are saying in this country, and that is the underlying reason for most of the grievances being expressed today. And if the hon. member does not understand that, then he does not understand the very beginning of the problem which is facing South Africa.

That is a gross over-simplification.

No, Sir. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that this is a gross over-simplification. Let him tell us why. He has been trying to tell us for a long time, but we have heard nothing from him at all. The fact of the matter is: Will anybody deny that when one is talking of the “so-called Coloured” community that they have a deep sense of grievance as to how they have been treated in their own land?

Why “so-called”?

Because that is the very term they are using. As to the question of identification: What are the differences between ourselves and the Coloured people? Is it language? No. Is it “godsdiens”? No. What is it then? Is it culture, or is it history? No. It is only skin colour. That is the problem. We have decided that if a man’s skin is of a different shade then he is different. Then he is excluded from the main stream of South African life and that is why …

That is also an over-simplification.

No. It is no good playing with words. We are in a very desperate situation in South Africa, and it is no use playing with words. It is no use pretending that we all love the Coloured people. The history of this country has shown that we have very often despised them, and let us not play games about that. Let us put it right. [Interjections.] I want to say to this House that the “so-called Coloured” people are sick and tired of being pushed around by the White people in this country; they are sick and tired of being under the laws of this country; they are sick and tired of being told where to go, where to live, where to work and what to do. That is why there ought to be a deep understanding, not only a condemnation of, the boycotts that have taken place, a deep understanding of the grievances of people who have had enough and who are sick and tired of the passivity of the past and have decided that they are going to stand up and say: “Thus far and no further.”

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

I have no time for questions, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the Erika Theron Commission, and if there is one thing that is true about the Erika Theron Commission it is that the Government can never again say they did not know. They cannot say they did not know that the Coloured people felt this way. They cannot say they did not know that those problems existed. They cannot say they did not know that the education was inferior and that it was regarded as such by the Coloured community in South Africa. That excuse has gone for ever.

That also applies to the PFP.

I am not arguing about that. The fact of the matter is that this Government is in power and they are the only people in this country who can actually take action, and it is no good only taking action on a police level. The hon. the Minister of Police himself has made the point that this is not a matter for the police. It is a matter for education; it is a matter for socio-economic affairs and for political development. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the major action of the Government now is to make sure that the riots are controlled, that the boycotts are stopped and that universities and schools are closed. [Interjections.] That is the fact of the matter.

You are talking utter nonsense.

No, I am not at all. [Interjections.] Look at the situation.

I want to try to demonstrate some of the facts of the matter, facts which the hon. the Minister says we do not have. With reference to school facilities the Erika Theron Commission said the following (page 179, paragraph 8.86)—

That was four years ago. The report continues (paragraph 8.87)—

Those are the complaints. Improvements are totally inadequate. There has been a general slight improvement in the relative per capita expenditure on Coloured education, but the situation still remains wholly unsatisfactory.

In 1974 to 1975 the average per capita expenditure on White pupils was R605 and for Coloured pupils R125. In 1978 and 1979 it was R724 and R225,54 respectively. We can argue about some of these figures, but there is one thing one cannot argue about and that is if one looks at the total amount spent on White education, we see that in 1977 to 1978 it was R623,5 million against R144,2 million for Coloured education.

Your figures are incorrect. I explained the matter a short while ago.

The Coloured people are not blind or deaf. They see what is happening; they are fed-up with it and they are not going to take it any longer.

That is why, in terms of teachers’ salaries, the Erika Theron Commission spelt out the deep grievances amongst teachers because of the discrimination against them. Can the hon. member for Oudtshoorn dispute these facts? The Government has stated its intention to remove discrimination in salaries and yet only this week there was that very strong statement from the Coloured teachers protesting because there is still discrimination between the salaries paid to Whites and Coloureds.

But we explained the procedure.

The Erika Theron Commission said the following about the salary gap (page 195, paragraph 8.192)—

When one takes a look at the new salary structures, it is clear that they are now 85,2%, 90,8%, 86,89%, 90,6% and 93,85% of the comparable salary of White teachers. [Interjections.]

At least that is better than 70%.

It is still very unsatisfactory. Why should Coloured teachers get anything less at all? Why should they be discriminated against? This is the harsh fact underlying the boycotts and demonstrations which started in the educational field and spilled over into other fields immediately because of the socio-economic disparities in this country and the lack of political representation that they have. I emphasize that it is no good imagining that we are now going to reach a time when the boycotts will cease and that peace will come, because it will go on below the surface all the time.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear from the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands that he and his party do not accept any responsibility for a reasonable, orderly solution to the problems that exist with regard to education for Coloured people. It is very easy to adopt the standpoint that he is adopting if the Government has no other responsibilities, if it does not also have to give an account of other obligations with regard to other facets of our domestic economy. I want to remind the hon. member that there are still many forms of discrimination in the world, not in South Africa alone. We still have the difference between the salaries of men and women who do the same work with the same qualifications in education. And this is while the Government is eliminating the differences between Whites and Coloureds, to which he referred, as rapidly as possible in the department in question. The Government is taking definite action in this very respect and this position is continually receiving attention and being improved.

Now the hon. member made the statement that “the only action of the Government is police action”. Therefore he wants to allege that it is the only way in which the Government takes action and does anything. I feel like telling him, as a clergyman who said something of this kind, that he is lying and he knows it.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them. However, I want to tell him that this is the type of statement

You are a stranger to the truth, and you should know it.

… which makes one feel that he was born in another country and grew up somewhere else.

I am not blind to the problems that exist and to the deficiencies that exist in the education of Coloured children.

Do something.

I have just told the hon. member that something is in fact being done. I tried to impress it upon him by means of an expression that I had to withdraw. [Interjections.] I think that if the official Opposition wants to act as the responsible Opposition, it is high time that they stopped making this type of one-sided statement and at least kept to the truth and try to give an account accordingly. The Government is taking action on a very wide front. If one looks at what the Government is doing on a very wide level with regard to providing housing, services and facilities for the Coloured population, not to mention other population groups, one finds that one cannot make the kind of statement that the hon. member made here in the Committee this afternoon.

Without lying.

It is time that they accept some responsibility with regard to this great, responsible task which the Government is fulfilling with such conscientiousness and within the means of the tax paying population. Since I do not have the time to do so, I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister who has all the figures at his disposal, to give an account of what has been done over the past year by way of providing classroom space, the improvement of all sorts of services related to education, and the provision of housing. This is something that we can hold up not only to the hon. member, but to the world too, as a model of what can be done in a country with regard to the upliftment and the promotion of the welfare of a less developed population group.

The hon. member referred to the Erika Theron Commission. The official Opposition may do well to bear in mind one matter that they often talk about. This is that amongst other things, the Erika Theron Commission has accepted the necessity of group areas as a means of regulating the population. They are always evading it and rejecting it.

As it suits them.

Furthermore, they refuse to account for it. They may do well to bear that point in mind, because law, order and peace in a community is an essential basis for any progress. We can cause these boycotts and riots to be stirred up, and some of us may even gain some pleasure out of it, but we must bear in mind that the people who are going to suffer, are the Coloured children, because no child, whether White, Black or Coloured, can afford to forego the privilege of formal classroom education for five, six or eight weeks, except during the usual school holidays. Ultimately, he will be the one to suffer and to be adversely affected. I should like the hon. member who spoke before me, to bear this in mind too.

I accept that. Think of the reasons.

I think the hon. member must give me a chance; I listened to him attentively.

I want to make a few statements with regard to the matter of Coloured education. I have already conceded that there are some shortcomings, but—this has already been announced—the things that can be rectified on the short term within weeks or months, are in fact being settled at considerable expense. I read what is being said and what people are attesting. From that it is clear to me that there was a hold-up, a delay and I almost want to say that there was unnecessary saving with regard to providing hand books to the schools. However, the hon. Minister has said that those books are now being provided at considerable expense. There are also other things that must be solved on the medium or long term. Those are the things that cannot be settled in a day.

I am now thinking of the increase of the standard of the teachers in general. This is a problem at the moment. At the moment there are a considerable number of teachers of Coloured children, who are not fully qualified for the task that they have to carry out. However, in this House there are several people who were taught by teachers who were not properly qualified for their task either. In my day I knew teachers who had had only a year of teacher training after standard eight, but some of their pupils became doctors, professors, lawyers, etc.

Did some of them teach you?

I do not want to disparage my former teachers; they were a little better qualified. However, the fact is that it is possible and therefore I do not want us to look at the Coloured teacher today as if he is an inferior person and cannot do his work. He is doing his work in the specific time in which he finds himself. If the Coloured children are inspired to avail themselves of the opportunities that are offered to them, there is nothing that can spoil the future for them, and a great future awaits them. What we must impress upon them, is that they must avail themselves of their opportunities and make fewer demands for rights.

The fault does not lie with the Coloured children; there are people who are instigating them to boycott. I want to read a few sentences from a letter from a Coloured woman, a grandmother of such children. Her letter appeared in Die Burger a few weeks ago—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one wants to participate in this debate, one is obviously very conscious of the seriousness of the situation, especially when it comes to White-Coloured relations and with regard to Coloured education. I feel that one has to make a very personal decision on this; not purely an educational decision or a political one, but one has to decide what will be regarded as responsible in these circumstances. On the one hand one can ask: Will it be responsible to participate in this debate with the idea to paint a rosy picture? On the other hand the question is: Will it be responsible to highlight the deficiencies which exist? I think one can overcome this difficulty by establishing what is the most significant fact about Coloured education at this stage.

Is it the fact that we are having school boycotts, or is it the fact that during the past years, and even decades, vast improvements have been made resulting in a much higher percentage of Coloured children attending schools in terms of a system of free and compulsory education? Or is it that a host of real grievances exist in Coloured education? We have heard some of those grievances being mentioned in this debate so far. Among those grievances is the vast delay in the supply of school books, etc. I believe the time has come now for us to try to stop bluffing each other. The most important factor, in my view, is not the boycotts per se, but the clear degree of success achieved through those boycotts.

Hon. members can talk until they are blue in the face about all the improvements that have been made in this field. From that reality, however, they cannot escape. No presentation of statistics, no matter how impressive, can possibly obliterate the stark reality of the obvious degree of success which is being achieved through the school boycotts at the moment. One thing we will have to accept, I believe, is that without the support in some form or another by the parents of those Coloured schoolchildren the boycott could not possibly have met with such a degree of success at this stage; in some respects, at least, I should add. I am sure there must be some degree of tacit support.

What then is required? What action should we take? I sincerely believe that a prerequisite to finding solutions to the legitimate grievances in Coloured education—and there are many such grievances—will be a recognition of the fact that there are in fact political problems that have to be faced fairly and squarely. It must also be accepted that those political grievances are indeed part of a strong motivating force behind the present boycott actions. If we should think that the lack of school books and other educational problems are the only reasons why schools are being boycotted by Coloured pupils, we would be bluffing ourselves. This whole thing is a political action, and it is meant to be a political action. The sooner we accept this fact the sooner Coloured schoolchildren will cease to be used for ulterior motives. They will then no longer be used by those who seek to abuse education to prove their point. Let us accept then that this whole action is politically inspired and that the motivation behind it is based on legitimate political discontent. Then we should create the climate in which discussions can take place, discussions aimed at solving the existing socio-economic problems, or even the educational problems that are now being exploited. I believe that a favourable climate for the elimination of those problems can be created. I want to stress “favourable climate”. With that I mean that I believe there must be a change of heart and a change of attitude amongst Blacks, Whites and Coloureds alike. The current attitude on all sides makes for a situation of further confrontation. I submit that we must move away from that sort of attitude.

There are too many Whites and too many politicians who really believe that the existing educational problems amongst the Coloured people can really be solved either by threats or by nice appeals. All that is needed, in the opinion of some people, is that there should develop amongst the Coloured people a greater sense of gratitude for the material improvements brought about in the field of education. This type of approach is of course nothing but a recipe for further confrontation. Without a real manifestation of change we will not be able to get those pupils to return to their schools and universities. That means that the problem will remain unsolved.

I am convinced that one must not even become involved in an argument about the police action. It was not police action that brought those pupils out in the first instance. They were brought out for other reasons. They were brought out for real reasons. We must accept that police action has to continue but that that is neither a solution nor a major aggravating factor. It is purely an incidental matter. Police action has to take place in order to preserve law and order. The major question, however, which has remained unanswered is the question of who or what brought them out. No one will convince me that kids of eight, nine and 10 years old will decide for themselves to resort to this type of behaviour knowing that they will be faced with police baton charges. So we must accept that that is a factor that we have to face. We must further accept the fact that today there is a tremendous feeling of distrust, amongst Coloured youths, of anything that is slightly identified with the Whites. Teachers in Coloured education have told me about this feeling of distrust or antipathy towards the Government, the Whites and anything that is associated with apartheid, or whatever name we may give to the existing state of affairs. It manifests itself in an exaggerated form, for example, in the attitude towards a subject like history at school. Everything dealing with contemporary history is rejected as being biased and untrue. We know that even in White circles, especially White opposition circles, people many times have reason—as I have had reason—to complain about what are regarded as biased history textbooks. Judged in that context, however, the situation becomes even worse when one has to deal with the whole sphere of contemporary history and development as far as the Coloureds themselves are concerned. Every time one has to deal with the whole constitutional development of the Coloureds in contemporary times, one finds this to be a history of the diminishing of rights, and one has to get these people to accept that this was done in order to improve their situation. I believe that that is something we shall have to tackle seriously in the future.

Now I come to another matter that I am very concerned about. The 1980 parliamentary session has perhaps become one which, in the end, will not be remembered for the report of the Schlebusch Commission or proposed constitutional development, but rather a session which might be remembered for what can, in some ways, be regarded as an absolute hardening of attitude, on the part of the Government, towards the Coloureds. Whether hon. members opposite like it or not, the fact remains that certain issues, especially those in connection with the abolition of the CRC, have been handled in such a way that they can only be seen, by the Coloureds, as contributing towards the removal of the last legitimate channels they have had for expressing their political rights.

The most responsible thing to do is obviously to appeal to people—and this we do—to use the correct political channels, but there is a question that has to be answered, and I should like the hon. the Minister to answer it. What exactly are the correct channels for the Coloureds to use, even when it is merely a matter of administrative grievances? What we need is to be able to tell people that there are definite channels they can use with confidence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for the sober, responsible way in which he approached the matter, because under the prevailing circumstances it is absolutely essential for there to be an in-depth, but very responsible look at the grievances underlying the present boycott of classes and schools. I do not think it will get us anywhere to discuss this entire matter by employing emotional clichés—like the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Pinelands—in order to solve the problem. However, I shall leave it at that.

A study of the grievances and demands that gave rise to the boycotts of schools and classes, is very interesting and informative. It varies from a grievance concerning broken window panes that have not been replaced, and broken toilets to a demand for the franchise.

To sum up, the grievances and demands can be divided into different categories. Firstly there are those grievances and demands that are exclusively or largely due to poor internal administration and control by the headmaster, his staff and the school committee. This concerns matters for which the Government can definitely not be held responsible. Here I am referring amongst other things to the grievance concerning the application of corporal punishment. The department has laid down its rules with regard to corporal punishment in schools. Surely it is obviously the task and responsibility of the headmaster, the staff and the committee to ensure that the departmental rules are carried out.

In this regard I also want to refer to the complaint and the grievance concerning books that were not received in time. Let me say at once that the problem of books that are not received, is sometimes due to causes beyond the control of the headmaster, the staff and the department. However, it must be ascribed to problems and sometimes to neglect on the part of publishers and suppliers. The problem of books that are not received in time is not, however, characteristic of and limited to Coloured, Indian and Black education. White schools experience the same problem. However, to elevate this to a reason for strikes and boycotts is stupid and short-sighted, because it is the striker and boycotter alone who suffer. Sometimes the problem that causes the grievance concerning books that are not received or are received late, is simply due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the head and the relevant member of staff who did not place the order in good time, place it in full and according to requirements. There was a case where the books that had allegedly not arrived, were discovered unopened in packs in the storeroom weeks after the school had re-opened.

The grievance concerning broken windowpanes that are not replaced falls into this category too. Surely it is unavoidable for window-panes to be broken in a school building. However, the complaint about broken panes that are not replaced, must not be laid at the door of the department alone. To me as a former school principal, it rather shows a lack of discipline and control on the part of the school itself. In addition, it testifies to the sickly disposition that everything, to the repair of a broken pane, must be done by the Government. To me it is simply logical that a broken pane would be replaced either by the person who broke it deliberately or by the school, out of its own funds.

In the second category I place those grievances and demands which have their origin in firstly, the phenomenal growth in the number of pupils and secondly, the historical backlog which existed when Coloured education was placed under an independent department. Do we have any idea of the state of affairs with regard to school buildings, for instance, that prevailed in Coloured education when the department took over the responsibility for Coloured education?

In this category we find grievances about a shortage of classroom space, with the consequent double shift classes and all the disadvantages thereof—this has all our sympathy—the necessity of building prefabricated buildings, providing text books, etc. However, we must be realistic. The results show that it is not a case of the department being unwilling to build schools and provide classroom space, but it is an inability due to a lack of the necessary funds. I want to allege that in spite of limited funds, the department has a proud record with regard to providing schools, hostels and classrooms.

In this category we must also place the demand for parity in salaries of teachers with the same qualifications. After all, it has been the declared policy of the Government to bring about parity in salaries for some time. In fact, parity has already been achieved in some categories. Here too, funds are a limiting factor.

It is interesting to hear what the militant Committee of 81 claim with regard to parity in salaries. I want to quote from “The Manifesto to the People of Azania” which appeared on 14 May 1980. The Manifesto says—

My comment on this is: The Government started long ago with equalization and it has already become a reality in some categories.

The third category of grievances and demands is purely political in nature. If we study them, it becomes apparent that the other grievances are simply serving as a smoke-screen. I want to mention a few of the demands. The first demand is—

It is childish and naive to believe that granting the franchise would create a Utopia with no grievances or shortcomings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising to offer the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity. The second political demand that is being made, is—

It is necessary to dwell on this demand for a moment. In the first place we find an exact, precise edition of the demand being made by hon. members of the PFP in the House. Now the important question is whether hon. members of the Opposition are the prompters or the imitators of this demand. In the second place this demand mentions “keeping the races that are not White in a permanent state of suppression”. What are the true facts with regard to this “suppression” under the separate departments as appointed under this Government with its policy of separate development? Surely it is a fact that there is already a Coloured person as a Director of Education and there are also several Coloured circuit inspectors, principals of high schools and primary schools and principals of training colleges and technikons. They have their own university with its Coloured Rector. Is that suppression? This is in the sphere of education alone. If this is suppression, I wonder whether we should not demand that there should be more of this type of suppression.

In the third place, with regard to this demand, those who are making the demands and their prompters or imitators must bear in mind that in the event of their demand being complied with, that all education must fall under one department, viz. the Department of National Education, that Coloured primary, secondary and technical education will be included under the provincial administrations once again, as in the case of Whites. But after all, we did have such a situation, a situation which proved that it was not in the best interest of Coloured education. Surely it is a fact that the real development in the sphere of Coloured education came after the establishment of a separate and independent Department of Coloured Education.

Further demands are being made which will require enormous sums of money if they are complied with, for instance brick school buildings, fully equipped school halls, a national feeding scheme, parity in salaries etc. Apparently these demands are not taking into account the reality of the limited nature of funds. The Committee of 81, which has already been mentioned, has a solution how to obtain funds for providing these facilities at the Coloured schools. I quote once again from the Manifesto of 14 March 1980. What does this Committee of 81 say?—

This is the demand for and the solution to the provision of funds. I want to ask two questions with regard to this statement. Firstly, do the hon. members of the Opposition agree with this? If not, why do they not repudiate it with all the power at their disposal? The second question that I want to ask in regard to this solution, is: Who is this Committee of 81, on behalf of whom and for whom are they acting as mouthpiece? I want to allege that those on behalf of whom this committee is speaking, or those who are acting as a mouthpiece, are not friends of South Africa and all its people, as well as the members of the Committee of 81 and those who use the students and children to achieve their dastardly goal with South Africa.

In general the school boycotts must be seen as a revolt and an incitement to rebel against authority. I quote from the manifesto once again—

The committee asks for the establishment of student councils at every school. Then they say—

The course of this entire boycott action shows that even the authority of the Committee of 81 is no longer accepted, because nothing came of the decision by the committee “to suspend the boycott”. The language which is used in this action, is the language of incitement to revolution. I quote from a call from Student Action for non-Racial Education—

Do hon. members of the Opposition agree with this? They are rather quiet about it. It was also said—

They continue—

This is language that I have already heard in this House before. The following was also said—

With a view to the above call and incitement by this organization, it does not surprise us that the rector of the University of the Western Cape was pelted with eggs and tomatoes when he tried to normalize matters in the interests of the students themselves. The summons from this organization ends as follows—

This is blatant incitement to overthrow the existing order in a revolutionary way.

What do we find now? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on that side of the House, including the hon. member for Sea Point, are crying that we should talk to these inciters of a revolution to overthrow the existing order. After all, the Government has spoken. Even the hon. the Prime Minister held talks and gave undertakings that a serious look would be taken at grievances and problems. What do the hon. members of the Opposition want to tell these people? Do they want to tell them: “We have sympathy with your cause?” What can the hon. members of the official Opposition say that will satisfy them, “when they are committed not to make the system work and prevent others from making it work”? Experience has taught us that these inciters of revolution do not want to listen unless they can do so on their own terms. I conclude with a serious request to all those involved to come to their senses. Revolution, as advocated here, is the road of death, chaos and suffering, for those who start such a revolution too.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to be able to participate in this discussion after the hon. member for Kimberley North. I want to thank him, as well as other members on this side of the House, for his enlightening, well-researched and responsible contribution, which was worthy of the dignity of Parliament. I shall reply later to specific matters which he and other hon. members raised.

By way of introduction to the discussion, I now wish to make a few general observations. One observation is—and I am referring not only to myself as Minister, but to all of us in this House—that we have to conduct this discussion under very difficult circumstances today, for one feels that one must weigh one’s words. One does not want to cause a problem which has already gone far enough, to go even further. One wants peace and opportunities to be able to do what is necessary. That is why I have said that it is a difficult debate to conduct. At the same time, however, I believe that it is a debate which is essential and which, from a parliamentary point of view, ought to be a very healthy debate, for it gives us all an opportunity to account to the people and also to furnish the people with the facts. Hon. members on the Government’s side and hon. members of the NRP have up to now participated in this debate in the realization of the responsibility resting on us. I wish to pay tribute to them for doing so. I think it was splendid. Later I shall have something to say about the contribution which the PFP made, because I think it deserves special attention.

I now wish to examine the schools boycott which has dominated the entire debate up to now and try to put the matter in its correct perspective. It is a serious matter, and no one can deny it. Most of our Coloured high schools are involved. In certain parts of the country almost all the schools are on strike. Naturally this has something to do with the population distribution as well, although it is not the only factor, but it is interesting to note that 75% of the strikes are occurring in Port Natal, the Western Province, the Boland, Natal and the Eastern Province, while only 25% of the strikes are occurring in the rest of the country, which include areas such as the Witwatersrand, Lenasia and the large Coloured townships in the vicinity of Johannesburg. Between 150 and 160 of the 208 schools which began to strike on 1 May are situated in the five areas to which I have referred. However, it would be a mistake to emulate The Cape Times, which published a map the other day to create the impression that we are dealing here with a country-wide strike. It is indeed a serious matter, and I do not wish to minimize its seriousness, but the idea that the task of educating our Coloured children has been totally disrupted, is not true, particularly if one takes into consideration that not one primary school is involved. All these events are confined only to high schools. In a sense I am very pleased about that. It would be extremely base—and what is happening now, is base enough, as I shall indicate—to involve even small primary schoolchildren in this matter. If one really wants to understand the nature of this matter one must, as I shall also indicate in a moment, take cognizance of the very significant fact that only high school students are involved.

Anyone who tries to deny that the Coloured children of South Africa have grievances and are frustrated is denying the reality of conditions in South Africa. Grievances exist, many of them justified. We admit it. The hon. the Prime Minister, when he spoke to certain teachers earlier this month, issued a statement in which he readily conceded that there were justified grievances. He committed himself, and the Government to an effort to eliminate those grievances as rapidly as possible. Consequently we concede that there is frustration, but we must also take into consideration that these grievances have a historical background. They are not grievances which were created by the NP. They did not arise during the administration of the NP. They go further back in history. For hundreds of years there was no education at all in South Africa for the people whom we may call the Coloureds. All the Whites in South Africa declared themselves to be satisfied with that situation, and it was also accepted by the Non-whites of the country. This is history, and no one can deny it.

Certain churches—and we are very grateful for them—then opened mission stations and began to educate these people. Frequently this education was concentrated in settlements, which were established to bring people together to practice their religion. Nevertheless one is thankful for the education which was offered there. But it was a form of education which fell far short of the demands we make on education in our modern society. I went to school in a small town where the mission school stood next to the public school, and the contrast was absolutely shocking, although the Coloured community was grateful for those facilities. I am not saying this to derive any satisfaction from it. All I want is for us to see this matter in its correct perspective, namely that it had a historical cause. After Union education, including Coloured education, was transferred to the provincial councils. The central Government paid the provincial councils a subsidy for every child, and it was the same for a Coloured and a White child. Nevertheless Coloured education lagged behind White education because in those days—and it was wrong; it should never have happened, but it did nevertheless—all of us in South Africa were inclined to accept that education for the Coloureds need not be the same as education for the Whites. But one becomes morally maturer, and today no such argument exists any more. Each of us is deeply convinced that there should be equal education for all the children of South Africa. I wish to emphasize this. It is our saccred conviction. It was emphasized again by the hon. the Prime Minister in the statement which he issued at the beginning of the month. It must come, and the sooner the better. We, as the Government, have pledged ourselves to ensuring that it does happen. These are not mere words, as was implied by the hon. member for Pinelands, who complained that so little had been done. Things were done which were absolutely spectacular.

Tell that to the kids.

I have furnished the figures before, but I could just remind hon. members of them again. In the ten years from 1970-’71 until the present the money spent on Coloured education rose from less than R47 million to fractionally less than R1 000 million. Surely one cannot ignore that. Surely one cannot make speeches such as those made by the hon. members for Pinelands and Sea Point and not even refer to this or pretend that one does not even know that this was done. [Interjections.] Do let us try to be objective. On an occasion such as this and in the circumstances prevailing today, one should at least be able to expect a little objectivity. [Interjections.]

In 1970-’71 only R4,75 million was spent on school buildings. This amount has increased steadily. The greatest increase was between 1973-’74, when it jumped from R6 million to almost R13 million in one year. Despite the economic recession it rose every year by millions of rands, until in this financial year it amounts to, I think R22 million. Next year it will, according to our budget plans, amount to R28 million, and the year after, to R35 million. But I do not wish to say that my department and I think that this is enough. We think that we should make more rapid progress with the school buildings. We are making submissions in this regard, and I hope they will bear fruit. I shall then be able to tell this House with pride what the result of those submissions are.

I said that the number of teachers rose from less than 15 000 Coloured teachers to 25 000 in ten years. This is a tremendous increase. It takes years to train teachers, and this consequently this demonstrates that we are doing these things. It is not simply because of the Government that the majority of teachers in the Coloured schools when the NP took over were not fully qualified. We inherited a situation in which 62% of the teachers in Coloured schools only had a standard eight qualification. That was not our fault. It was just as much the fault of the predecessors of the Opposition on that side.

How long does it take to produce a teacher—32 years?

Do not be stupid now.

No, it does not take 32 years. We also have obligations to the teachers who are teaching at the schools. We cannot fire them. What we are doing is in the first place to afford those teachers an opportunity to qualify. For example, an unqualified or semi-qualified teacher who has six months accumulated leave, can go back to college for a year to qualify. We pay his full salary and in addition we provide bursaries if these are needed. The results are quite spectacular. Hundreds of these people are qualifying. However, it is no use only having teachers; schools must also be built. One must build schools and create other amenities. One must organize. These are not things which can be done overnight. We are aware of this, and boycotts or no boycotts, the Government will continue to act quickly and positively in order to make up the leeway. We do not need boycotts to make us realize what must be done. Our consciences dictate to us what must be done in the interests of this country.

At the beginning of this year we introduced compulsory education for Coloured children. This immediately aggravated our problem. Now there is a larger number of children and we must, with the existing facilities—which are already inadequate—try to accommodate them and create amenities for them. Have we not acted correctly? Would it have been correct to have kept on postponing compulsory education until the backlog had been completely eliminated, while many thousands of Coloured children would, in the meantime have been unable to receive an adequate education? Do hon. members understand that these things are not as simple as they seem? However, when one listens to the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sea Point, one would say that all that was necessary was to sign a few proclamations and the whole problem would be solved. Then one would also have to believe that since 1910, nothing has been done about this matter, and that under the régime of the NP Government in particular, nothing was done about this matter. One would have to believe that, knowing that this Government can rightly pride itself on having done more than any other Government in the history of South Africa, in any comparable period in our history. These are facts which we cannot deny. I am merely asking for honesty.

But there is another interesting phenomenon to which I must refer. Hon. members opposite know all about these grievances today. But for 10 years the CRC was directly responsible for Coloured education. During the previous five years the Rev. Hendrickse, leader of the Labour Party, was the member of the Executive in charge of Coloured education. I do not want to hurl any reproaches.

How much money did he get?

I have already quoted how much money he got. What I want to make clear, however, is that we did not receive any indication at all from these Coloured leaders that they were satisfied with the progress we were making. Never once did they insist on having more money— not in any year.

What about the Erika Theron Commission?

No, wait a minute. After all, the hon. member referred to the elected leaders of the Coloureds to whom we were ostensibly paying no heed. They had the opportunity but they never pointed out to us, never really made out a case for their having to receive more money. They never even advocated it. Only on one occasion—and I do not know whether it had anything to do with education—was there a computer error of approximately R2 million. This they traced and brought to our attention, and that mistake was immediately rectified. Hon. members must know about these things. There are other factors at stake as well. There are other factors which determine why this matter is in fact being brought to a head at this juncture. But hon. members opposite failed to appreciate these factors.

Apart from politics, and apart from agitation, there are two reasons why this matter is coming to a head now. The first reason is that our Coloured children today receiving education on a scale which would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. During the past 10 years an additional 250 000 children have started at school, children from the poor classes of the community who now for the first time had an opportunity, any opportunity at all, of going to school. It is a socio-political fact that as people’s knowledge and learning increase as a result of education, their aspirations also grow. On my initiative we have frequently in the past discussed in this House the problem which we have because there are unfortunately by far too many of our Coloured people who are members of a poverty culture, people whose forebears were so poor that to this day they still believe that poverty is something which is unavoidable, that it is part of life, and consequently they loose the desire and the motivation to free themselves from that poverty syndrome. Thanks to the NP Government, however, those people are now receiving an education, new doors are being opened for them, they are discovering new ways of looking at things and are beginning to realize that they are not eternally trapped in poverty but can escape through their own efforts. In fact they are hasty and impatient to do this. But then we find this kind of frustration and unrest which we are experiencing at present. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me on this, because he knows what I am talking about. It is true.

Do you agree, Van Zyl?

That is not an argument.

Yes, it is an argument. It is strange, but it does nevertheless redound to the credit of this Government.

But they have more problems …

Please, the hon. member has spoken enough nonsense for one day. [Interjections.]

If that were a yardstick, you would not be saying anything.

There is something else I want to tell the hon. member. South Africa is allegedly such a terrible country, a country in which everything must go wrong, as we again heard here today, a country with a Government without a heart, sympathy, insight or empathy.

No, we say you are incompetent.

Have hon. members not noticed that student unrest in the second half of the twentieth century is part of the pattern in anti-communist countries of the West? [Interjections.] We had it in the USA, in 1968 we saw what happened at the University of California in San Francisco. There I saw the police having to disperse students with batons in a way which I have never seen happen in South Africa. There was tremendous unrest everywhere. We must remember that the only real threat which almost brought the De Gaulle to a fall was student unrest in France in the mid-’sixties. In West Germany there was almost a successful overthrow of the Government as a result of the actions of students and high school pupils. Where does this come from.

There is a scientific explanation for it. It happened as a result of the acceptance by communist leaders, communist revolution seekers, of the doctrines of Prof. Marcuse of the USA. Very briefly, Prof. Marcuse’s standpoint is that the communists are no longer able to rely on the workers of the capitalistic world to cause revolution and create disruption, because the workers in the Western world today have too great a share in the fruits of that capitalistic system, while their standards of living, under our system, are higher than those under the communist system. Marcuse says the communists must now look to another community group which is frustrated or unhappy, and exploit and use them to sow disaffection and confusion and to disrupt the Western or capitalist countries. That population group, he says, is the students, and one can understand this. In the Western world, more than in any other part of the world, we are today extending the period of dependence of the adolescent and the post-adolescent youngsters. In the primitive or natural communities the young person between the ages of 16 and 24 is one of the most important and most responsible elements in society. He is the person who has to defend the tribe and he is the most important worker or hunter who has to find food for the tribe. Consequently he can realize himself. He is in the most passionate phase of his life. But he can give vent to his passions. He is an adult, respected member of the tribal society. In our society, on the other hand, he must learn for years after he has already achieved that type of adulthood, and remain a dependent. He remains under the discipline and authority of the State and the community and he is unable to play the role which his rapidly developing sensations of life compel him to play. Then he becomes frustrated. It is these people who are being pushed forward by the communists today, for example in France, Germany, America and elsewhere. This is being done at this very moment, while we are speaking here, in Korea and it is also being done in South Africa.

Without wishing to conceal anything, I say that we admit that there are justifiable grievances among our Coloured people and that we must do everything we can, as rapidly as we can, to eliminate those grievances—and I pray that the prosperity in South Africa will continue so that we can do so rapidly and effectively—and that we would be conceited, short-sighted and even wilfully stupid if we refused to admit that there are agitators as well who wish to destroy South Africa in the interests of their global strategy. Make no mistake about it: These are agitators who are attempting to disrupt us completely in South Africa. We must accept that this is true.

Have hon. members read any of the publications in connection with the boycott? I do not have time to go into this. The hon. member for Kimberley North has already referred to it and I have already quoted one or two of these publications on a previous occasion during this session here in this House. At that time there was no criticism of my deduction that it was extremely unlikely—so unlikely as to be almost impossible—that school children could proclaim this type of propaganda, with all the communistic cliches which we find in these publications. I have one of the latest here. The caption states “Manifesto to the people of Azania.” Even the word “Azania” already reveals a great deal. The hon. member for Pinelands is nodding his head, almost as if he knows this document well.

Yes, I know it.

That is interesting.

It was sent to me at the same time that you were sent yours. [Interjections.]

Every day distressed parents come to me …

Well, that is exactly where I got mine.

… to ask me what I am doing to protect their children against things like this.

*One should read this document. It refers to “the fascist ruling class”, “education for liberation”, “the teacher’s authority must be removed and pupils must have the highest authority in the classroom”, etc. All the communistic cliches which have been disseminated among the children of other nations, are contained in these publications. And then, so help me, there are people, even in this House, who want to say that we should not believe that agitators are involved in this matter.

I had the people who addressed meetings investigated. I have the information here, if hon. members wish to know more about this. Many of these people are not even Coloureds. One of them was recently released from Robben Island. Several of them are detainees who have been released in the past few months, acknowledged communists, people who are not even Coloureds and who have no connections with the Western Cape. Nevertheless, they come here and cause trouble and incite the children.

And then the Opposition even intercedes for Mandela.

If one listens to the PFP one would swear that the only reason for the unrest is that the NP is in power.

That is one of the principal reasons.

I cannot imagine anything more short-sighted, more uninformed and more unworthy of the Parliament of the people of South Africa than the attitude of that party.

Let me go further. Although there are justified grievances and although the hand of communism is clearly discernible in these events, what are our plans for the future? This was also one of the questions asked by the main speaker on the Opposition side. I shall indicate what our plans are, but let me repeat at once what I have already said earlier, viz. that most of these plans are part of the established policy of the NP Government. These are not things we have suddenly cooked up during the past few days. We would have followed this course in any case, even if there had been peace in every school in South Africa.

I want to qualify this by saying that we have of course, as a result of the boycott, taken another look at many of the things we undertook to do and decided to activate them. So, for example, we immediately realized, since 1 April of this year when the Department of Coloured Affairs partially accepted the obligation of providing education, that the question of school books was a serious matter. We approached the Treasury and received a special appropriation of Rl,4 million to supply the schools with school books more rapidly. After that we instituted another investigation. The organization of Mr. Arendse, the Director of Education, conducted a survey at the schools and found that R1,4 million was not enough to wipe out the backlog in one year. Today, therefore, the Treasury has consented to increase that amount by R2,1 million, which means that it will be possible to eliminate the backlog completely before the end of this year. Surely that is an achievement.

We are also carrying out an investigation to ascertain what the implications would be of completing the school buildings which are required within a limited period, for example within five to 10 years. As soon as we have done this, we shall take the matter further and expedite even further the progress which I have already mentioned. We are endeavouring to eliminate the complete backlog of classrooms rapidly and, in a similar programme, to construct school halls at all the high schools within the same period. What is more, we are laying down as policy—we are still seeking the necessary consent and I think we already have it, except for minor formalities—that we shall in future do with the schools what we have been doing since 1974 with new township developments, and that is that when a new township is established and the houses are being built, amenities such as parks and schools which are necessary for the people to live a happy life, are established at the same time. In future we shall build schools in this way so that when the schools are handed over by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Coloured Education, all the amenities—halls, sports fields and so on—which are necessary for a decent school, will already be there. Experience has taught us that once there is a backlog, it is more difficult to eliminate it than it is to finish something properly in the first place. We have also learned, contrary to the PFP way of thinking, that it is far better, as for example in Elsies River, to build a decent township, than to build a temporary slum and try to fix it up afterwards.

You must not talk about Elsies River.

We are going to apply the same principles with schools. Recently we succeeded in accomplishing something with the Department of Public Works, which is very important and that is that minor repairs up to a limit of R300 can immediately be requested by a principal of a school and given out on contract without first waiting for approval from the central authorities. It has also been agreed that the general renovation of schools, for example painting and the repair of minor damage, will be done every five years for each school. It has also been agreed that a minor works programme, where the damage does not exceed R30 000, can be initiated immediately so that the entire backlog in respect of repairs to schools will have been eliminated by the end of this year.

Mention was made of the salary gap. The Government is committed to closing the salary gap. However, this can only be done within the means of the Exchequer. To close the salary gap for everyone in South Africa within a period of two or three years, would impose a burden on us which we cannot bear at the moment. I shall refer to this aspect again later. However, we have already reached the third phase of the implementation of the policy of eliminating the salary gap. At present certain principals of high schools and everyone further up the ladder in the education hierarchy receive salaries which are exactly equal to those of Whites. The hon. member for Pinelands said that a few years ago a Coloured teacher’s salary was approximately an average of 70% of that of a White teacher’s. At present this is between 93% and 97%. Consequently we are not only equalizing salaries completely where possible, where we are unable to do this to the full extent, we are improving the ratio. It seems to me the Government has an answer to virtually all these matters which are not based on prejudice—as the hon. members of the PFP do by peddling grievances—but which are based on the facts and the truth.

†I want to speak for a moment about the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. He gave the impression that the world was collapsing about South Africa. He spoke about the little empire of Coloured Affairs being destroyed, and heaven knows what else. And he spoke with great relish. I have never heard him so eloquent in my whole life as when he dwelt on that particular point. He says that the chief reason for the difficulties which we are experiencing is the fact that the Coloured people have no representation at all. The hon. member for Durban Central, who made a very good speech, asked me a very pertinent question and that was: How can they communicate with us?

What are the legitimate channels?

It is true that they do not have representation on the high level today since the CRC has been abolished, but the CRC was abolished at the request of the representatives of the Coloured people themselves.

That is only half the truth.

And not only at their request, but on their continued, repeated and consistent demands that it should be abolished. [Interjections.] Eventually, only when as a member of the Schlebusch Commission I got the clue that machinery was being established to create a completely new dispensation in South Africa—which hon. members now know about. I could not tell them about it at the time …

I did not know about it and I was a member.

Did the hon. member not know about it? I am not responsible for it if the hon. member does not do his work as a commissioner.

I did not know about it at the time you decided to abolish the CRC.

Obviously, any commissioner who was interested in the work of the commission would have known about the plans that we had for an interim report.

You are misleading the House.

On those grounds I agreed that we would abolish the council in order to get rid of this source of friction …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member say of the hon. the Minister that he is misleading the House?

Who said that?

I said that, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of explanation? The hon. the Minister indicated that members of the Schlebusch Commission knew at the time he introduced that piece of legislation that there were other plans. That is incorrect, and he knows it is incorrect.

The hon. member may not allege that the hon. the Minister is misleading the House.

The hon. member is quite wrong.

Mr. Chairman, may I not say that he may be wittingly or unwittingly misleading the House? I did not say that it was deliberate.

“Wittingly” means “deliberate”.

That was not my intention, Mr. Chairman, neither wittingly nor unwittingly.

I accept the hon. member’s explanation.

Mr. Chairman, on this point I want to say to you that I did not say that they knew about it at the time. I said that I could not take hon. member’s into my confidence at that time; but it has become known since then and they are aware of it now. With great respect, I think hon. members misunderstood me. Then, of course, we have an expression in Afrikaans which says: “’n Donkie skop eerder as ’n perd.” It does not refer to the hon. member; it just refers to the circumstances in which I find myself this afternoon.

Answer the question.

There are many channels through which the Coloured people can communicate with the Government about their grievances. First of all, there is the Department of Coloured Relations, and I wish to give it a high testimonial from my experience over almost a year. They are eager to create machinery to make contact. Any person who has any just grievance can go to that department and will be heard. The same applies to my ministry. I sometimes hear complaints that my door is too open, but I prefer it that way and for example, I have already spoken to schoolchildren from platteland schools. I have already spoken to schoolchildren from Bloemfontein and I have also spoken to parents from Durban who arrived here without an appointment. So there are channels of communication with me as Minister and with the department. There are also relations committees. There are 148 of them with over 3 000 members who are willing to listen and to convey grievances. They furthermore still have their representation on the management committees of the municipalities. This idea that they have no representation is therefore nonsense. They are going to get a form of participation in the government of South Africa. However, I do not want to anticipate. This will be one of the major tasks of the new President’s Council, namely to find a dispensation which will be just for everybody and which will also ensure that minorities will be secure and that their identity will not be lost.

Then the hon. member for Sea Point referred to the “disastrous” meeting with the hon. the Prime Minister in November. I had the privilege to attend that meeting. In fact I arranged that meeting. The hon. the Prime Minister will confirm that I came to him and asked him to see the leaders of the Labour Party. I persuaded them to come to the hon. the Prime Minister.

They had been asking to see him.

No, they had not been doing so. I took the initiative. I have witnesses. When they came there to negotiate in order to try to re-establish a happier relationship with the Government through the highest authority, they started off with a confrontation. One of their members first of all made a speech in one of the Reef towns the night before in which he made a violent and most insulting attack upon the hon. the Prime Minister. The first thing that the Rev. Hendrickse said at that meeting, was that the hon. the Prime Minister had done them a gross injustice by saying that he was not getting the co-operation from them that he was getting from other communities in South Africa. They embroidered upon this and were most emphatic, until at last the hon. the Prime Minister said—and he could not do otherwise—that they should take a look at their attitude and test whether he was getting co-operation from them. He mentioned the Cabinet Council in which they had refused to sit. He also mentioned the request to make Faure available as a defence centre. He mentioned a cadet system, and their attitude to the Coloured Representative Council. They were so much taken aback that they were unable to answer him. There is nothing that makes people so cross as when they are proved wrong. This is what happened.

I still think that it is a tragedy that those Labour Party members of the Coloured Representative Council did not avail themselves and talk with courtesy at the wonderful opportunity they had to establish proper liaison with the Government. Anybody who has any doubt about their attitude should just recall the television interview held with these people shortly afterwards, when hon. members saw in their own lounges what the attitude of these people was. And yet the hon. member for Sea Point makes these wild statements which have no relationship with the facts. He has a limited knowledge and he is, as far as I am concerned, an hon. member of this House to whom one cannot attach any importance, not to any of his actions, because one is always bound to find that his statements are faulty, unprepared and not duly considered.

His party has already discovered that too.

I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for reminding me of that. Even his party found it out. That is why the hon. member for Rondebosch is sitting in his leader’s seat today.

Where are you going to be at the end of June?

Then the hon. member for Sea Point referred to the report of the Erika Theron Commission in order to tell me what the grievances of the Coloured people are. The Government considered that report, took cognizance of it and accepted many of its recommendations. What is very interesting, however, is that Erika Theron is like gospel to the hon. member for Sea Point. He thinks that we have to accept everything that she says. However, where the Government has in very important respects accepted the report, he rejects it when it suits him. I should just like to remind him about the most important one. He raised it again today with great emotion when he spoke about the “folly” of the Government in declaring the Western Cape a protected area for Coloured employment.

What is Erika Theron’s view now?

He damned us and considered us to be a cruel Government. And yet that is one of the major recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission which we accepted. It is almost irrefutable. [Interjections.] Let us look at his statements and let us realize once more that his facts are seldom correct and that his statements are seldom true. Are we really depriving employers in the Cape of Black labour? Since 1968 944 700 Black workers were allowed into the Cape in order to assist in meeting the labour demand of industry in this area.

Your policy has failed.

That hon. member now says that our policy has failed. They only gamble with politics. They come with these wild, stupid statements and they think that they can get away with them, and when they are caught out, they want to toss you for the answer with a coin that has “heads” on both sides. But let me tell hon. members of some of the consequences and results of this policy of making the Western Cape a labour-preferential area for our Coloured people. In 1960 there were 39 100 Coloured men and 11 600 Coloured women holding white-collar jobs in the Western Cape. By 1973 these numbers had increased to 67 300 in the case of men and 43 000 in the case of women. In the semi-skilled jobs there was an increase of 86 100 men and 79 000 women, to a total of 334 100 in 1973. These are only examples.

Why has the policy been reviewed so urgently?

Sometimes the Government is accused of not carrying out its policy, but the fact is that the number of Coloureds employed by State departments increased by 3 474 from 1976 to 1977, by 3 467 during the next year and by 1 209 during last year, while in the same three years the number of Black workers decreased by 6 800. If the number of Black workers had not decreased, there would not have been jobs for these Coloured people who needed the jobs and whose home this is. The same applies to local authorities.

However, now I want to come to the most interesting figures of all. I want to talk about the economic progress of our Coloured people in the whole of South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point as well as the hon. member for Pinelands emphasized the fact that economically these people are today making demands which are just, and I agree with that, but are their demands not being satisfied to a large extent, or are they not in the process of being satisfied? The personal income of Coloureds in the whole of South Africa amounted to R213 million in I960, R330 million in 1964-’65, R1 206 million in 1974-’75 and, according to a projection, it will be R2 580 million in the current year. Just think of it! It increased from R213 million to R2 580 million in 20 years. It is spectacular. These are the incomes of these “oppressed” people. These are the people to whom it is said the Government is “indifferent” and “callous”. It is said that the Government does not want to protect them, but the most important protective measure we take on their behalf here in the Western Cape is immediately repudiated by those hon. members because they do not want us to succeed in doing justice to these people. For their political advancement these hon. members depend upon what they can call failures of this Government. Even our successes they depict as failures.

Let us look at what has happened in the Cape Peninsula and at some interesting figures. The average income of Coloured households in the Cape Peninsula rose from R1 586 in 1970 to R3 131 in 1975. This constitutes an increase of 97% in five years, while in the same period the average income of the Whites in South Africa increased by only 60%.

What were their real incomes?

What is the figure?

Wait a minute. In 1975 the Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula had a spending power of R485 million in the consumer market, an amount which is more than the gross national income of many States in Africa. These are facts.

Compare their income.

However, these are facts to which the Opposition in this House deliberately close their eyes and blind themselves, because they do not want to do anything to improve the image of South Africa or help us spread the truth about the endeavours of South Africa to create a just society for all our people.

That is not true, and you know it.

That is not true. You are the people who are making headlines all over the world.

Order!

Then the hon. member asked us about the Group Areas Act. He knows that we have to differ about that. I still genuinely believe that the time will come when historians will look upon it as one of the most constructive measures taken in the history of South Africa.

You cannot be serious.

I still believe it. 97% of the two million people who were moved under the Act were moved from slum conditions under which no human being should be allowed to live.

We should show you some of the slum conditions they have been moved to.

I understand why the movement of those people does not make an impression upon the PFP. It is because they have a policy of slums.

You do not like the truth, do you?

How many arguments have I not had with the PFP, even with their leader, because they want site-and-service schemes? We know site-and-service schemes. We have had experience of them in Moroka, Pimville and other places in Johannesburg. The Anglican Church found that the infant mortality rate there was as high as 600 per 1 000 and that most of the girls sold their bodies for gain before they were 11 years old. We do not approve of that sort of thing. [Interjections.] We believe that situations like those must be changed, and we have found the Group Areas Act the most powerful and just weapon we could use in order to bring those changes about. I shall be proud for the rest of my life, and if there is a life hereafter, I shall expect a little recognition because of the positive things we have achieved under the Group Areas Act.

You will get a very warm welcome there. [Interjections.]

As far as the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that if anybody can suggest improvements, he would gladly consider that.

Separate amenities is another of the so-called great difficulties which the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned. Surely the way we are administering these proclamations is very fair and just, especially recently. Wherever an amenity cannot be duplicated it is opened to all. Wherever an amenity is necessary in view of the activities of a community, it is opened to all. I have opened dozens upon dozens of restaurants and departmental stores. I have also opened most of the live theatres in South Africa. I have also opened libraries. I have opened everything where there has been the need. What more can one want?

I want to say, because I do not want to be misunderstood, that I was quite moved during the no-confidence debate in this House at the beginning of this session, by the peroration of the hon. member for Houghton. She spoke with emotion about the right of privacy for the citizen. Surely a community or a group also has a right to privacy? If there are people in South Africa who occasionally want to meet amongst themselves for their own purposes, they should have the right to do so. I know that the hon. member for Durban Point, who is looking at me rather quizzically, does not necessarily disagree, because he believes in local option, which is one of the features of the policy I am applying.

You still have to learn a bit more.

Again and again one finds that charges are made while the facts are unknown or ignored.

The last point the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned and which I made a note of, was that we do not assist with transport.

I did not say you did not assist them.

The hon. member said we did not assist enough.

Correct.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs gave the relevant figures here in the House yesterday. Let me remind the hon. member that we are already subsidizing bus fares to the tune of R76 million a year. The Railways are already subsidized in their running costs to the extent of R70 million a year. The Railways are losing already. The Railways Administration also has to render social services. The Railways are losing some R485 million a year on passenger services, of which the Treasury refunds R171 million a year.

Do you realize that they are losing more on White commuters than on Coloured commuters?

I do not say that is enough. Perhaps we should do more. That is why we are breaking all records in building a railroad and establishing a train service between Cape Town and Mitchell’s Plain. It will be opened in July this year. Nobody thought it possible when we first announced it. Nevertheless, we are doing it because we agree that the transport issue is a matter for concern. If one listens to speeches of hon. members opposite, however, one would not dream that it will be possible for me to produce immediately a figure of some R600 million representing the extent to which passenger services are being subsidized by the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

You are indeed breaking all records.

I should like to give hon. members the opportunity of entering into this debate again. Having dealt now with the hon. member for Sea Point, I shall wait until my next turn to speak, when I shall deal with details of speeches delivered by other hon. members. There is one other thing though that I should like to add at this point.

Whatever misunderstandings there may be, whatever mistakes have been made in the past, whatever poison certain unscrupulous politicians are trying to suck out of the present situation …

Oh, listen who is talking about unscrupulous politicians.

… there should be no doubt about one thing, and that is that this Government is sincere when it says it is moving away from discrimination. We are proving it. The Government is sincere when it says it wants a just society. We are moving towards it. If the Government is sincere when it says that, the finest thing we can do for all the children of South Africa is to give them good education, and the aim is equal education for all.

My word!

I am prepared to say it again and I have the full support of the Government of South Africa and the full support of the majority of hon. members of this House. But there are priorities to be considered, and in education one has to consider one thing. What was wiser to do at this moment? Introduce a financial policy, as the hon. the Minister of Finance did, to create job opportunities, to create growth in South Africa, so that people can be absorbed, so that the increase of our population can be absorbed, so that there can be stability and increasing living standards in South Africa? Should that not be our first priority? I put education very close to this. That is our first priority, otherwise we would be educating children for frustration in unemployment and in misery. Therefore, my appeal to all hon. members is that we should get our perspective right. Let us get our priorities right and let us get on with the job together, supporting one another, sustaining one another in changing what is wrong in South Africa and in bringing about what is the ideal of this Government: A truly just society for all the people of this land.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made three important statements. The first was that the Government had committed itself to a system of compulsory and equal education. I am very glad that he repeated that here today. Secondly, the hon. the Minister said that there were undoubtedly agitators behind the pupils and students. I want to go even further. The hon. the Minister referred to the Schlebusch Commission. I allege that if the Schlebusch Commission had not been appointed, there would have been riots in South Africa earlier, particularly among White students. The hon. the Minister made a third statement.

†He said that communities have the right to privacy. I should add to that communities have not only the right to privacy, but also a clear and inalienable right to protection from intrusion by others outside of that community. I believe that the future pattern of our life in South Africa is going to be very much based on the established communities and the responsibility of those communities to look after their own affairs.

I now want to say something about the Coloured education problems we are having, particularly in the Peninsula at the moment. The hon. the Minister has agreed this afternoon about what is obvious to all of us, and that is that there are grievances and that there are reasons for grievances. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of appointing a very small and urgent commission, I would suggest presided over by Dr. Van der Ross and supported by Mr. Arendse, the Director of Education, and some other person, with instructions to report, say within three months, on the position, with a view to urgent action being taken. I believe that if that sort of commission could be appointed, it would already have the ground-work done for it in the shape of the work done by the Cillié Commission and the Theron Commission. I think it would be a positive step which would be welcomed by the Coloured people, and I think that the White people would understand this suggestion for the appointment of such a committee or commission and would welcome it. I also think it would help to defuse the situation, more particularly if one has regard to the people I have suggested should be appointed to that commission.

There are other grievances that hon. members have referred to, obvious grievances arising from the Group Areas Act. Whilst supporting the principle of group areas, about which I have never had any doubts, I know that group areas were established, and communities resettled, without facilities being provided for those communities such as those they left behind in the communities from which they were displaced. There is also the fact that they are, by and large, established some way from where they lived before, and very often far away from where they work. There are consequently obvious transport facility problems.

There is another grievance about the loss of the vote. There may be differences of opinion about whether the type of vote they had, at different stages of their constitutional development, was advantageous to them as a group, and about whether the future dispensation is not going to bring relief to that situation and is not going to be a better dispensation for them. I think it would be right for me to say that there is a real grievance I have discovered amongst the Coloured leaders with whom I communicate. They say that they have no vote, whereas a stranger to South Africa, an immigrant, comes to South Africa and, within a period of X years, becomes a voter in South Africa. That is a real grievance amongst leading Coloured people, and more particularly those involved in politics.

An understandable one too.

I think it would also be appropriate for me to say that the Coloured people themselves should indulge in a certain amount of self-examination. They should, at this stage, not just criticize. I think they should also realize what has been done for them. No matter what wrongs have been done to them, no matter what injustices they may feel, it is a fact that the White man has helped them to their present status. Many of them are affluent, which they were not so many years ago, many of them are now members of an established middle class and many of them are hardworking people, working themselves up the ladder of success. This is due to the White man in South Africa. I think it is also time for them to realize that there are a large number of Coloured people in South Africa who are thoroughly irresponsible people, who are anti-social people and who are a disgrace to their society. Coloureds too must realize that White people, by and large, have tremendous sympathy for the Coloured people. They show goodwill to the Coloured people. They realize that the Coloured people share one country with them, they realize that the Coloureds speak their languages and they realize that the Coloureds adhere to the same religions that they do and that the Coloureds have similar cultural interests.

Whites have appreciation particularly for the S.A. Coloured Corps and for the work they do on the border to protect us. Whites will, however, lose all sympathy for Coloureds if Coloured children and their willing parents allow themselves to be used as the tools of those people who seek the mutual submersion of both the Whites and the Coloured people in South Africa, those people who want to have a Mugabe-style Black majority rule here in South Africa. I want to say to the Coloured people that, if they continue to boycott and to demonstrate, there will be hostility and anger and not goodwill from the side of the White people. If they resort once again to plundering and arson, as they did not so many years ago, they will forfeit every vestige of goodwill that exists amongst White people in South Africa towards them.

I thought that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn made a constructive appeal when he said that he believed that the Government should announce an urgent socio-economic upliftment programme. I think that here again the small committee or commission I referred to could possibly make recommendations not only on education but also on socio-economic upliftment, because the people I have referred to served on the Theron Commission. They therefore have a background knowledge of these problems. I think that such a programme of socio-economic upliftment is something that could capture the imagination of Coloured people of goodwill.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that what the Coloured people want is “full citizenship” in their own country. I want to ask him what he means by “full citizenship in their own country”. [Interjections.] I know that he gets the expression from his party’s mentors overseas. It is the phrase that was used by Mondale and that is used by all these other Americans who offer us advice. I want him to spell out what he means by “full citizenship”. Does he mean full citizenship in a common South African society, with the Coloured people being put back onto a common voters’ role and entitled to vote in competition with Whites for members of this House? Is that what he means by “full citizenship”?

Yes.

If that is what he stands for in so far as the Coloured people are concerned, I want to ask him whether his argument also applies to the Black people of South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member for Houghton says “yes”.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton is completely consistent. She is on record as having said over a long period of time that she believes there should be Black majority rule in South Africa.

Not so.

“Full citizenship”, then, as I attribute it to the hon. member for Pinelands, means a common voters’ roll for the Coloured people and election to this House of Coloureds and Whites on a common voters’ roll.

To a federal parliament.

To a central parliament. I then asked whether the same argument applied to the Black people of South Africa and I hear from the hon. member for Houghton that the same policy does apply, in their thinking, to the Black people of South Africa.

I want to say, in conclusion, that I honestly believe that the State President’s Council, as it is envisaged, can play a wonderful role in restoring race relations between the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians in the Republic. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we should, however, not delay with the State President’s Council. I think it is only supposed to be established early next year. I would suggest that plans be advanced for the establishment of that State President’s Council as soon as possible and, if possible, before the end of the current year, and certainly that steps be taken now in advance of next year so that if, for constitutional reasons, it can only be established then, it will after establishment, immediately be able to fulfil a proper function.

Japie is a certainty for it.

We shall, of course, also be able to accommodate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who has certain political aspirations in that direction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate the hon. member for Simonstown on his positive contribution here. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for his action this afternoon. I want to wish him and his department everything of the best in these troubled times that we are experiencing.

Some of the Cabinet members have more work to do than others. Rather, so it seems to me. I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Relations is also in charge of immigration. Therefore, it is his task to attract immigrants to South Africa in order to complement our labour force here, because at the moment we have a tremendous shortage of artisans.

Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not possible to create more opportunities for and to make better use of the Coloured people in order to provide for this need. I am not very good with figures, but I would have thought that it would be cheaper to qualify one’s own people than to bring others from abroad. Particularly here in the Western Cape we have a tremendous source of labour in the Coloureds, and we must make better use of them. It has been proved over and over again that the Coloured person is an artisan par excellence, but we must just create more opportunities for them.

I saw what happened and what can be done with providing better training for Coloureds in the agricultural sphere. The Kromme Rhee Training Centre is situated near Stellenbosch and Coloured people are trained in agriculture there. I can say that that training centre works wonders. Originally the farmers were rather sceptical about this centre, but gradually their attitude changed. I can testify that a Coloured person who has been trained there is worth a great deal more on the farm and in agriculture. Some of the Coloured people who have been there, say that they also feel that they are worth more, and they are always asking when they can go back to the school, as they call it. There have not been any complaints, except that one chap complained to me that they have to bath rather too often there. That was the only problem. [Interjections.]

We had the same opposition—we are still experiencing it—towards the relations committees. Many Whites, and even more non-Whites, do not want to serve on them. Last Friday I had the privilege of attending a joint meeting of several of these committees in Robertson. I can say that it was a long time since I had heard a more positive sound in the midst of this grumbling. These people want to get ahead. They want to improve in the right way and with the right attitude. They do have complaints and questions, but which of us does not? However, I believe that we will progress together. The hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs were there too and I believe that they can feel happy about the degree of progress that has been achieved with relations committees. I think they also feel good about the gift which they received, a gift of wine, because it was a very pleasant day.

I believe that these relations committees should be given more status so that they can convey their positive attitude to the community too. To begin with I was not so impressed with this idea either, but I want to congratulate the department on what they have achieved, and these committees must be rapidly expanded.

The Government takes good care of everyone who is in need of aid and assistance in all population groups. I do not think anyone can complain, but some of these grants are really paid out too easily these days. In this regard I want to refer in particular to disability and child allowance. I do not begrudge anyone this, but some people are making a business of it. I know that the Department of Coloured Affairs is doing everything in their power to ensure that no irregularities occur, but in some cases I think things are really going too far.

We farmers look after our Coloured people well. We provide good housing and wages. We see to the education of the children, and we have a good relationship with them. Consequently there are no problems.

The farmer’s wife also lends a hand in seeing that birth control is applied as far as possible, but one cannot stop everything. Many of the Coloured girls become mothers at a very early age, and the father simply cannot be found. Then they qualify for a maintenance grant. After the confinement they return to the town or city once again and the little one remains with his grandparents on the farm. This process is soon repeated. Pay-day is quite a joke. This happens until the fourth child is born. Then the allowances stop, but not the children.

This happens amongst the Whites and non-Whites, and I know it is the duty of the State to help where necessary. We are grateful for this. However, the State must really be careful, otherwise we encourage this type of thing.

I say this with regard to disability allowances too, which are just as readily available. In this regard I also ask the department to ensure that when a person has recovered, he should work for his money once again. It sometimes happens that a person is still receiving this allowance when his aches and pains are long past. He alleges that he is unfit for ordinary work, but in the meantime he is one of those fathers that the mothers cannot get hold of. We hear these complaints over and over again, and we as representatives bear the brunt of them.

In conclusion I want to say thank you to the department for taking action when complaints were brought to their attention and where irregularities were discovered. However, I want to ask that before grants are allocated, the matter should be investigated very carefully, because once one has had things easy, one does not want to struggle again.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members of the official Opposition in particular utilized all the time allotted to them today solely to make speeches harping on one section of the activities of the Department of Coloured Relations, viz. education. Nor were any of the positive aspects of this one section of the department’s work pointed out. In this regard hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members of the NRP had to put the matter in perspective.

But I am pleased that there are a few hon. members here who also drew attention to the fact that this department does not only deal with education, for in actual fact this department fulfils a tremendously positive, uplifting task in many spheres of the life of the Brown people. That is why it is wrong to pick only on the negative aspects in a debate of this nature, whereas the other things that are being done are not acknowledged.

Surely it is true, as was pointed out here by the hon. the Minister, that for decades the Coloureds were the most neglected population group in this country. I am not saying that after the NP came into power that we too have not made mistakes along the way—after all, we are also human—but what should be generally recognized by any objective person today, is that what is worthwhile and what has been established for the Coloureds over the past quarter of a century and more, has been achieved under the guidance and the rule of the NP Government. The hon. the Minister referred to this in an outstanding speech today.

This is also recognized by the Coloured leaders themselves. It was recognized last year when that conference was held at the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg. On that occasion an eminent Coloured leader rose and paid tribute to and thanked the Government for what it had done in assisting the Coloured to take his rightful place in business and for what it had done for the Coloureds as regards housing. Of course these are matters which do not suit the Opposition’s book, and that is why they do not discuss them.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Worcester raised the question of the relations committees. I just wish to say something about that. I am not going to discuss the political and policy aspects today, but will instead just broach a few practical matters. The fact is that the hon. the Minister has placed the relations committees under my supervision during the short while that I have been in the department. The work of the relations committees was begun in 1975. In that year there were only about 70 of those committees with approximately 900 members. Meanwhile these activities have expanded vastly and today there are 148 of these committees with 2 664 members.

On behalf of the hon. the Minister and our department I cannot but pay tribute to and express our appreciation of these people, Coloureds and Whites, who serve on these relations committees. Despite the attitude of those whom the hon. member for Worcester referred to here, those who do not want to serve on these committees, I can state here today as my personal experience that since I have entered politics—and that is, after all, quite a few years now—I have never experienced such a positive attitude towards the Brown people among the Whites in general as there is today. No one can dispute it. It is true. There is a sincere, honest desire to set matters straight that have gone awry in the past.

They went wrong not only because of the Whites, but also because of the Coloureds, as the hon. member for Simonstown has just spelled out here. There is a sincere desire among the Whites for confidence to be restored, in the interests of South Africa, so that we can once again find one another as neighbours.

We cannot dispute the fact that there is frustration among a large part of the Coloured population. Nor can we dispute the sting in those frustrations, and what is more I am not prepared to do so. It concerns their political rights. In spite of those things, the hon. the Minister, the department and I find, when we pay visits to the Coloured communities and speak to them about their community life, their housing needs and their welfare services, that there are Coloureds in the local community who are prepared to speak frankly and with a positive attitude, and display a spirit of cooperation with the department. Accordingly one does draw the conclusion that there is a tremendous reservoir of goodwill and a positive attitude in our country at that level, something we must exploit, so that it can form the foundation on which these new things, which are also going to take place at higher levels and by means of which the Coloured must come into his own in the political sphere, can be built.

I am convinced that a tremendous amount can be done at those lower levels to bring about mutual goodwill, respect and sound relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. A tremendous amount can be done to eliminate the unpleasant suspicion and misconceptions which exist in respect of many things, so that we as neighbours shall once again be able to accept each other’s integrity and good faith. A tremendous amount can be done to restore the trust and co-operation between these two neighbours at that level, and that is why it is essential for us to continue with that work despite the negative attitude of some Whites and Coloureds towards these relations committees.

These school boycotts and everything they entail could—and this would be a pity— penetrate to the level of relations where there are still very sound relations and relationships, and therefore we are going to arrange a series of regional conferences of these relations committees as soon as possible, within the next few weeks. The first is being held in Parow tomorrow. By means of these relations committees, through which we still have contact with that population group, we are in a position to consider these problems in depth, iron them out and furnish the Coloureds with the necessary information to convey to their communities.

As far as the future is concerned, it is clear that it is essential that the work of these relations committees be continued, because the dialogue which takes place there in an atmosphere in which there is no political pressure, can serve as a catalyst to create better relations at those levels between our people and the Coloureds. If we are unable to restore the relations between these people and us as White people in this country, there will only be tears and problems for both the Coloureds and our White people in future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity. Unfortunately my time is limited and consequently I now want to discuss those things I promised to discuss.

I firstly want to react to the question put to me by the hon. member for Worcester concerning immigration, and what we could do on our part to involve the Coloureds in this work situation to a greater extent. The problem is that at the moment we are looking for artisans and technicians of a high standard to do certain work in South Africa. The training of these people is of the utmost importance, and that is why this Government is doing a tremendous amount of work to prepare the Coloureds to play their part in the labour market.

For that reason I now want to make an announcement on behalf of the hon. the Minister. In order to train adult persons and/or to retrain them, as from January 1981 a start will be made, in co-operation with the Department of Manpower Utilization, with a training centre, of the Westlake type, for adult Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula. This is in terms of the recommendations of the Naude report. Every year 20 Coloured apprentices will be trained at this centre in each of the five trades, i.e. a total of 100 apprentices every year. These trades are; electricians, electronics, fitting and turning, soldering and plate metal work, panel beating and spray painting. This training centre will initially be housed in hired accommodation. To launch it will initially cost us approximately R807 000.

Is it going to be built on the Cape Flats?

We shall eventually decide where it has to be built, but for the moment …

It must be built near the Coloured residential areas.

… we shall simply hire accommodation in one of the Coloured areas such as Athlone.

However, that is not all we want to do. The fact is that we are able to give a fine report of the training of technicians and artisans for the labour market. We have the Peninsula Technikon, which is doing very good work. During the past year we have spent an amount of R1,85 million at the Technikon, solely for extensions. A wide variety of technical and vocational training is being given there. The Technikon has grown very rapidly. In 1975 there were 1 008 students, and in 1979, 1 786 students. Just to give hon. members an idea of the work they are doing there—at present there are, for example, 140 apprentices in the printing industry, 818 apprentice technicians, 52 who are being trained as health inspectors, 40 who are being trained for public administration, 44 who are being trained as hairdressers, 214 who are being trained as teachers in commercial subjects, and so on.

This Technikon does not yet have autonomy like the technikons under the Department of National Education. Accordingly the Government intends to guide the Peninsula Technikon towards autonomy as quickly as possible. With this purpose in mind, legislation is being drafted which, it is hoped, will be piloted through Parliament next year. Apart from the work being done at these technikons, we do, of course, have our technical colleges, of which there are already five. We are going to renovate the one in Port Elizabeth entirely and accommodate it in a new building. We are also going to build a new one on the Rand as well as in Bellville.

Consequently I want to tell the hon. member for Worcester that the department is going out of its way to prepare Brown people for the labour force. We have, inter alia, the motor mechanics, of whom we train at least 40 every year. They do their tests at Olifantsfontein after a three-year course. When they pass, they are full-fledged artisans. Furthermore, we have a very fine institution for the training of seamen. There we train officers and crew for the fishing and commercial fleet. We also train marine engineers, radar technicians, navigators, skippers, boatmen, etc. This institution is extremely popular. We cannot even begin to accommodate all the applications we receive. Since 1975 it has grown from 143 enrolments to 334 last year.

Where is the college situated?

I think it is at Granger Bay.

Then I also want to react to what the hon. member for Swellendam said. It is a pity that there will probably not be enough time to do so. Perhaps, if there is an opportunity, I shall be able to reply to other aspects later in the evening. In respect of the appeal he made here for agricultural training, I also just want to mention that we are giving it very high priority and that the department is doing excellent work for the rural Coloureds who possess almost 21 million hectares of land in this country today. Because there is a need, as the hon. member pointed out, to train our Coloured farmers and farm managers, and since the department has been giving this matter its attention for a long time now, I want to announce here today that owing to this need that has been ascertained, the hon. the Minister has decided that an agricultural college is to be established under this department’s Directorate of Rural Areas and Settlements. Because the North-Western Cape is the area in which Coloureds are most active as farmers, and since it is one of the few agricultural regions in which there is no agricultural college, it has been decided that the college is to be situated at Upington next to the Orange River. There is a high population density there. It is within reach of eight of the rural Coloured areas. Furthermore, both intensive and extensive farming is practised there.

The admission requirements will merely be a matriculation certificate, and the same standardized lectures which are being presented at existing agricultural colleges will also be presented there. Organized agriculture at Upington has been consulted and is fully informed as regards this matter. Agreements have been made with responsible people in the agricultural unions to the effect that candidates who have obtained a diploma, and whom the department cannot employ at once, will be employed by them. Candidates are being trained as farmers and farm managers.

If I still have some time I want to point out that although the rural areas often appear very drab, a tremendous reform programme has been in progress there recently, with a view to bringing life to those small towns, creating an infrastructure systematizing the towns properly, laying out streets, and creating amenities there, as well as creating employment opportunities in those towns. On the other hand it is also true that in many of those townships there are only elderly people, as the hon. member for Swellendam also said. The rural areas in which those townships are situated are also controlled by the management committees. Often the town dwellers also dominate the fanning community. That is why we are at present surveying farms in the larger areas so that we can provide the farmers in those rural areas with really economic units, as the hon. member requested. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to some of the statements which the hon. member for Sea Point made in his speech. It is indeed true that this debate is taking place against the background of unrest in the Coloured community. Now, however, the hon. member for Sea Point advances the argument— an argument which in fact borders on staggering naivety—that the unrest in the Coloured community can only be ascribed to inadequate facilities in Coloured education. Surely this is not the only factor involved. Surely this is not the only reason which has given rise to the existing unrest.

We know that the students are being used by activists to defy the authority of the State openly. I now wish to know from the hon. member for Sea Point whether he denies that there is an element of activism which is exploiting this situation among the Coloureds with a view to creating chaos. I want to know from the hon. member whether this is true or not.

Oh, of course he will not reply.

I want the hon. member for Sea Point to answer me.

He will not reply. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point is not prepared to reply to this. He is not prepared to do so because it does not suit his argument. [Interjections.]

It is true that owing to historic and geopolitical considerations, the Coloureds are today a floating community within the social and political constellation of South African peoples. The Coloured community’s dilemma today is principally a dilemma of identification, identification with their social circumstances, as well as with the political and constitutional circumstances in which the Coloured community finds itself today. This is the Coloured community’s dilemma today. I maintain that this dilemma can be solved within the framework of the NP’s policy, provided, of course, that it is recognized that this dilemma cannot be solved by way of boycotts and confrontation, but that a solution can only be found in a spirit of co-operation and of friendly nationalism. When I say that the Coloured community is a floating community, I do not mean that the Coloureds do not have a place in the sun in South Africa, or that the Coloureds have not played a role in South Africa’s economic development. I say this in the sense that the Coloured community must be anchored in a orderly and stable community here in South Africa.

I want to give attention this afternoon to one of the problems surrounding the anchoring of the Coloured community in an orderly and stable community. I am referring to the problem of Coloured local authorities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to examine whether the traditional approach of separate, autonomous Coloured municipalities is the best and most effective way to involve the Coloured in local decision-making, because the participation of the Coloureds in the decision making process of local authorities must be a matter of top priority and not only merely serve as a foundation for a future constitutional dispensation. In fact, a future constitutional dispensation for the Coloureds cannot get off the ground effectively if it is not supported by participation in local authorities. This is the basis on which a future constitutional dispensation rests. Quite apart from that, participation in a local authority affords the Coloured the opportunity of identifying himself with his community, and this gives him the opportunity to accept responsibility for the quality of life in that community.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to that. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether these traditional autonomous municipalities are truly the effective instruments with which to get the Coloured to share in the decision-making process of local authorities, because what are the facts? So far there is not yet one autonomous municipality for Coloureds … [Interjections] … except Pacaltsdorp. I am speaking in general. What are the reasons for this? They are primarily that this system is unacceptable to the Coloureds and, secondly, that local authorities, as they have developed here in the Western Cape, with their double township system, are in reality not divisible elements. In fact, the whole philosophy among local authorities today is to amalgamate and not to divide. Thirdly, local authorities come up against the problem that they are not economically viable units.

When I say that we must examine this matter, hon. members must not conclude from that that I am associating myself with integrated local authorities, for that does not work either. Within these two poles of a separate autonomous structure on the one hand and an integrated structure on the other, there is a model which, fundamentally, comprises not a geographic separation, but a separation of functions. Secondly, the functions are divided into White management functions and Coloured management functions, with separate councillors for each of these communities. However, when it comes to matters of common concern such as finances and the drafting of a budget, everyone has a say, by way of a specified formula, in a White council and a Coloured council.

Very good.

Quite apart from the problems of the present situation, this is the only effective way in which the Coloured community can be involved in the decision-making of local authorities. This is not a difficult process to put into effect, for by means of a minor amendment of the provincial ordinance, the existing situation could be adjusted to enable the functions of the White municipalities to be delegated to the management committees. These two bodies could then make joint use of the existing administrative machinery to perform the management functions at the local authority level. Where matters of common interest are involved, these could then be undertaken jointly, and where matters affecting only the Coloured or only the White community are involved, the council in question could decide on them separately. Since, in the nature of the matter, joint decision-making cannot be separated from the municipal authority owing to the integrated nature of the services and other aspects, the two councils must, however, meet in accordance with a specified formula to decide on the common issues.

Mr. Chairman, I was beginning to feel pleased on hearing what the hon. member for Bellville had to say about the non-viability of a separate local authority for Coloureds. He asked the hon. the Minister whether this was indeed the most effective way of doing things. He was quite correct in that respect. Even in White municipal areas where it is only a question of control of a residential area and where there are no industrial or business premises in the relevant area, there are problems concerning rates and all sorts of other things. Where we are dealing with an integrated economy, integrated business undertakings and industries, etc., it is very difficult to effect separation. I am disappointed, however, that the hon. member did not take the matter further, and did not ultimately arrive at the only sensible solution to this problem, namely full local citizenship for persons of all colours who are resident within the area of such a local authority.

It has not worked in the past.

The hon. member says it has not worked, but he would be surprised how well it has worked in certain cases and particularly in Cape Town. Nor is there any reason why it could not work well again at this stage. There has been a considerable measure of emancipation, and I see no reason why such a system could not be successfully implemented. Only, in efforts to solve this type of difficulty, one must not get involved in a different problem area, viz. the question of local second-class citizenship. Since in certain cases, there are Coloureds and Whites in the same municipality, a subordinate status is allotted to either one or the other. When this happens, one has merely exchanged one difficulty for another.

What has been patently apparent from the speeches by hon. members on the opposite side of the House up to now, is that many of them, and particularly the hon. the Minister himself, do not realize yet how important political parity and political representation is in the present frustration of the Coloured population. A great deal has been said about the progress that has been made with the establishment of Coloured housing, the development of Coloured education and other development in the Coloured community life, and the vast sums of money that have been spent on these things.

The fact remains, however, that there is still considerable inequality. There are indeed forms of inequality that still exist but the Government does not yet regard them as such, let alone do something about them. I am now referring to discriminatory legislation such as the Group Areas Act and other legislation which the hon. member for Sea Point referred to. We could not hope to achieve peace or progress in this type of situation if we apply restrictive definitions to a concept such as discrimination and, instead of acting in consultation with those people, defining matters in such a way that they suit our ends. We are not going to solve any problems in South Africa in that way.

Hon. members opposite have no idea of the importance of political representation. It has been mentioned that Coloured pupils, Coloured bodies and individuals who have grievances should talk about the things that trouble them, that they should negotiate, offer advice and make use of the correct channels. The expression “correct channels” is often used, but what remains today of the correct channels that were supposed to be in existence for the Coloureds?

How many efforts has the NP made during its régime of 32 years? However, the efforts have always failed, because every time the essential requirement has been lacking, namely that it should amount to political equality and full citizenship for those people. How many times have the efforts not miscarried? The latest pathetic effort by the NP to provide political representation to the Coloureds, namely through the CRC, also failed. The hon. the Minister has for the umpteenth time had to tell the House a half-truth by saying that the CRC had been abolished at the request of the Coloureds themselves; but once again, he has conveniently kept silent about what the Coloureds very explicitly stated that they wanted in lieu of the CRC.

Hon. members opposite are fond of speaking about the right channels, but have those hon. members forgotten, that they, imprisoned Mr. Alan Hendrickse, a duly elected leader of the Coloured population and a duly elected leader of a body established by the Government itself for three months. Is that what is done to people who expose themselves to criticism? Is that what is done to keep the right channels of communication open? This is the sort of treatment that is being meted out to these people.

According to the information available to us, at this stage a number of prominent academics and other persons have again been imprisoned. [Interjections.] What, then, is the Coloured population to think of the so-called “correct channels” which the Government refers to? What are they to think would be the correct approach which the Government expects from them? What are they to think of this? [Interjections.]

Is it not interesting that this unfortunate school boycott began to rear its head so shortly after the abolition of the last form of political representation for the Coloureds and so shortly after the subsequent resignation of the Coloured education control body? Is it not strange that it happened this way? This reveals a very interesting political fact, and that is that whenever some form of representative political authority, however weak it may be, is in control of education, it is so much more difficult for the people themselves to object to it, because in doing so they object to their own people. I hope hon. members opposite will just keep this fact in mind when they come forward with their schemes to establish political representation for all races in South Africa.

†Hon. members on the other side of the House talk about the “correct channels” and the need for discipline on the part of school children and Coloured people generally, but where does that discipline emanate from? That discipline emanates from a system in which they as Coloured people have no say whatsoever, in which they play no part whatsoever. It is difficult to submit to that kind of discipline, because they consider it to be degrading, and they are not alone in this. Other people and other groups in history have fought and have resisted such a kind of discipline and have refused to accept that sort of discipline. In some instances they have revolted against it. The latest political structure that the Government has imposed on the Coloured people for the umpteenth time is a rotten one, more rotten than ever before. In this way, as they have so often done before, the NP is playing games with the Coloured people, and in that way again they are playing games with the safety, the stability and the future of South Africa. Once and for all they must accept, irrespective of all the other peripheral reasons for rioting, upheavals and resistance, the necessity for direct political representation. They must accept that the Coloured people will no longer accept second-class citizenship. At the earliest opportunity they must establish a system which properly represents the Coloured people, and they realize that the only way of doing this is in consultation and by negotiation with the Coloured people themselves. Once again, the only way of doing this is through a national convention.

Mr. Chairman, no person, unless he is bent on violence, chaos and revolution, can take joy from the unrest which is sweeping South Africa at the moment and which particularly affects the Coloured community. However, what is quite notable is the fact that of the two Opposition parties not a single member on the official Opposition side has spoken in a manner that can be interpreted to discourage what is going on. Not a single member did so. The spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point, delivered a speech in which he diagnosed the situation, but there was not a single reference to the fact that this was a highly regrettable situation and that he deplored the use of violence, whether it be to achieve improvements in the educational system, in the social system or whether it be to achieve improvements in the political situation of the Coloured community. As a matter of fact, the dying words of the hon. member for Pinelands, if anything, could have been interpreted as an encouragement to the continuation of this unrest.

The hon. member for Green Point says that the Government has no conception of the importance of political representation. Yet just a moment ago the hon. the Deputy Minister made the point in very definite terms that there was frustration and that the heart of this frustration was in fact political representation. But those hon. members do not want the situation to be interpreted in this way. They went into this debate in a totally negative and destructive mood, intent on causing embarrassment and on exploiting the situation for whatever benefit or value there may be in it to their political party. Fundamentally that is their approach.

Do you not think that we are trying to get at the root of the problem?

It would be fatal for anybody of any political party in this Chamber to ignore the fact that there is a very high degree of politicization among the Coloured community. But our first and primary task must be to restore the situation to normality, to achieve the maintenance of law and order. That must be the primary duty and responsibility of the State in these circumstances. It must also be our primary concern and it ought also to be the primary concern of the official Opposition that there be a restoration of normality. If the situation continues, it can only lead to greater loss of life, to damage to property and to a worsening of race relations.

Secondly, the fact is that we must recognize that there are aspects of the position of the Coloured community which need to be improved. I have no doubt, in view of the earlier remarks of the hon. the Minister, that great progress is in fact being made and that greater attention will be given particularly to grievances which lie in the educational field. Thirdly, there is the fact that a process of constitutional change has been initiated. The joint sitting of the two Houses last week marked the commencement of a very important process, and everyone who spoke in that debate stressed the beginning of an important process. The interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Justice and of the Interior, also stressed the fact that we wish, in cooperation with representatives of the Coloured community, to evolve a constitution. There is an element of urgency in the Government’s attitude. In saying that our primary task at the moment must be to restore the situation to normality, one is indeed saying that on the assumption that order is better than disorder, that certainty is better than uncertainty and that reform is better than revolution. The fact is, however, that it also follows that, with the constitutional changes which are envisaged and which will take place, the demands of the Coloured community for full citizenship will be met. There is no doubt in my mind that that is the commitment of the Government. Where we differ is in the recognition of ethnicity as a factor in our society. When I say this I regret that the hon. member for Pinelands is not present, because he said that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn did not know or did not understand anything about the position of the Coloured people unless he appreciated why it is that the Coloured community has an identity crisis when it speaks of itself as the “so-called” Coloured community.

The hon. member for Pinelands has a very nice bearing and speaks very easily. Butter would not melt in his mouth, but when he is stung, he hits back in a very snide way. In any event, he went on to say that the reason for that was plainly and simply the fact that Coloureds have been treated as second-class citizens. That is not true. It is a gross over-simplification. As a matter of fact, members of the Indian community have then also been treated as second-class citizens. Yet they do not speak of themselves as being “so-called” Indians. What we are dealing with here is, in fact, a very basic problem, a problem which is unique to the Coloured community. It is a fact that they share our language and culture. It is also a fact that they share our religion, but they in fact identify very much with White South Africa. The sole distinguishing feature, as far as they are concerned, is not culture, religion or language, but the fact of colour. The hon. member for Pinelands ought to know that the experience of the Black American in this respect is very relevant. If it speaks to any community in South Africa, it speaks to the Coloured community. [Interjections.] I shall explain to the hon. member for Hillbrow, if he would only keep quiet for one moment. The fact is that the Black Americans were told in the 1950s and 1960s to integrate into the American society as individuals. It was the individuality of the Black American that was stressed. However, by the mid 1960s that had failed because the Black American realized that he was getting nowhere as a result of that particular approach. He realized that it was necessary to develop a sense of group consciousness, because only in that way would he be able to integrate himself and to find his way into the main stream of American society. That lesson applies with particular relevance to the Coloured community of South Africa. It is not something that we as Whites can resolve by telling the Coloured community that they are a “volk”, a “nasie” or whatever the case may be; it is something they themselves must resolve. However, it is a problem which bedevils their relationship to the greater South African community and our perception of them.

It does not help to make oversimplifications and negative statements of the problem of the kind made by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, because he is one of those hon. members who is gifted with the ability of proving why he was elected as a member of this Party and as the member for the Cape Town Gardens constituency. It is only a pity that one could not say the same about the hon. member for Green Point, because judging by his speech, when he talks of the channels that have allegedly been abused, he is evidently under the impression that when people cause a disruption of traffic, occupy shopping centres unlawfully and take part in demonstrations, the Government should take notice of them but should not take notice of the complaints which shop-owners may have. However, I do not wish to devote too much of my time to him.

I am the first Transvaler to stand up here this afternoon to participate in this debate on the Coloured Relations Vote. Over the years, it has been a privilege that was evidently the exclusive privilege of hon. members of the Cape Province, but I think that in the years that lie ahead, more and more Transvalers will be participating in this debate because there is a sizeable Coloured community in the Transvaal and in the light of developments taking place there, I venture to predict that more and more Transvaal members are going to start participating in this debate.

Since the Coloureds in the Transvaal are city-dwellers, and not rural people, we in the Transvaal will perhaps have a different view of the Coloureds to that of the people in the Cape. If I were to have to write a testimonial for the people whom I represent in the Transvaal and the Coloureds who live in our area, I should undoubtedly be able to say a great deal about them. Many of them are established in the large area of Reiger Park. During the past number of years they have, in the process of becoming established, indeed had their failures, as indeed was also the case with the Afrikaners. In fairness, however, I must add that they have often experienced problems which were no fault of theirs, problems which were not easy for them to solve. The development of this population group alongside the other population groups has been fraught with major problems, just as in the case of the Whites. In that part of the Transvaal they feel that in the field of business, they are still being threatened by the White man and the Indian. It also has to be admitted, though, that in the field of labour they are in the process of establishing themselves with increasing self-confidence as tradesmen and that they are making important contributions in the factories where they are employed, particularly the factories in my area. The highly inspired ones among them have been absorbed into the teaching profession, where they are rendering invaluable service to the children of their own people. In the S.A. Police and in the detective branch …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Durban Central entitled to sit and read a newspaper?

Order! No, the rules prohibit that.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries entitled to sit where he is sitting now? He is not sitting in his own bench.

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg may proceed with his speech.

They are serving in the S.A. Police and in the Detective Branch as loyal and dedicated enforcers of law and order in our area. They stand side by side with the Whites of Boksburg and they provide welfare and health services that many other groups are not able to provide. At the cultural level, too, they are distinguishing themselves and some of them have even taken part in overseas tournaments with Gary Player. They also occupy good positions in the Post Office and on the Railways there. Consequently, I am grateful to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that more new opportunities are going to be created for these people. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that in Boksburg we could make very good use of them. Is it not possible that the technikon to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred could be established somewhere on the East Rand for the benefit of the Coloured population in that area?

Since the CRC has now become defunct, I regard it as my duty, on behalf of the inhabitants of Reiger Park, to bring several matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. During the discussion of the Community Development Vote, I put to the hon. the Minister as a priority the problems of housing and the extension of the boundaries of Reiger Park. The position is that the extension of Reiger Park is to a great extent influenced by limits of the noise zone of the Jan Smuts Airport. Consequently I wish to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister that the utilization of the area to the north-west of Reiger Park be reconsidered as a possible recreational area for the Coloureds. I regard this as a site that is ideally suited to this purpose. It is situated close to a railway fine and would also be served by the PWV road system. Since golf courses normally belong to private clubs and very few of the golf courses on the East Rand are available or open to Coloureds and Indians, it would be to the benefit of those people if the hon. the Minister could strive to achieve for something along those lines. I hope that he will be able to persuade the private sector to assist him with that type of development.

I have stated on a previous occasion that the 22 000 Coloureds in Reiger Park constitute a major addition to the total population of Boksburg, and that this makes it impossible for the city council to bear the financial burden which this entails on its own. Consequently I am pleased that the Department of the hon. the Minister has been structured in such a way that in future community development will play a more important part in the development of this Coloured community on the East Rand. It is an unfortunate fact that the children of this community could not escape the school boycott action. It is a pity. I hope and trust that children and parents alike will soon dissociate themselves from political agitators and intimidators so that we shall be able to proceed peacefully with what we have already established there and which we still want to do.

Recently I paid a visit to the only secondary school on the East Rand. In this regard, I wish to bring a few matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Owing to the large number of pupils there is an acute need for a domestic science centre, a needlework centre, and a handicrafts centre. The necessary accommodation for the needlework and handicrafts classes could easily be provided by converting other rooms. All that is necessary then, is the equipment and the sewing machines. I believe this could easily be financed from this budget. I wish to ask that the matter be investigated with a view to ascertaining whether relief could not be provided promptly in this connection. Since there is a shortage of equipment at present, the teachers and pupils sometimes have to stay after school hours in order to finalize extra practical classes. I heard this afternoon that the same position prevailed in the Cape. I think this is unfair towards the pupils and the teachers. It is decidedly not to the benefit of those children.

Another matter that evidently causes problems, is the nature of subjects offered in schools. The subjects are of such a nature that students from other parts of the Transvaal are being induced to come and study certain subjects in Boksburg. This contributes towards this school being overcrowded.

The hon. the Minister said the teachers should be allowed six months’ accumulated leave to enable them to undertake further studies. I wish to inquire whether it is not possible for this privilege to be further extended so that teachers who do not yet have six months’ accumulated leave to their credit, could possibly be granted bursaries to enable them to improve their qualifications.

In conclusion, I wish to address myself to the parents and children of the Coloured communities of South Africa and I wish to direct their attention to a report that appeared in Die Vaderland of 6 February 1980 under the heading “Arbeiders te links, sê Leon.” I quote—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting speech here earlier today, to which I first want to react. The hon. member’s idea is that in the case of local authorities, communities should govern their own areas, but that in matters of common interest, there should be a body to coordinate those interests. It is interesting that this is exactly the agreement … I hope I can have the hon. the Minister’s attention for a moment, because this concerns him.

We negotiated for more than a year with the elected leaders of the Coloured community and with the leaders of the Indian Council in Natal in an attempt to work out a system of local government. It began with the demands of the Coloured and Indian representatives for a system of full integration, a system of one man, one vote; nothing more or less. After negotiations, we agreed on a system based on self-government for every community in every area in which the community can be independent, with a metropolitan authority which would co-ordinate the common interests. These included matters such as planning, electricity supply, sewerage, etc. This is what the representatives of the three separate communities agreed upon. These include the local advisory committees, the Natal municipal representatives, the Natal Provincial Administration, the Coloured representatives and the Indian representatives. This is exactly what the hon. member for Bellville also suggested. We tried to proceed in practice. However, this hon. Minister’s Government refused to give us permission to proceed with it.

Oh, no.

Yes, of course they refused. [Interjections.] They refused. [Interjections.] They vetoed those proposals, as contained in an ordinance, on the basis of the exceptions for which we made provision. Where there were small minorities, or where a local community could not create an independent authority, provision was made for them within the authority of the majority. The hon. the Minister knows that this is so. He is involved in it. In fact, he had a share in the negotiations. After all, this is the only solution. Now we have heard of an hon. member of the governing party who accepts it. [Interjections.]

†I should like to move on, however, from the practical reality of how one can achieve agreement between communities on a system which recognizes group identity and group rights, but which provides for coordination, to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.

I want to say, on behalf of this party, that the current situation calls for the utmost restraint, in actions and statements, on the part of everyone who is in a position to influence events or public opinion. Here tonight I want to commend certain community leaders. I specifically name two of them, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi of kwaZulu and, in the professional field, Prof. Van der Ross, but also other community leaders and those parents who have sought to give responsible direction to pupils who are being mislead to the detriment of their education. I want to put it clearly on record tonight that the NRP believes that law and order and the authority of the State must be maintained. It rejects boycotts and demonstrations as a means of solving problems or removing grievances, however real or legitimate they may be. Confrontation and provocation will only delay the achievement of real solutions. This can only lead to reaction, to a back-lash and an atmosphere of rejection which is counterproductive to the cause that is claimed to be espoused by those who engage in confrontation and provocation.

On the whole the police have acted with commendable restraint under provocation. I do not have the full details of the Elsies River incident, and the violence that occurred there, but we deplore the unfortunate event. We must, however, call for calm until the facts are available. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Police to give an assurance, in public, that if it is shown that the violence employed was uncalled for and unnecessary or was, in terms of his own statement, in conflict with the instructions issued, a full inquiry will be held and the necessary action taken against those who were responsible.

Having stated my attitude, and the attitude of this party, on the maintenance of law and order, I want to say equally clearly that those who have been detained or arrested must be brought to trial in open courts as soon as is humanly possible so that they may be judged on their actions and so that the public may see what their part was, if any, in what is happening at this time. To arrest or detain people and not bring them court, however, is as counterproductive to the creation of the right public attitude, atmosphere and acceptance of the responsibilities that a citizen owes to law and order as are the actions of the people themselves who are involved. We need the public to see the open judgment of courts on this.

This is, however, only one aspect of the situation. The Government, that hon. the Minister, must take full responsibility, not only for having failed to prevent such things from happening, but also for having failed to ensure the essential requirement for a real solution, and that is the creation of a political structure in which all communities can communicate and participate in responsible joint decision-making. I therefore call on the Government to act urgently in implementing the recommendations of the commission on the constitution as an immediate step towards creating a new dispensation, because, without the co-operation of recognized elected leaders of all communities, there will be a dangerous vacuum that will continue to be a threat to the stability of the country.

It is absolutely vital that we use the new spirit, the new mood, for a new dispensation in South Africa to create the required structures, co-operation and mutual trust and, above all, acceptance on the part of leaders recognized by their own communities as speaking on their behalf. These events place an urgency on this, an urgency which goes hand in hand with the need for restoration of law and order. Law and order are not enough if we misuse the time which they buy us without creating the parallel solutions that are necessary. Therefore the Government carries a heavy responsibility upon it and South Africa will hold it guilty if it fails in carrying out that responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, it was quite refreshing to see the hon. member for Durban Point adopting a fairly objective standpoint on the Opposition side. I cannot say the same of the standpoints we have heard this afternoon from the official Opposition. To refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that he used the old Nkrumah idiom when told the Coloured people: “First seek the political kingdom.” If he tries to sell that ideology to the Coloured people, he will be disappointed, because the vast majority of the Coloured people are much more interested in obtaining economic and social privileges today than in obtaining political rights.

I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point why the official Opposition refuses to recognize the goodwill on this side of the House. Why are they always intent on seeing only ill-will on our part towards the non-White population groups in the country? Does it suit them? If it suits them, I want to tell him that it does not suit South Africa and that it does not suit the Whites in general to sow suspicion against the Whites among the Coloured people. However, that is exactly what the party opposite is doing.

We are told from time to time that the Coloured people do not want the labour preference policy with regard to the Western Cape. I want to refer briefly to information which we find in the Erika Theron report in this connection. When one looks at table 20.14 on page 447 of the report and the conclusions that are drawn, it is clear that figures alone are not an adequate criterion. Categories are equally important. When these are taken into consideration, the results appear different. Let me mention an example. Of the women who were questioned, 42,5% said they were in favour of this policy, while 40,1% were against it. Through the opinion of the women alone, therefore, half the Coloured population, or more, expressed their support for this policy. Coloured people with low qualifications also support it. Of those who have no education, 45,6% were in favour of it and 22,5% were against it. Of those with Std. 4 and inferior qualifications, 41,5% were in favour of it and 37,8% were against it. Of those who had passed Std. 5, 45,6% were in favour of it and only 38,4% against it. These categories cover at least three-quarters or more of the total Coloured population. Therefore I believe no one can claim that the majority of the Coloured people are opposed to this policy of the Government.

When we take a brief look at the background to this policy, we see that the Government decided in 1962 that the Western Cape would be a preference labour area for Whites and Coloureds. In 1971 this policy was reaffirmed. This is the first fact. A second fact is that in 1964, the Bantu Labour Act was passed, in terms of which the employment of certain Black workers in the Western Cape could be refused. Applications for bringing in the following categories of migrant labour would not even be considered: vehicle drivers, cleaners, domestic servants, gardeners, stable-boys, deliverers, petrol pump attendants and several others.

The third fact in this connection is that while in 1966, only 35 000 migrant labourers were allowed into the Western Cape annually, on 30 April 1975 there were 94 800, and the estimated number at the moment is at least 120 000. The question arises why this policy has not been more successful.

In the report of the Erika Theron Commission, seven reasons are given why it did not succeed. Firstly they say that the economic situation, namely the objective of growth in the Western Cape, was more important than the economic as well as the social effects of Black labour on the lives of the Coloureds. Secondly, employers refuse to co-operate and find it relatively easy to obtain Black labour. Thirdly, the Coloured people involved do not have the ability required for drawing the attention of the authorities to the adverse effects on them of the presence of large numbers of Blacks in the Western Cape. Fourthly, the Coloureds often lack the ability to identify the adverse effects for themselves. Fifthly, strict action is not taken against the illegal employment of Blacks and against Blacks themselves who are here illegally. Sixthly, certificates with regard to the non-availability of Coloured labour are perhaps too readily granted, without taking into consideration the full spectrum of unutilized Coloured labour that is present in the area concerned. In the seventh place, the most important reason of all is mentioned, and that is that employers in the private as well as the public sector are inclined to prefer Black labour to lower-class Coloured labour, which carries the risk that they may be work-shy and unmotivated.

In 1976, the Erika Theron Commission found that these seven factors were the reason why the policy had not succeeded. I venture to say that the same seven reasons still apply and are responsible for the fact that the policy is meeting with only limited success. In spite of the limited extent to which the policy is succeeding, the Erika Theron Commission did not recommend that the policy be repealed or abolished, however. On the contrary. In recommendation 42(a), they recommended that the policy be implemented more strictly. This resolution was passed by the members of the commission with only dissenting vote.

Who was that?

Dr. Van der Ross. Four of the six Coloured members voted in favour of it. They expressed their faith in the policy and suggested the following guidelines, among others, for implementing it effectively in the interests of the Coloureds and the Whites: Firstly, the public sector should set an example to the private sector and carry out the policy, and secondly, with regard to influx control and the availability of Black migrant labour, the Government should not have regard only to economic considerations, but also to the adverse social effects which a large number of Blacks in the area may have particularly on the Coloureds with a low standard of living.

The commission further concerned itself with the reasons why the policy had partially failed, and because there is serious doubt about the ability of the Coloureds to replace the Blacks, the commission made certain recommendations which should be noted, because they go to the root of the real problem in the Western Cape. Recommendation 31 laid down a guideline in terms of which the rehabilitation and labour-orientation of work-shy Coloureds is an important factor in ensuring a larger measure of success. For this reason, the commission produced recommendation 32, which was adopted with only one dissenting vote, and which reads as follows—

1. (a) That orientation centres be established in those geographical centres where there are sizeable concentrations of Coloureds; and
2. (b) That the services of these centres be aimed at basic literacy, rehabilitation, discipline and certain works skills, in an attempt to eliminate educational, social, psychological and other handicaps as far as possible and to establish labour discipline.

In order to complete this process of orientation and motivation, the commission made two further recommendations, i.e. recommendation 34(a), which reads—

By the way, this is an old United Party Act—

The second one is recommendation 39, which I am not going to read now.

What I have given here is a summary of a fine, well-considered piece of work by a commission which is held in very high esteem. It contains a philosophical decision, the statement of a problem and a solution. It means that the Western Cape is reserved for White and Coloured labour, but that in many respects, the Coloured person is not able to replace the Black contract worker, and therefore has to be made fit for labour by following certain procedures.

These recommendations were all accepted by the Government in 1977. In spite of that, we still have thousands of work-shy and unemployed Coloured people today, and their places are being filled by just as many thousands of contract workers and illegally present Black workers, and one finds Blacks in large numbers even in those categories of which it was said that applications for them would not even be considered, such as petrol pump attendants, gardeners, etc.

So the policy is still a partial failure, and therefore we want to ask: What is being done about these vital recommendations by the commission? Is co-ordinated action being taken by the departments concerned to implement these decisions? I should also like to know what progress has been made with the in-depth investigation envisaged in this connection in the White Paper.

Even if we have to admit today that the policy is not a complete success, it must not be rejected or abolished. It must remain the policy, but it must also be implemented in the interests of the Whites, but especially in the interests of the Coloureds, and in the interests of the Coloured people of the lower classes in particular, who have had no training of any kind. This department can play a very important part in reserving the Western Cape for the Whites and the Coloureds, but then it is time we rolled up our sleeves. Therefore I ask tonight, in the interests of this part of the country, where the Blacks are a minority and must remain a minority, that these recommendations be implemented.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay has made a very good and well-considered speech here this evening, as usual.

Parallel development means that my Brown neighbour and I can develop alongside each other and parallel to each other, not the one at the expense of the other, while recognizing the distinctive character of each as well as our indissoluble interdependence. Either we face the future together and we work together for a better South Africa for all its people, or we each go our own way, which will be to the detriment of us both and will have disastrous consequences for South Africa. Parallel development also means that I must afford my neighbour the same privileges and opportunities as I have. Failing that, I must share with my neighbour what I have. For this reason, for example, the Lions are able to tour South Africa this year to play not only against the Brown people, the Black people or the White people, but to play against a Springbok team which is the best we have and which was chosen purely on merit, irrespective of race or colour.

In accordance with my party’s policy, I believe that equal quality of instruction and equal facilities at Brown schools are priority number one for my Government. I should like the Government to draw up a time-table in terms of which Coloured education will have the optimum number of qualified and competent teachers within X number of years, so that the standard of instruction may be the same as that in White education. This means that the Government will have to make millions of rands available for Brown education bursaries, as well as for enough training centres, so that salary parity may eventually be achieved. If the Government is serious about Manpower 2000, and I believe it is, this is the first step towards the year 2000. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that this is the intention, and the hon. the Minister has done so again today.

On the other hand, the Coloured community will have to accept co-responsibility for enabling its young people to develop in an orderly and civilized manner. No Government can allow its authority to be undermined, as has happened in Cape Town on Saturday, today and over the past few days. The events of the last few days are not in line with the code of conduct of the Coloured people. It is a tendency which never used to be present in the Coloured community.

I should like to quote from Hansard, col. 5371, of April 1960, when the Coloured Affairs Vote was discussed. For the Vote agreed to at that time, R2 284 000 was being appropriated. This is just as much as the hon. the Minister said today the Treasury had approved for the purchase of the outstanding books. This year, an amount of R383 434 000 is being appropriated. I quote the appreciation expressed by the then Minister of the Interior—

The hon. the Minister goes on to say in the same column—

This is what the hon. the Minister has done here again today. In column 5387 of that Hansard, the present hon. Prime Minister says—

In 1976, during the Soweto riots, the Coloured youth was drawn into the tornado of disorder which swept all over the country and which eventually claimed the lives of many innocent people and caused damage amounting to millions of rands.

In 1980, the Coloured youth is taking the lead in the present wave of unrest. I want to add that it seems to me that something has been lost between White and Brown along the way.

The Government is appointing the Coloureds to more and more statutory bodies, committees and commissions, to accept co-responsibility for the orderly government of the country. I want to mention a few of these. There are the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, the Group Areas Board, the Unemployment Insurance Board, the South African Nursing Council, the Television Programme Advisory Council, the Wage Board, the Central Housing Commission, the National Manpower Commission, hospital boards and many other boards, too numerous to mention. Coloureds served on the Commission on Public Holidays. A Coloured person is presently serving on the Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Supply and Tariffs.

The Schlebusch Commission recommends a President’s Council in which Coloureds will have absolutely full, equal rights, the same as their White counterparts. One of the pillars of the President’s Council is a Constitutional Committee, once again a committee on which White and non-White will serve together to advise the Government about our common constitutional future. This may eventually lead to further far-reaching changes to our constitution. I want to make use of this opportunity to invite Coloured people who are condemning the proposed President’s Council out of hand to sit down and reflect calmly once again about the possibilities created by such a President’s Council, not only for White or Brown, but for all population groups in South Africa, and then to decide calmly to participate and to share in the final decision-making about our common future.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bellville in his plea for a new dispensation for local authorities. I should like to ask what is preventing us from extending co-responsibility to the Coloureds on local authority level to deliberate about the everyday needs in their towns. After all, we do not have to wait for the reports of commissions in which we are told how we should guide the dozens of townships which have developed alongside the White towns into becoming separate municipalities. I also want to ask what is preventing us from giving the Coloured people a meaningful share in the civil administration of their towns. Must we continue with the management committees, which have become nothing but pressure groups?

I believe that the frustration of the Coloured person arises from the fact that he still does not have his rightful place in the constitutional dispensation of South Africa. He has no say in the country of his birth concerning the things which affect him and his future and which are indissolubly bound up with those things affecting the future of his White counterpart. These frustrations are the reason why we are finding these foreign tendencies in the Coloured community today. However, I think there is still time for White and non-White to extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to each other and to create a better South Africa for us all together.

I want to conclude by quoting the words of our hon. Prime Minister. The Coloured people will find that the Whites are becoming the friends of the Coloureds to an increasing extent.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for the fact that I shall not be able, in the short time available to me, to react to all the points he mentioned, although I shall come back later to the aspect of local authorities for Coloured people.

†Mr. Chairman, we cannot proceed with this debate without taking note of the events which took place at Elsies River this afternoon, events which are part of the consequence of the situation that has developed. On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we are pleased with the tone of the statement the hon. the Minister of Police has already issued. He said that he wished to express his regret that such an incident should have occurred and to extend his condolences to all concerned. We on this side of the House associate ourselves entirely with those sentiments of the hon. the Minister. He went on to say that he would also like to again confirm that the police had strict orders to resort to fire-arms only in the most extreme cases. We also approve of that and we hope that in spite of the tension that might exist from time to time, and in spite of the weariness which might overtake policemen, they will be in a position to give effect to this instruction which has come from the hon. the Minister. Naturally we assume that a full inquiry is going to take place. A full inquiry is, however, not going to bring back the lives of the youngsters who lost their lives, nor is it going to remedy the situation. We nevertheless approve of what we believe is the sound, humane and very constructive approach adopted by the hon. the Minister of Police in his statement.

This debate, which has been going on for some time, has had one very interesting facet. I do not want to score points off the other side on this issue.

You cannot.

I really do not want to talk to NRPs from Durban North. They will not be here in a year’s time in any case. [Interjections.] The speeches by hon. members on both sides of the House have evidenced a common factor. Certain Government members made a very frank admission …

Where will you be sitting in a year’s time? You will be right out of that party. They will drop you completely.

Listen to this rubbish! The hon. member for Oudtshoorn set the tone. He admitted that there were serious problems and legitimate grievances. The indication was that they did flow from the historical situation, as the hon. the Minister would emphasize, but they also flowed from the practical application of Government policy. He also suggested that perhaps the Theron Commission did not have the desired impact in promoting the socio-economic advancement of the Coloured people, that a new look should be taken at this and that new impetus should be given to the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloured people. However, if these events in recent times have caused common ground to be found across the floor of this House, and have resulted in a common agreement that there are defects, problems and legitimate grievances, at least in this particular area we can have a much more constructive debate than we might have been able to have in the past.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular. I want to congratulate him on his appointment and also on his handling of his post and on the way he entered this debate. There are many Coloured people who hold him in great esteem. They do not always agree with him, but they like the way he conducts himself. They believe he is a man whom they can talk to and who will keep his word. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a person who is regarded with some confidence by the Coloured people when they have to negotiate with him. He showed clearly today that he is not someone who tries to bluff people or who wants to juggle with words. He made practical proposals about the way in which the Coloured people should be uplifted. He spoke about industrial institutions and schools. I was glad to hear about them.

However, I want to ask him a specific question concerning the new technikon which may now be built on the slopes of Devil’s Peak in the face of all opposition.

I was not talking about that technikon.

Is that new technikon going to be opened to Coloured people?

It does not fall under this Vote.

He was referring to training facilities for Coloured people.

But I was talking about our technikon.

I ask the Government …

It does not fall under this Vote.

In that case, will the hon. the Minister, as the Minister concerned, recommend to the Cabinet, of which he is a member, that the Government change its policy and open that new technikon to be built in District Six to Coloured people as well? This has also been recommended by Mr. Gene Louw, the Administrator of the Cape Province. He recently made a speech in which he said he hoped the day would come when that technikon would be opened to White and Brown in the Cape Province. Would he please use any influence he may have in the Cabinet to ensure that the Coloured people will also be able to make use of a technikon which is going to be built in District Six?

You said it would never happen.

I said it would probably happen, in spite of all the opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will recommend it.

†Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister something in connection with technical training. I have been approached by Coloured people in the Natal area who have certain problems because there is a relatively small Coloured community there and they have to use the L. C. Johnson Technical College. When it comes to developing new courses, a minimum of six people is required before such new courses can be introduced. They have great problems because very often there are not six Coloured people available to start a new course. In those particular circumstances there is prejudice against the Coloured people because no course is available to them. Is it therefore possible that, in those circumstances, they can use either the White technikon or the M. L. Sultan College in order to augment their facilities?

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Relations used the following words: “As ons nou met alles klaar is, is die eintlike angel van die Kleurlingfrustrasie hul politieke regte.”

Hear, hear.

On the grounds of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s remark, I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What about the issue of municipal political rights for the Coloureds? Surely that is not something that can be held in abeyance. It is not dependent upon the findings of a Schlebusch Commission or a future President’s Council. It is a practical matter which can be decided upon here and now. The Coloured people are entitled to rights at local and municipal level, but the Government has taken those rights away. The hon. the Minister has told us that the management committees are wonderful.

They are.

Then he did not listen to the hon. members for Bellville and Kimberley South because they said that the committees are useless.

What does McHenry say?

They said that they are so ineffective that they should be changed so that Coloured people can have full municipal status within a metropolitan authority. [Interjections.]

We want to know whether the hon. the Minister, who has not responded yet, is going to accept our advice and not nominate people to the new Coloured Persons Council. Is he going to hold that over in the light of the new circumstances? Is he going to see that the Coloured people get full municipal rights? Are the Coloured people going to have to wait until the President’s Council makes its recommendations before the recommendations of the Theron Commission, which says that they should have direct representation at municipal, provincial and national level, are implemented?

*If the main frustration of the Coloured people lies in political rights and a political say, the hon. the Minister must tell us tonight what the nature of the future political say of the Coloured people at the various levels of government in South Africa will be.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of 10 minutes the hon. member for Sea Point touched on a variety of matters concerning most of which he put questions to the hon. the Minister. There are a few matters in regard to which I agree with the hon. member. I hope he will not faint when I say that there is no one in this House who is not very concerned about the events and have the deepest compassion and sympathy for people who have lost a child this evening. I think we all very much want to solve problems and conflicts without anyone suffering physically or otherwise. One can only hope and trust that such conditions will improve. I think that this side of the House is doing its best to prevent that kind of incident. I think one should also convey a word of thanks in this debate to our police, the men who in fact have to deal physically with the confrontation. We thank them for the work they are doing.

I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Relations is a good deputy minister. That is why he has been in Parliament so long and why he was appointed deputy minister. I agree entirely with the hon. member that the hon. the deputy Minister is a man with an exceptional grasp of this situation and a man with an understanding of the Brown people. I am very grateful to have heard that testimonial from the hon. member for Sea Point this evening. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that that is not the kiss of death he has received. We all agree with the words the appreciation addressed to him.

In any event it was bad enough.

In that case I shall not rub it in.

I want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that he sometimes makes the solutions of problems sound so facile. To him the two extremes as regards the solutions to problems in South Africa are an open and shut matter: if a thing is open, it is right and if it is shut, it is wrong. Solutions to problems are not found in that way. We on this side of the House have often pointed out that the fact that there is separation does not per se provide a solution to the problem. One has to give substance to that separation. However, not only must one give substance to the separation, one must also give substance and meaning to the meeting between the various groups. That is the fundamental struggle that is going on in Southern Africa.

I was still a very young boy, early in the ’40s, when one of the first books I read was a book that gripped my imagination and made a very profound impression on me. I cannot even remember who the author of the book was. The title was “Waarheen, vader?” As a young boy I read that book from cover to cover. The whole story concerned a Brown family within the ranks of a White family, with all the social problems that arose from that. Hon. members must bear in mind that I am now speaking of the kind of milieu that was characteristic of the early ’40s. Right at the end the young boy asks his father: “Waarheen, Vader?” The father replies— and this is the closing fine of the book, as far as I can remember: “God alone knows, my child.” At the time those words gripped my imagination. Indeed, they still do. After all, it is a frightful thing for a child to ask his father: “Where to now, father?” when his future is totally uncertain. As a Christian one then has to search one’s own heart and confess that in a political situation in which one exercises control, a control of people which one has simply inherited, one must reply to the question as to where one is going with the children of those people. The question also arises as to what the NP has done over the past 30 years. What answers has the NP provided?

It is true that one’s best is not always the best. However, the NP has to the best of its ability given attention to every facet of the way of life of the Brown people. If I were to say this evening where we were going, I believe I could ask this in the knowledge that we have really made a great deal of progress. I want to put it to the hon. member for Sea Point that in the ethnic diversity of South Africa there are a large number of things to which one must give attention. Therefore, simply to say nowadays that one wants to be a Christian and wants to be civilized because we speak the same language, is not the only norm one ought to apply in determining ethnic groups or in determining nations. That would be a very superficial kind of argument.

There is one thing I want to state very clearly this evening. I want to say it as someone from a northern province who has also lived alongside Black people. I believe that in Southern Africa the solution does not lie in White and Brown and Indian being grouped together as groups in contrast to one another. I think that that is wrong. There is a diversity in Southern Africa, a diversity which each has brought about in its own way in the course of history. Therefore, when we achieve a dispensation in which Brown, Black and Indian wrestle with solutions in the constitutional sphere in the President’s Council, this does not mean that we want to get ourselves into a situation of conflict with Black people. I believe that one can find Christianity in all nations, with the best values it involves. One can encounter civilized values there. Indeed, one can encounter many things that mutually correspond. If this is our point of departure, not only in the personal sphere but also on a national basis, then we have progressed a very long way. Indeed, I think that the NP has made a great deal of progress as far as this aspect is concerned.

When speaking to his own people the hon. the Prime Minister has never hesitated to make pleas for good relations. I believe that within his own circle, his pleas have fallen on fruitful ground. As far as I know there is an earnest endeavour on the part of the NP to bring about sound human relations.

I should like to devote the last few minutes at my disposal to the development of the tertiary education of the Brown man. Despite all the opposition to its establishment, the University of the Western Cape has made tremendous progress. One need not only look at the number of students who enrol. In 1960 the figure was only 164, but in 1978 there were 3 214. We can also look at the lecturing staff. At the time there were 17 and now there are 313. However, one must also consider the number of Bachelors’, Masters’ and Doctors’ degrees obtained there. I want to congratulate the students on those academic achievements. One cannot regard a university of this nature, showing this growth, as being elevated above a community. The fact that we have this tremendous growth of the University of the Western Cape indicates that the primary and secondary education has been so good that those people were able to reach the tertiary level. Together with other hon. members of this House I recognize that there are indeed bottlenecks, but when I consider where we started with Brown education and what we have achieved in that regard, then I think that there has been more on the positive side than on the negative side.

However, there is another aspect. One cannot have these achievements at the university level if the people do not prosper at the same time. I think that we must also admit this evening that these university achievements are also based on a community which over the past 10 to 20 years has shared in the prosperity afforded us by Southern Africa. However, this is also meaningful in another respect. It is not merely a question of the education and prosperity these people enjoy. After all, they were also a social community. There have been community structures that were such as to enable the people to get to university.

When one is the wronged party, or the so-called wronged party, and when there is control over matters, one is inclined only to look at the dark side. I think that on the one hand we in Southern Africa must indeed look at the problems, but on the other hand it is also as well to see what has been achieved, at what the possibilities are and what the future can offer one. If one does it in that spirit, then I think that we in Southern Africa can set an example in all spheres of human society.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Rissik will pardon me for not reacting directly to the points raised by him.

He made a good speech.

I think that the situation facing us in South Africa at the moment, and the degree of tension created by the current situation, calls upon us to take a very objective and cool look, not only at the causes of the unrest we have in the Coloured population today, but also at the long-term solutions to those problems. In this regard I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that what we are seeing today, the unrest, the civil disobedience, the grievances and the boycotts, has a very long history, as the hon. the Minister and others have pointed out here today. Despite the fact that the root cause of the problems lies in the full spectrum of the socio-economic and political disadvantages of the Coloureds, it has nevertheless been the responsibility of the Government, for some 32 years now, to find the solutions to those problems. Whilst I think that we on this side, particularly my party, the NRP, recognize the improvement in the material welfare of the Coloureds, it cannot be said that the Government has really found the solutions to the problems facing the disadvantaged Coloured population. I think that all hon. members will agree that the demise of the CRC was a tremendous blow to the political development of the Coloured population of South Africa, whatever the reasons. May I say that my hon. colleagues in the PFP are exceptionally good at finding reasons why a plan has failed, but they never come up with a solution and an alternative.

Hear, hear!

The reality of the situation must be faced squarely, not only by hon. members of the House but by all population groups. What we are facing in South Africa today is the emancipation of people who previously suffered greater disadvantages. With that emancipation, as the hon. the Minister and other hon. members have pointed out, comes increased expectations and a greater sophistication and therefore also a greater tension within the total fabric of a plural society. I would like to say to my hon. colleagues of the PFP— and I still call them honourable, Mr. Chairman, because you force me to do that—that to this very day they have never provided …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is impugning “honourable” by innuendo, and I ask for your ruling on that. He said that he is forced to call us “honourable”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban North may proceed. Before he does so, however, I just want to draw his attention to the fact that there is only one way of addressing members of the House and that is as “hon. members”.

Thank you, Sir. The hon. member for Hillbrow need not be concerned: I include him in that category. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I ask for your ruling. You have just given your ruling and, notwithstanding that, he has now flouted it.

He was including you!

Order! Would the hon. member for Hillbrow repeat what he has said?

The hon. member has made the allegation …

I am speaking about the second time.

Yes, Sir. He made an allegation and you asked him to withdraw it.

I did not ask him to withdraw it.

Then the hon. member said, with reference to me, that he included me in the category. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban North may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall take that no further. I shall leave it to the conscience of the hon. member to decide for himself where he belongs. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to make very clear innuendoes to the effect that hon. members are not honourable? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member did not say that.

Mr. Chairman, he did not say it directly …

The hon. member is drawing his own conclusions. The hon. member for Durban North did not say that.

Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, the innuendo was very clear and I think that the hon. member … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban North may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of the PFP is that they are very good at identifying conflict situations. They perpetuate protest politics and that is a very disturbing factor in the current situation in South Africa. Never before in this House or in public have they stated clearly to the public what their solutions are to the problems we face in South Africa. [Interjections.] I wish to remind hon. members that one can fool some of the people some of the time, but one cannot fool all the people all the time. When the day of reckoning comes, those hon. members will reap the whirlwind because they sowed the wind. In this very situation in South Africa today we heard the hon. member for Sea Point talking about “legitimate grievances”. That is printed in the Press that supports them.

That is what the Minister himself said.

Those poor souls who are being manipulated for the ends of the PFP and not in their own interests, will read those words and say to themselves: “We have the support of the official Opposition.”

You belong on the other side of the House.

That legitimization, as propounded by the hon. member for Sea Point, will reverberate along the corridors of interracial conflict in South Africa. In the current situation it is absolutely imperative that the PFP state very clearly where they stand in respect of the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission to resolve the political conflict in South Africa. I wish to predict that, despite this very constructive and positive vehicle, which is being created specifically for the reduction of tension in South Africa, the hon. members of the PFP will vote against it consistently, because they cannot recognize the real vehicles for the reduction of tension in South Africa. They live, like the pirates of old and the scavengers of today, on the carcasses of political conflict. [Interjections.]

Why do you not cross the floor?

The day that hon. members of the PFP are prepared to get up and say that they support Black majority rule based on an unqualified one man, one vote system on a common voters’ roll, despite the qualification of a federal structure, the truth will be out. [Interjections.] Let us examine the credentials of the hon. members to criticize what is happening in South Africa. They blatantly speak of a minority veto to protect the interests of people such as the Coloureds. But when we examine what that minority veto means, we see that it means no protection for any other group than the Zulus and the Whites in South Africa, because that minority veto, in terms of the constitutional proposals supported by that party, says that a minority group must have 10% to 15% of the vote before it may exercise that minority veto. Then, what do we find …

The Indians constitute 3%.

The hon. the Minister says that the Indians constitute 3%. Where do the Coloureds stand in relation to the figure of 10% or 15%? How can one protect minority rights in that respect? [Interjections.] That is what it is all about.

You just think along ethnic lines all the time. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove has identified it absolutely correctly. [Interjections.] We think along ethnic lines in this country. There is no argument about that. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point if, in terms of his policy, the Coloured population say they would like to have their own legislative assembly …

But they do not. [Interjections.]

I ask the hon. member for Sea Point …

I say yes, if they want it they can have it … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout at least has compassion for the hon. member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] I appreciate the predicament of the hon. member for Sea Point. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon. the Chief Whip for the opportunity.

†As the sands of time for my speech ran out, the sands of time are running out for the PFP, because they will not come with solutions …

Why do you not cross the floor?

Order!

They will not come with solutions for the problem, and the problem today is a multiplicity of ethnic interactions and tensions. We will find, as in the past …

You do not know what you are talking about.

… that when the Coloured people protest they will find sympathy amongst the Blacks and the Indians as well. Therefore the solution to the problems in South Africa is not a simplistic one, as is advocated by the PFP. It is not a simple solution. We require a sympathetic but sophisticated solution to the diversity in the different cultural levels in South Africa. [Interjections.] Despite the offerings, innuendos and suggestions of the PFP that the lion and the lamb will lie together in a future political dispensation, I regret to say that they will not produce one positive step in solving the problems of South Africa.

What is your solution?

The hon. member for Hillbrow is now inviting me to provide a solution. For the edification of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who sees a simplistic solution in a one man, one vote common voters’ roll …

In a federal system.

… and therefore the demise of democracy and private free enterprise … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Durban North an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think hon. members of the PFP would learn something if they learned to listen and not to talk. I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the first prerequisite for finding a solution in South Africa is the recognition of the reality that we have diversity in culture and therefore ethnicity in South Africa. [Interjections.] I see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is trying to outdo me in this, but he has had 30 years to say this. [Interjections.] May I come back to the reality of the situation by saying that no solution will be found to the interracial conflict in South Africa unless we recognize the first prerequisite, and that is ethnic diversity. Without that there is no solution, because any other solution fails to recognize the reality of the situation.

What is new?

Let us take this matter one step further. Having recognized the diversity within that ethnicity, we must come to the institution of equal but separate institutions to allow each population group to have political rights which will give it access to economic and social equality. Here I should like to speak particularly to the members of the Labour Party, who were in the majority in the CRC, and say that the Whites of South Africa alone are not to blame for the position in which the Coloureds find themselves today. They did not maximize the opportunities which were given to them in the CRC. They failed to take advantage of the positive steps they could have taken. Therefore we, the Whites of South Africa, do not carry the guilt alone for what is happening in South Africa today. That kind of protest politics will only perpetuate the retardation of the progress of the Coloured people in South Africa. I fully appreciate that the legitimate grievances of the Coloured people require a vehicle for expression.

Well, tell us what it is going to be.

If we recognize ethnic diversity, if we recognize the right of each population group to grow and to develop its own potential, but not at the expense of any other ethnic group, we will make positive gains for South Africa.

You mean vertical apartheid.

Do you want the CRC back again?

What the hon. member for Orange Grove is supporting in his party’s policy is the demise of democracy and private free enterprise. Then, irrespective of whether one is White, Brown, Indian or Black, we shall all suffer tremendously under that kind of constitution.

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

One has only to look to the north of Africa, to the north of the Limpopo, to see what happened to “one man, one vote” without the preservation of the principles of democracy and private free enterprise. I see the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to ask a question. I think the nation is asking a question of them, a question that will require a loud and clear answer. They must tell the Coloured people of South Africa that they are as good at providing solutions as they are at exploiting conflict.

You tell the Coloureds that you want to put them back in a Coloured Council. See what they say.

What solution do those hon. members propose for them politically, socially and economically?

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must contain himself.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether his policy would re-institute the Coloured Council as an elected council?

This is the typical response one gets from the PFP …

Just give an answer.

… which refuses to recognize the voice of the Coloured people. He asked me whether the Coloureds should have it. We in this party believe that one must listen to the aspirations and requirements of the Coloureds. There is no point in asking me what the Coloureds want. [Interjections.] If any party in this House should impose its will on the Coloured people without consultation with and without acceptance by those people, we would end up where we are today.

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

We should like to recommend to the Coloured people of South Africa to take stock of where they want to go and, having taken stock, they should utilize to their best advantage the infrastructure which has been provided for them by this Parliament. One cannot survive or improve the position of one’s people purely with protest politics. We now have—and this in answer to the hon. member for Orange Grove—the means for improving the socioeconomic and political lot of every population group in South Africa through the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission. That is my answer to the hon. member. Why are they protesting against that infrastructure as a means of finding a solution? It is going to be a negotiating place to determine what the aspirations of every population group are. It is a listening post. We are past the days when we could tell other population groups what is good for them. Now an instrument has been created for listening to these people, and I sincerely hope that all their leaders will participate in the proposed President’s Council and will give us the opportunity to listen to their contribution towards finding a solution in South Africa. I therefore come back to the member for Orange Grove to tell him that his party should also participate in the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission without qualification. Then we will provide solutions. [Interjections.] I should like to proceed from the first premise, the recognition of ethnic diversities in South Africa, to the second premise, the recognition by all members of all population groups, including some people who live in Hillbrow, that the choice confronting every population group with regard to the onslaught against South Africa is that we must survive together, or we will be destroyed separately.

We shall give you an English Parliament!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now introduced a new element here and I trust it is not their official party policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I could not have imagined that after 32 years as a member of this House I should have to play the role of peacemaker between the hon. members of the various opposition parties in South Africa. However, the speech by the hon. member for Durban North was so shattering that I think it is unnecessary for me to make peace; instead I should call in an undertaker for the PFP. Before reacting in detail to the speech by the hon. member for Durban North, I should like to associate myself with the speech by the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik is a person who always states his case in this House with homiletic sincerity and shows that he thinks deeply, feels sincerely and strives to state a standpoint in which he really believes. That is why I am particularly pleased that he devoted his time this evening to telling the House about the fine achievements of the University of the Western Cape. I think that if there is any institution for non-Whites in the vicinity of Cape Town of which we can all be proud, it is the University of the Western Cape with its more than 3 000 students, all of whom are preparing themselves to make an important contribution to the welfare and the progress of the Republic of South Africa. I want to make use of this opportunity to make a brief statement with reference to that hon. member’s speech, concerning the outstanding new development at the University of the Western Cape.

In pursuance of the Government’s decision that a medical faculty be established at the University of the Western Cape, an inter-departmental committee comprising representatives of the Department of Health, the Department of Public Works, the Director of Hospital Services in the Cape, the Treasury, the University of the Western Cape and my department has recommended that—

1. (1) A faculty of medical sciences be established at the University of the Western Cape with effect from 1 January 1982 so that the training of paramedical staff, inter alia, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, can start from that date.
2. (2) A dean of the faculty of medical sciences be appointed from 1 January 1981 to undertake the planning of the proposed training of nurses and subsequently the planning for the training of medical practitioners.
3. (3) When a start has been made with the training of doctors, the former faculty be converted into a medical faculty.

I am pleased to be able to say that I accept the recommendations of this committee and that this plan will be put into operation immediately.

†Now I should like to come back to the interesting speech by the hon. member for Durban North.

Good stuff, was it not?

It was very good stuff, presented by a man who represents very good stuff in the population make-up of South Africa. He represents excellent people. I was proud to hear such sentiments expressed on behalf of the people of Natal by a man who speaks as only a South African in the best sense of the word can speak in the South African Parliament.

There is one point in his speech to which I want to react. At the outset he said that we had not yet found a solution to the problems of the Coloured people. I think we have found a solution, but I agree with him that we have not yet been able to implement and carry out what is obviously necessary to complete the solution. Surely South Africa is entitled to claim a little patience from the world? One can compare our experience with the experience of the greatest democracy, the mightiest State and the most outspoken champion of equality in the world, viz. the United States of America. It is now a quarter of a century since the Supreme Court of America passed judgment in a case and laid down as part of the constitutional law of America that there should be equality of all the races, especially for the Negroes. Is there one hon. member in this House who can for one moment say that in the United States of America the Black population is satisfied that the expectations that were aroused by that judgment 25 years ago have been realized?

There is no law against them.

There is no law against it, but that is all the more reason why these expectations should have been fulfilled. There are no laws against it, there is every encouragement for them and they have the indescribable might and the financial, economic and political resources of the United States behind them, but have they satisfied the aspirations of their Negro population? They give all sorts of evasive answers, but look at them now. They are expecting from us in South Africa that we should achieve things which even the greatest State of this world cannot achieve within a quarter of a century. What is the position in the USA today? The average earnings of the American Negro is still only about three-quarters of that of a White man, and unemployment among Negroes is many times greater in proportion to the population than that of the Whites. When the lights of New York go out, as they did two years ago, the Negroes from Haarlem, who are supposed to be so happy and content with their life, streamed to the central business district of New York and within a few hours caused $350 million worth of damage. Over the last weekend people died and property was destroyed on an unprecedented level in Miami, the holiday resort and playground of the millionaires of the richest country of the world. I do not say this to reproach the USA or to score points off them, but to try to restore perspective to the hon. official Opposition in this House, who are expecting the NP Government to achieve in 30 years what the mighty USA could not achieve with all its pretensions and beautiful words in a similar period in their own country. We are 4½ million Whites dealing with 20 million less advanced people, while in the USA it is 230 million Whites dealing with 20 million less advanced people. These are hard facts. That is the truth. Can I now ask the hon. PFP that, when they approach our problems in South Africa and attack this Government, they relate their attack to the hard facts of the situation as they obtain in every country of the world where there is the problem of the haves and the have-nots facing one another in one society and seeking a peaceful co-existence? I think that is a fair request and I think it may help to restore perspective to the problems of South Africa. So I want to thank my hon. friend from Durban North, not only for his speech, but also for the very stimulating thought that he expressed in that one opening paragraph of a most fascinating speech.

The hon. member for Sea Point made a second entry into the debate. He asked certain questions which I would like to answer. For example, he asked about the new technikon and whether the non-White students …

Would you argue in favour of that?

The hon. member wants to know whether non-White students would be allowed to attend the new technikon to be built in Zonnebloem. Why does the hon. member ask that? Is the technikon not in South Africa? I have had the privilege of making it possible for White students to go to the M. L. Sultan Indian Technikon in Durban. Why should I not advocate that Coloureds be allowed to go to the technikon in Zonnebloem? Why does the hon. member ask me a silly question like that?

You have not done much about it up to now.

Is it going to be an open institution?

Only the other day I gave the University of Stellenbosch the right to establish a hostel for non-White students on its campus grounds. Why should I take up a different attitude with respect to Zonnebloem? Why should the hon. member question me on it? It is the policy of the Government that whenever it is in the interest of the people concerned, they should be allowed to study at the institution which offers them the courses that they want to study. That will apply to the technikon in Zonnebloem as well as to any other institution in South Africa. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member for Sea Point spoke here again thinking not with his brains, but with his prejudice. Honestly, it makes a sensible debate in this Parliament almost impossible. [Interjections.]

He also spoke about municipal rights and about the nominations for the new South African Coloured Council. As far as the nominations are concerned, I wanted to nominate a new council before the end of April, but I thought, on good advice and in my own judgment, that it would be wrong to appoint that new council while the present unrest continued.

Oh, that is thoughtful of you.

I also felt that it would be wise, in view of the fact that the previous Coloured Council had not debated its own budget for five years and that the true needs and hurts of the Coloured people therefore had had no expression, for me first to determine the immediate needs of the Coloured people and to create machinery to their satisfaction, as I am doing in the case of education, and then to appoint the South African Coloured Council and give them a fair chance to start from a new sound basis, which was lacking owing to the intransigent attitude of the majority in the previous CRC. That is her stand.

Big brother!

No, I am not big brother.

Of course you are.

No, I am not. I am a very sincere member of a Government trying sincerely to do what is right and just to people who have been neglected by the history of South Africa, of which we are all part. The hon. member for Sea Point has no right to pretend that he alone can absolve himself from responsibility for the history of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

That brings me to the aspect of municipal rights.

*The hon. member for Bellville and the hon. member for Durban Point discussed this. I believe—indeed, I have believed this throughout my life—that it is better if a community looks after itself with regard to those matters that are its intimate concern.

Good old “Sap” policy.

That is exactly what we are trying to do in Natal.

Yes, I know it is good old “Sap” policy. The hon. member for Green Point is sitting with a frown on his face, but he too confirms that nevertheless. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

On the other hand, however, I am just as much aware that since such large urban areas of our Coloured population comprise for the most part subeconomic housing of which the ownership is in fact in the hands of the State, with the result that they do not pay rates on that housing, it is very unlikely that one will be able to establish viable, distinctive, autonomous local authorities for those Coloured communities. That is why there is an idea in vogue today, an idea which I endorse. That idea is doing the rounds in Natal and among the ranks of the NP. The Browne Committee has also investigated it. It is that we should think in terms of …

Metropolitan boards.

… metropolitan boards.

So you believe in it, too.

Yes, quite correct.

Once again, good NRP policy.

Metropolitan boards must undertake those things that are too large for the small communities, for example the major undertakings requiring a lot of capital, such as sewage projects, reticulation systems, power stations and many others. However, every residential area can have a local management to suit its own character, which can look after its own cultural and welfare matters and other matters that concern it.

Good NRP policy.

Accordingly I find it regrettable that the Natal Provincial Council —after I told them that we were thinking along the same lines—came forward with a measure which contained clauses that were unacceptable to us and which we did not even have the chance of discussing properly.

Wait now!

I said to them: “You are trying to jump the gun.”

They wanted to take the first step.

Order!

That is why we vetoed that measure. We certainly do not want each of the provinces to go its own way. We want a uniform policy, a policy which we hope the hon. member will support in the interests of South Africa as a whole. I think that is the answer. I believe in autonomous municipal authorities where it is a matter of the local and personal interests of a community, but we believe in metropolitan authorities—and I hope that we shall accept this as policy—to promote matters of common interest.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to make provision for the small minorities if he does not have those clauses that are unacceptable to him which provide that minorities can be taken up into the majority community?

I shall reply to the hon. member but I do not want to go into details in this regard because it is the idea that is at stake here. There are precedents. On the Transvaal platteland there is the Peri-urban Health Board which does exactly the same as what the hon. member foresees on a regional basis. It is a question of practical effect, and I am prepared to say that if this aspect, which at present is still just an idea, is accepted, if financially possible, I shall have no hesitation in asking that we negotiate with the Natal and other Provincial Councils to see whether we cannot agree on a policy for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Very wise.

That is my reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. In other words, we have here the opportunity to carry out at the level of local authorities the policy which will take into the account the actualities of South Africa, the reality of the situation in South Africa. And that of course is far removed from what the PFP advocates. It is far removed from what the PFP wants, specifically because it has to do with the realities of South African circumstances.

The hon. member for Kimberley South referred to the progress we are making in ensuring more just treatment of the other communities in South Africa. He cherishes high expectations of the proposed President’s Council. Any one of us with any sense of responsibility as regards the future of South Africa, has high hopes as regards the role which that President’s Council is going to play in the future constitutional development in South Africa. Therefore, I am pleased that he expressed his confidence in the proposed President’s Council. I share his confidence wholeheartedly.

The hon. member for False Bay referred in particular to the proposal of the Erika Theron Commission—which the PFP rejects, of course—that the Western Cape should be a preference area for Coloured labour. I am pleased to mention that, because it is the right policy. In my previous speech I quoted facts and statistics to prove how fruitful that policy is in the interests of the Coloureds, whereas it is elastic enough, flexible enough, to permit Black labour, too, to come here in sufficient numbers to meet those demands of our industries which the Coloureds cannot satisfy. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for False Bay said. I pointed out that over the past number of years, almost a million Black labourers have been admitted to the Western Cape on a temporary basis. What does any impartial person think the position would have been in the Western Cape if we had admitted those workers with their women and children to the Western Cape on a permanent basis, this region where the biggest problem with which we are saddled at the moment is that of accommodating our Coloured population properly, and where we are still faced with the problem of the shameful squatter camps, the problem that people do not have houses to live in and have to sleep among the bushes on the Cape Flats? What would the position have been if an additional million families—not individuals—came to stay here without houses? Suddenly the hon. member for Sea Point has nothing to say.

It is a rhetorical question.

I want to refer again—I have referred to it so often—to the report of the UN special investigation into over-urbanization throughout the world. It is maintained that it will never be possible to do anything about the distress at places like Kinshasa unless the authorities restrict the influx of people to the cities; in other words, unless they delay the process of urbanization. This is one of the measures we are implementing in order to delay the process of urbanization in the Western Cape in the interests of the people who need help in this region, namely the Coloureds, thousands of whom are still poor today. This is what we are doing, but what do we get? We get the characteristically irresponsible conduct, for the sake of scoring debating points, that we usually get from the hon. member for Sea Point. Oh, well, if he would only make a deliberate effort, just once, to make a speech not as a man who wants to score political points but as one who has South Africa’s interests at hearts. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Durban Point. He discussed the system of local management. I hope that the reply I gave him is sufficient. If there is anything which I have perhaps left out, he can bring it to my attention later.

I am still going to convince you about the few points of difference.

I am open to conviction, and I hope that the same can be said of him, because if that is the case then I have no doubt as to whom will be convinced.

The hon. member for Boksburg made a speech which had to be made. He spoke about the Coloureds in the Transvaal, a substantial and important community, a community which is being supplemented by people moving to the Witwatersrand from the Western Cape. These are also people who play a praiseworthy role in the economic development of that part of South Africa. He referred quite rightly to the fact that in one respect they differ from the Coloureds in the Western Cape and the Cape in that there are not many of them on the platteland; the vast majority of them are city-dwellers and have special problems.

I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg for having raised this matter and for having had the insight to realize that their cause, too, must be championed in this House. I want to tell him that we shall take a special look at the points he raised, for example the question of the extension of the boundaries of Reiger Park, the question of what we are going to do with the fine land that lies within the noise zone of Jan Smuts Airport, land which could perhaps be used for sport and what we are going to do to alleviate the financial burdens of the municipality of Boksburg and other similar municipalities, burdens that are imposed upon them, because they assume the responsibility for the housing of Coloureds from a number of Witwatersrand municipalities. I have referred this matter to the National Housing Commission and they are investigating with a view to ascertaining what can be done in this connection. The same goes for the shortage of schools. We shall give attention to the matter and if something happens then I hope that the people of Reiger Park will realize that it is due to their cause having been championed by the hon. member for Boksburg.

†I want to thank sincerely the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who is not here at present, for his scientific approach to the problems of our Coloured people. I find myself in agreement with him. As a matter of fact, I think we all find ourselves in agreement with him, and it is gratifying to know that members of Parliament, whatever party they may belong to, are willing to make objective contributions to vexing problems in the spirit in which that hon. member did it.

The hon. member for Green Point made a speech which does not really call for much of a reply. I think he will agree that it was a political argument.

All the more reason for you to reply to him.

He did, however, make one statement which I should like him to reconsider very carefully. He accused me of having stated a half-truth to the House when I said that the CRC was abolished by me because they requested it.

Yes.

Then he said they did not only request that, but that they also came with conditions. That is not the point at all. I abolished the CRC, and only I know what my real motive was for abolishing it. Nobody can ascribe motives to me. I say now that the reason why I abolished that council was that they persistently requested that it should be abolished. I also want to say that I had many conversations with the members of that council and that, although on three occasions I asked them whether they really wanted the council abolished, not once was any alternative mentioned to me by the leaders of the party concerned …

You know what they want.

… except once in passing by Mr. Middleton, who did not on that occasion make an issue of it.

You know very well what they want. I still say it is a half-truth.

I want to say that I take the strongest exception to it that an hon. member, who cannot judge my motives or what goes on in my mind, can accuse me of telling a half-truth when I tell the House why I in my own judgment abolished the council. My motivation was—and this is the truth— that one cannot continue to work with a council when the members of that council do not want the council to work and frustrate its working and deny it the opportunity to fulfil its functions and then demand that it should be abolished.

They demanded that it be abolished because they wanted representation in this House.

The history of South Africa would have been very different as far as the Coloured people are concerned if that council had been given the chance by the majority to function as it should have functioned.

Why was it not given that chance?

Those of us who know this Parliament will agree with me that one of the most important functions of Parliament is to review, during the budget debate and particularly in the committee stage of the appropriation Bill, the conduct and policy implementation of the executive, the Cabinet, as is being done in the discussion of this Vote. The policy of each Minister in turn is analysed in detail. Hon. members have the opportunity to complain about what, in their opinion, is wrong, and to advance arguments relating to aspects which could be improved, and the Minister has to defend his policy. The Coloureds had such an opportunity in the CRC but they were deprived of that opportunity. I venture to say, because I am convinced it is true, that if the representatives of the CRC had had that opportunity we should all have been better acquainted with the real needs, thinking and aspirations of the Coloured population than we are at present. One of the complaints I have against the majority of Coloured representatives in that council is that they denied their own people the opportunity to put their case to the tribunal of the nation. Whatever happened in that body was available to the Press and the public of South Africa so that they could take cognizance of it and pass judgment on it. They were denied that. I say that that was irresponsible and a disservice to the Coloureds of South Africa.

The hon. member for Simonstown informed me that he could not be present this evening. He made a very interesting proposal, viz. that we should immediately appoint a small committee of experts in order, firstly, to look at the educational problems of our Coloureds and also to consider methods of social upliftment. I like the idea. The Government is at present considering machinery aimed specifically at having these problems investigated by experts. I cannot say more because the matter is still being considered, but I think an announcement will be made shortly in this regard. The idea is that these experts will investigate and evaluate the problems, and when the President’s Council is functioning, this body of experts will make submissions to the appropriate committees of the President’s Council which will enable that Council to investigate the matter promptly and advise the executive. I think the hon. member for Simonstown has made a proposal along the right lines which will undoubtedly stimulate us to take the matter further.

Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Oudtshoorn made a very interesting speech on which I really wish to congratulate him. It seems to me as if he and I share an interest in the same departments, and every time he takes part in the debate I appreciate his standpoint, attitude, insight and judgment more and more. I want to thank him sincerely for the positive contribution he made today. The hon. member for Umbilo also made a very interesting speech. The hon. member for Swellendam devoted his speech to rural areas, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied in that regard. I have already discussed earlier today the matters raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Piketberg, like all the other hon. members on this side of the House, made a constructive speech which attested to a real concern about the future of the Coloured population as citizens of South Africa. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him in this regard. The hon. member for Kimberley North discussed problems relating to books and so on. I think he will recall that I dealt with these matters in my previous speech.

Thus we now come to the end of this discussion of the Coloured Affairs Vote. I want to say in all seriousness that I am very sorry that the discussion had to be concluded after the news we received this afternoon about what happened in Elsies River. I want to express my profound sympathy with the families of the children who lost their lives. Not one of us can feel happy that this had to happen to children of South African citizens. But let there be a lesson to us in this, particularly for those people who seek to use children to achieve certain objectives which do not originate in the hearts of those children but which are instilled in them, particularly with a view to creating tensions, as we had on Saturday at the Golden Acre, and the tensions created by children who stoned motor-cars in Elsies River, damaged properties and endangered lives. I am unable to express an opinion about the conduct of the police there—the hon. the Minister of Police will have to do that—but I regret that it happened and I regret even more the circumstances that gave rise to this event. I regret the conduct of the agitators that use children for objectives which God did not mean children to be used for. I hope that this will be realized by the people who are acting in such an irresponsible way.

I want to thank everyone who took part in this debate, even those with whom I differed very sharply. I believe in Parliament and I believe that the most important function performed by Parliament is that it makes it possible for us to set idea against idea and cause friction between minds so that out of the heat created by that friction, we can come closer to the truth in South Africa. I hope that history will prove that today’s debate, too, is helping us to get closer to the truth as far as the interests of the important Coloured population of South Africa are concerned.

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—

Doubt has arisen in the course of the proceedings of a recent court martial on the question whether the term “court of law” in section 103ter of the Defence Act (Act 44 of 1957) also includes a military court. This amendment is aimed at removing any doubt that may exist.

Although section 58 of the First Schedule, being the Military Discipline Code, inter alia, stipulates that capital civil offences can be brought to trial at any time after the commission of the offence, jurisdiction is restricted by section 59 inasmuch as this section has the effect that any person who, while he is subject to this Code, commits a capital offence under this Code, must be tried and punished for that offence within a period of three months after he has ceased to be so subject.

In order to obviate this anomaly, it is proposed that sections 58 and 59 of the Code be amended to retain jurisdiction without a time limitation for the trial in military courts of capital civil offences committed outside the Republic. Otherwise the situation may arise that jurisdiction to try to punish a person on a murder charge is terminated through lapse of time. In fact, certain serious offences have allegedly been committed by members of the S.A. Defence Force who have been released from service more than three months ago and who may now consequently not be tried. Such a situation will defeat the ends of justice. A suitable amendment of sections 58 and 59 of the Military Discipline Code will therefore have to be with retrospective effect to at least 1 December 1979.

To accomplish this it is necessary to amend section 104(2) of the Defence Act in order to empower the State President to amend the Military Discipline Code with retrospective effect. For this purpose it is proposed to insert a new subsection 104(2)(b). Since the proposed amendment as printed in the Bill offers too wide a scope, I intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage that will limit the powers to amend with retrospective effect to justifiability, i.e. the matters referred to in sections 58 and 59.

*I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to point out that the proposed amendment to the Statute and the Code should in no way be interpreted as a step aimed at inhibiting the normal conduct and actions of our soldiers under operational conditions. No soldier who does his duty in carrying out a legitimate order is punishable; or put a different way, a soldier’s acts are justified by obedience to a legitimate order.

The amendments therefore seek to establish jurisdiction in respect of these acts and people who exceed the bounds of justification, and who through their acts could create an image of the South African Defence Force which the Defence Force does not want to have and does not deserve to have either. Moreover it must be emphasized that such an act is by way of great exception and is not typical of the conduct of the S.A. Defence Force. Even those who have recently been tried deserve particular attention, because we are dealing with an unconventional war and with unorthodox, brutal, inhuman hostile actions. In the case of Strydom and Sadie interesting facets were brought to light which served as extenuating circumstances. I quote the decision of the chairman of the court martial—

The chairman went on to say—

The chairman also had the following to say—

In 1976 the legislature, after the Angolan experience, in addition to the grounds for exemption from punishment which exist in common law for the soldier, gave recognition to the exceptional conditions which may possibly prevail in the operational area where the terrorist war is being waged by the insertion of section 104ter in the Defence Act, by means of which protection is afforded for acts done in good faith for the purposes of or in connection with the prevention or suppression of terrorism in any operational area.

By way of summary I just wish to say that the first amendment ensures that the protection in terms of section 103ter, in respect of alleged acts which could constitute an offence, and which were committed outside the Republic of South Africa, will undoubtedly be available for our soldiers in a military court as well, while the second amendment ensures that that exceptional act which should in fact be adjudicated in the interests of law and order, will be tried. In this way a balance is being struck.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill really contains two principles with which we should deal quite separately. The first of these is the change in the provisions of section 103ter by including in the definition of a court of law “a military court”. To my mind, the alteration is, in the first place, unnecessary, because it is already adequately provided for in the Act, in subsection (2) of section 103ter, viz. that—

No proceedings would, to my mind, cover the situation in which proceedings in a military court are in fact covered. As I understand it, the point was raised in one of the trials—even though it was a trial which, I understand, was held in camera—by the judge, who expressed some doubt about the matter. In reality, however, the issue seems to be covered by the Act. To my mind the provision contained in clause 1 is superfluous as far as section 103ter is concerned.

However, the second clause of the Bill is an important one. It seeks to introduce an amendment to section 104 of the Defence Act in terms of which the State President is given powers to legislate retrospectively. This is a matter which, quite obviously, causes us concern, because in principle we cannot agree with the concept of legislating retrospectively. Section 104(2) stipulates that—

In other words, the State President has the power to make changes to the first schedule, but, firstly, he can obviously only make them in respect of the future and, secondly, they have to be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of this Parliament. The first schedule deals in some detail with what we call the Military Disciplinary Code—the MDC, as many of us use to refer to it in the old days. The concept of doing this retrospectively is repugnant to us in these benches, but in the present circumstances there are considerations which could lead one to accept a certain degree of retrospectivity, because it is quite clear that, when a crime has been committed or, at least, is alleged to have been committed, it would be quite wrong if by reason of some technicality the persons concerned were able to escape a fair trial. To ensure therefore that there should be no question of any person who has committed a crime being able to escape from those consequences by reason of a technicality, we certainly do not believe that such a technicality should be made available to them, particularly in view of some of the offences which I understand have been committed in these circumstances. Therefore, if the hon. the Deputy Minister comes to this House with a measure to limit what he wants to do to the very essentials of what needs to be done now and to put the matter right retrospectively to 1 December 1979, as I understand is his requirement, he will have our support in respect of that particular measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been kind enough to make available the provisions in respect of which the amendments to the first schedule are intended to be made. I think that in all fairness one should deal with those amendments now, because that is really what we are talking about.

The first of those amendments is to change the concept of “Chief of Staff” by reducing the rank the Chief of Staff must hold to that of brigadier. Whereas in principle we are not happy that the rank should be reduced of the officer who exercises certain discretions in terms of the MDC, we certainly do not believe that this is a matter of such grave principle that one should oppose the Second Reading because of it.

However, the next provision is more serious, because in terms of that it is intended, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said in his Second Reading speech, to change the law relating to the commission of offences, particularly those offences committed outside of the Republic. I have some problems with this which I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In his speech a moment ago the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

I want to stress the words “capital civil offences”. However, in the proposal he intends to make and in the draft amendment to the first schedule the word “capital” is in fact excluded. The intention is therefore that a person who is charged with any civil offence committed outside the Republic or any offence specified in certain sections of the Code, may be tried by a military court at any time after the commission of the offence. The question that one needs to ask is why there is actually a distinction between the capital civil offence and the civil offence, because the proposed regulations intend to apply to all civil offences as defined in the Code, whereas the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that it is only going to apply to capital civil offences. I want to put a second question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It seems that an offence which is committed inside the Republic can only be brought to court within three years, but if it is committed outside the Republic there is no limitation whatsoever. I have some difficulty with that logic.

You are right. I must congratulate you.

Thank you, but I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to correct it.

What you are discussing at the moment was merely a proposal.

In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister is still open to suggestion about alterations and will take note of what we are saying here tonight?

Yes, I am definitely open to suggestions to clarify this point.

Thank you. It shows that there is a possibility of progress. [Interjections.]

We have a second suggestion that we want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He wants to deal with the question of justifiability—I think this is a horrible word—with specified limitations. That already indicates some progress. If the hon. the Deputy Minister now has the need to legislate retrospectively to 1 December—a need he has demonstrated to us, and we accept it—but our problem is that he has not demonstrated to us that there will be any need to do this in future in respect of other matters which are at present utterly unknown. Because of that we must say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we cannot accept his having a blank cheque, in respect of retrospectivity, for ever. However, we are prepared to give him the authority to deal retrospectively with the four sections that he needs, namely section 1, which relates to the definition; secondly sections 58 and 59 which he has mentioned and, thirdly, section 145 which deals with the form of the court of review which, to my mind, if it is correctly set out in the draft we have been given, is an improvement we certainly would support.

So our attitude to this Bill will be motivated by the replies we shall get from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this debate. Firstly, if he is prepared to undertake, as he has done, to limit any power of retrospectivity to what he calls justifiability, we are happy to accept that. Secondly, the undertaking we require from him is that he will only exercise the powers in respect of the four sections to which I have referred. That is why I want to give him notice now that he will see an amendment on the Order Paper tomorrow in which we will omit the proposed paragraph (b) in clause 2, which he seeks to insert, and substitute it with the following—

If the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree to that we will certainly give this measure our blessing and will allow it to go through without any difficulty. If he does not, we must point out to him that there are these aspects which are not acceptable to us.

Is that duress?

No, not duress, just a polite request. It is 10 o’clock in the evening, and there is no duress in this House at any time, certainly not while Mr. Speaker is in the Chair and certainly not at 10 o’clock in the evening. Be it as it may, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the cases of Strydom and Sadie. I should like to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that in any Defence Force, regardless of the policy of the Minister concerned and regardless of the policy followed by that Defence Force, one will always have people who misbehave and who do things they should not do. I believe that has to be accepted. What is important and what needs to be seen in the South African scene is, I believe, that the authorities actually act against people who behave in a manner which is repugnant to the cause for which we fight. If the authorities act and see to it that everybody who transgresses these rules is duly punished, the Defence Force and the country will receive the credit for that.

I have some difficulties with the question of why, in so many cases now, we are going to have all this take place in camera. I believe it is actually in the interests of South Africa that the world should see that we punish transgressors of the fundamental rules for which we are fighting. This is certainly not done by the people against whom we are fighting. I have not heard yet of trials in the ranks of Swapo of people who transgress the rules of war as we know them. We do know, however, of trials in our Defence Force of people abusing the causes for which we are fighting. Therefore I believe it would actually be in the interests of the country, unless there are very important strategic and national interest reasons, that such trials should be allowed to be held in public as far as possible, because it is in our interests that these actions should be seen to be taken.

That brings me to the second point I should like to make in respect of the remarks the hon. the Deputy Minister made in connection with the trial of the two gentlemen concerned. I have some problem with this. That is that I believe that our military training and the discipline to which our troops are subject should equip them to meet the kind of tensions to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. Every one of the things he mentioned as being mitigating circumstances relate to the experiences which every soldier has in all those circumstances. The other soldiers do not react adversely under similar circumstances. I do not want to quote them all. The first one reads as follows—

Every one of those soldiers is there. They are all subject to similar tensions. The same thing applies to the problems mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he spoke about “die uitkenning van die vyand” and all those sorts of factors. Every one of our soldiers is subject to those same tensions, and their training should equip them to deal with these. The fact that so few of them crack up in the circumstances is, to my mind, a demonstration of the actual effectiveness of their training. Therefore these things cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be regarded as extenuating circumstances at all. Those are the things and the circumstances which they are equipped to handle. That is what we expect them to be able to do by virtue of their training.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made one other statement which I find very concerning. He referred to it in the following words—

All right. We recognize that as a reality. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister goes on to say—

The task of our troops is actually to win the minds and hearts of those very people. That is, in fact, what is intended. The fact that this leads to a feeling of frustration and irritation towards the local population is something that must be handled fundamentally, from a training point of view, to ensure that it does not occur. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants me to quote …

Yes. Please read the next paragraph as well.

I quote—

That is the whole crux of it. This cannot be relevant in the sense of being a mitigating circumstance. This is what the whole training programme is based on. This is also the whole idea why we are in those areas. Why are our troops in Owambo? They are not there for any particular military reason vis-à-vis South Africa. They are there to look after the interests of South West Africa, the interests of the local population, and fundamental to our whole task is winning the minds and the hearts of the people there over to a cause of peace and peaceful negotiation.

To whom are you preaching now?

I do not want the hon. the Minister to put the factors he has listed forward as mitigating circumstances so that other people could use them to excuse their behaviour. Every soldier must be adequately trained to withstand the tensions and every soldier should be trained to know what his duty is to the local population. So with great respect, we cannot accept these as factors to be regarded as mitigating circumstances in the case of a crime that we can well comprehend, even though the details have not been published.

I therefore end by telling the hon. the Minister that I hope that he will accept the limitation on retrospectivity so that we can let this Bill go through with all our blessings.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall deal with aspects concerning the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. To begin with, there are two specific points that I should like to elucidate. Firstly he said that offenders should be tried in public as far as possible. Of course, we all agree. We have no quarrel with this. However, the fact is that when something does not take place in camera, cross-questioning can take place as to where the event took place, the techniques that our own troops used in the particular circumstances and the strength of our troops there, and with those questions one could frustrate the entire effort of our Defence Force. These are the problems that we are faced with. I expected the hon. member to say that he understood these problems and that he trusted that action would be taken in the best interest of the security of the country. However, the hon. member did not say that. I can assure him that we are looking at this in a responsible manner and that we shall not by-pass it lightly.

The hon. member also said that some things which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned did not qualify as extenuating circumstances at all. However, the hon. member did not listen properly. That is not what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. It is what the hon. trial judge said. The hon. trial judge said that he found certain points to be extenuating. The hon. member for Yeoville says he sees no extenuating circumstances there at all. Now we must choose whose sense of justice we accept. If I cannot accept the hon. member’s sense of justice, I wonder why he does not agree with the judge. Does he have an action against the people who are fighting there under difficult circumstances? If he had listened carefully, he would have discovered that it was not the hon. the Deputy Minister who said that but the hon. trial judge. However, there is something else that bothers me. The hon. member was asked by the hon. the Deputy Minister to read something. He then quoted: “Die troepe word enersyds opgelei om aggressief op te tree …” Then the hon. the Deputy Minister asked him to read the next sentence too. The hon. member then re-read it, but once again without reading the next sentence. I do not know why the hon. member did not read that sentence. This sentence reads as follows—

This shows the sympathy and insight of the hon. judge. The hon. member should have read it. I also want to tell the hon. member —and I know he is aware of this—that the judge who wrote this, was also an officer during the Second World War. Therefore he knows precisely what is going on, and that is why I am very pleased that this particular judge was appointed in this case. I attach great value to what he considers extenuating circumstances. The hon. member for Yeoville is not the only one who knows what extenuating circumstances are in wartime. This judge is aware of it par excellence. That is why I want to say that I am very sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is adopting this attitude. We should all like to cooperate in the interest of our country and of defence. Let us do so, but let us also be fair and tell the whole story when we discuss this matter.

Are you being fair now?

Now I should like to come to the Bill itself. I shall refer to the hon. member again later. I want to begin by saying that I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a short Bill with two clauses only, but it is also a very important Bill. It is very important for the soldiers in uniform—and there are many of them in uniform every day. It is true that, despite the fact that we have a Defence Act which has been in operation for almost a quarter of a century, since 1957, despite the fact that we have been involved in a terrorist onslaught that we have had to avert for almost a decade, and despite the fact that thousands of soldiers, men and women, White and Black are in uniform, we are now for the first time considering it necessary to look at the law of procedure with regard to military courts in 1980. These are important facts.

Three things are clear to me from the above. The first is that although we are most probably the most powerful military country south of the Sahara, with our own armaments industry, we have never needed to introduce this refinement to our military law because we are a democratic country that does not have any aggressive tendencies towards anyone. For 23 years, therefore nearly a quarter of a century, we have not needed to look at transgressions by soldiers. The second point is that the morale of our soldiers is so high, that in spite of the fact that our disciplinary code is in fact regulated with a view to a conventional war, and does not actually fit in well with unconventional terrorist warfare, our soldiers have conducted themselves in such a way that the transgressions have been minimal. This is still the case today with regard to military law and aspects like those that have been laid down. The third point that I should like to mention, is that our military courts have shown that under difficult conditions, in which they have had to work with a code that was not quite created for an unconventional war, they have nevertheless been able to apply it very well and create the situation in which we find ourselves today.

To sum up, I want to say that this gives us an idea of the high behavioural norms demanded of our soldiers and that they comply with them.

Then there was aggressive action and terrorism that is now being inflicted on us from outside and being incited by the Marxists. That is why it has become necessary for us to change this disciplinary code that was drawn up with a view to a conventional war so that we can assure the soldier who is acting in a bona fide manner in the interest of the country in combating terrorism, that the Government and the country is grateful and will not allow him to be prosecuted unnecessarily when he acts in this way. This struggle is a very deadly one. We must not despise it. We must not speak slightingly of the bush and the sand. We must bear in mind that at the moment a young South African is walking there and that he could step on a landmine or into an ambush at any moment. It is a deadly game and we must treat it as such. It is also true, as it was put here in what I quoted, that in the heat of the moment, a young officer has to make decisions instantaneously and irrevocably. Let us suppose that an ambush is set up and somebody walks into it. Should he first be stopped, asked who he is and told that he should not be there? In the meanwhile his companions are waiting nearby and there is great danger. What should the officer do? The young officer must make decisions rapidly and immediately under difficult circumstances. We must have an awareness of this in this House. Once we are aware of it, we can consider the legislation itself against that background. I want to say at once that our soldiers must know that we in the Government benches here, sympathize with them and give them as much assistance as we can.

The hon. member for Yeoville said he thinks that the first amendment—it concerns the definition of a court of law—is unnecessary in any event. I want to tell the hon. member that judges have discovered that there is a great deal of uncertainty and if there is uncertainty as to whether a soldier is being protected or not, I am in favour of the soldier receiving protection. The soldier must be protected and if there is any doubt, it must be eliminated. This is the standpoint of this side of the House. This is how we feel about our people in uniform.

If we look at section 103ter(2) of the Defence Act, 1957, we see that no charge can be laid against a person in a court of law if he has acted in a bona fide manner with regard to the prevention or suppression of terrorism. He is indemnified under such circumstances. Then if we look at section 103ter(4), we also see that if a charge has already been laid against such a member, he can also be indemnified under certain circumstances, provided that he acted against terrorism in a bona fide manner. It is very important that in this regard we should also look at section 54 of the disciplinary Code. Section 54 of the disciplinary Code reads—

When one looks at clause 1 of the Bill and at the disciplinary Code, one finds two principles emerging. The first principle is that there must be indemnification for a soldier. Therefore, the first principle is that he must be indemnified. The second principle is—it is important to remember this—that military courts do not exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts. It even goes further. A military court must not have greater jurisdiction than that of a civil court. In order to include a military court in the definition of a legal court in clause 1, the jurisdiction of the military court to take certain action against the soldier, is in fact being limited. In other words, clause 1 is definitely not aimed at depriving soldiers of their freedom of action. On the contrary, it is there in order to assure a soldier who acts in a bona fide manner, that he can continue to fight in order to protect our country.

However, we must also look at the opposite and this is that if we do not bring about such an amendment, it means that the military courts will have greater jurisdiction than a civil court and one would only expect this in a military dictatorship or in a police state. The mere fact that we cannot even consider determining that a military court should have greater jurisdiction than a civil court, proves to the people outside that we are a democratic country that is going to maintain its freedom according to democratic principles against every onslaught of the Marxists. Having said this, it is very clear that I support clause 1. When it comes to clause 2, it must be considered in view of section 59 of the disciplinary Code, which reads—

A period of three months is mentioned. This period of three months is of course a good, fair period of time, when one is dealing with a conventional war stretching over a long term, but when an unconventional war is being waged, when one is dealing with a citizen army that is on the border for a while and then returns again, it is obvious that this period cannot be justified. It is in fact true, as the hon. member for Yeoville said—here I want to agree with him that offences that are committed, cannot be treated lightly. We must really look at them. When I say this, I just want to say that it is also set out clearly in the Steyn report. Paragraph 358 of the Steyn report reads—

And this is important—

This is very important in a democratic country. The principle contained in clause 2 is simply that where offences are committed, there must be justifiability. We cannot allow there to be no justifiability. This is the principle laid down in the Steyn report and it is the principle here too. The situation is very simple. Attention is being given to the law of procedure here—how to introduce a procedure by means of which an offence can be shown up. This substantive law is not at issue. The substantive law is not being affected at all. All that is being affected, is that the procedural situation is being rectified, that merely because three months have passed, one is indemnified from being prosecuted or convicted if one has committed a crime. We must also weigh up the interests of the soldier against the interests of the community. I feel it is a very interesting Bill, because in clause 2 we have the community interest being shown up, whilst in clause 1 they are the interests of the soldier. The principle is therefore that any undisciplined action that occurs outside the call of duty and what is allowable, must be punished, because any undisciplined action will, at some stage or other, be detrimental to the efficiency of the Defence Force.

The Bill contains two interesting facets. The first clause is very important because the soldier is protected from any prosecution, provided that he acted in the interests of our country under certain circumstances. The second idea is that the community must also feel safe in the knowledge that our soldiers do fall under the law, and that our soldiers must continue in the knowledge that, whilst facing those dangers and those threats, we on this side of the House will look after their interests. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will support this measure as proposed to be amended by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The proposed amendment to the Bill limits the scope of the Bill.

The official Opposition have certain objections to the measure. I am not going to argue about clause 1. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that it is unnecessary, because it merely confirms an already existing position. The legal advisers say that doubt exists and that it is therefore necessary. As far as I am concerned, any doubt which exists must be cleared up. One must rather duplicate and be certain than leave it with a question mark over it. I therefore have no objection to clause 1. I see no reason to object to it, even if it is unnecessary in the opinion of one advocate and necessary in the opinion of another.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I want to say that we might have had some doubt about it if the powers provided for in this clause were to be blanket powers, but this is an enabling provision that can only be used after an amendment has been made to the code, an amendment which must then be tabled and approved by a specific resolution of this House. There is therefore no way in which this can be abused without Parliament first being able to examine the exact extent of the proposed use of this enabling power and to then approve of it or reject it. It is proposed to be limited purely to jurisdiction. In passing I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could explain to me what the difference is between “jurisdiction” and this horrible word “justifiability”. We also accept the proposed amendment which limits this jurisdiction. If, as the hon. member for Yeoville has suggested, one limits this in the law to 1 December, the date proposed, and one subsequently has to deal with an offence that has been committed on 30 November, must one come back to Parliament and introduce another amendment to deal with another offence?

[Inaudible.]

Good point.

I am talking about a person who leaves the Force on 30 November. I do not know whether this is an absolute date. However, I do not believe that when one is solely dealing with the ability to try a case and an alleged offence, that a technicality should allow a person to escape.

Finally, I want to deal with the question of mitigating circumstances. If the hon. member for Yeoville was a navigator in an aircraft at which Messerschmitts started shooting from above and flak started coming from the ground and he gave a wrong course to his pilot with the result that they bombed the wrong town or target, would he really feel it was fair to say that there were no mitigating circumstances? As a trained navigator and a perfect soldier who has had perfect training he should not have taken notice of Messerschmitts or flak, but should have given a perfect course. I believe that a humane approach must be taken in any war. One cannot expect soldiers to be robots.

Do you regard him as a perfect soldier?

Well, I did not say that! However, I do not share his view that there are such things as absolute and perfect robots made so by training.

We shall therefore support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the time at my disposal I shall try to reply fully to the debate on this Bill. I want to assure the hon. member for Yeoville that the amendment that I have in mind, will in fact cover the sections that he wants to be covered, viz. sections 1, 58, 59 and 145 of the Code. I think that the amendment will be quite extensive enough to cover them. We shall Emit the retroactive effect to sections 58 and 59 of the Code; I do not agree with the hon. member that sections 1 and 145 are being jeopardized at all at this stage. I also want to give the hon. member the further assurance that, as far as the proposed code, of which he received a copy, is concerned, we do not want to perpetrate the anomalies. As far as the question of the three-year period, etc., is concerned, for instance, I see that there is an anomaly. We shall rectify it at the right time. I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for dealing with the other points so efficiently. I also thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his support. I am grateful that there is such unanimity on the principle of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.